MY FINAL STATEMENT REGARDING THE IDENTITY (AND VERACITY) OF UTHER PENDRAGON, ARTHUR'S FATHER

A great many people have asked me over the years to "finally settle on your best guess for who exactly Uther Pendragon was."  While it is STILL debated whether U.P. is a true name + epithet or merely a title for some other person, my own extensive research strongly suggests the latter.  Can I prove that?  No.  And have I settled on only one possible historical candidate?  Well, yes... sort of.

I understand that such a qualifying (or equivocating?) pronouncement may automatically disqualify from being considered authoritative or definitive.  But that's okay.  All too often the person who claims to be the Sacred Guardian of the Truth is the party who is the most wrong about everything.

Ultimately, my approach to finding Uther (or someone who could conceivably have been him) was to not seek him at all.  This became necessary as a title such as  'terrible chief-dragon' could be applied to pretty much anyone.  The consequence of identifying any number of different chieftains or kings with Uther is obvious: Arthur can be placed just about anywhere in Britain.  Or in Brittany, for that matter.

As it happens, going in the opposite direction proved much more fruitful.  Ignore Uther, find Arthur, then check to see if Uther still fits into the equation.  If he does, you may be able to build a better case for the historicity of Arthur himself.  Think of it as a straight-forward, logical problem.  We might even present it as a simplified syllogism:

1) Arthur's father is said to be the Terrible Chief-dragon

2) The Terrible Chief-dragon must belong where Arthur belongs

3) Arthur belongs at X

Once all my work was done, I literally could not place Arthur anywhere other than in the Irthing Valley on Hadrian's Wall, and quite probably at the Dark Age hall at Banna/Birdoswald.  Having firmly determined that given the data available to me at this time, Arthur could not reasonably have belonged anywhere else, I was free to explore whether or not there was cause to find a notable dragon in the Irthing Valley.

Well, the rest I have written about extensively, here in my blog pages and in my revised book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY (https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-History-Revised-August-Hunt/dp/1092772839/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+arthur+of+history+august+hunt&qid=1569607683&s=gateway&sr=8-1).  To summarize my findings regarding a dragon or a chieftain called a dragon or a man associated closely with a draco standard in the Irthing Valley (the valley of Arthwys or the 'People of the Bear'), I can only say this: the Dacians were at Banna.  And the Dacians are generally credited with introducing the draco standard into the Roman army.  A man called Aelius Draco, found on the Ilam Pan, is believed to be a Dacian from Birdoswald named for the draco standard.  This means I can make the following AUTHORITATIVE statement: if we were to choose anyplace at all in Britain to put a Terrible Chief-dragon, no better place than the Banna Roman fort could be found.  Especially given the proximity of this fort to the Camboglanna or 'Camlan' Roman fort, also in the Irthing Valley, the Aballava/Avalana or 'Avalon' Roman fort not far to the west, and the Congabata Roman fort (the prototype for the Grail Castle) just west of Aballava.  

As my placement of Arthur supports the idea that his father had something to do with a draco standard, I can with total intellectual honesty do nothing other than place his father at Banna, and suggest that his title meant either magister draconum (a late Roman army rank for the leader of the draconarii) or Chief Dragon, the latter being a symbolic title for the ruler of Birdoswald.  

Incidentally, the Arthurian battles, stretching up and down Dere Street to the north and south of the Wall, with several being fought in the vicinity of Corbridge on Dere Street, strengthen the notion that Arthur and Uther were based at the western end of the Wall in the Irthing Valley.  As I'm confident I've identified the battle sites correctly, I would find it difficult to situate Arthur and his father in a more appropriate location than the Irthing Valley (or perhaps, in the case of Arthur, at Stanwix/Uxellodunum).

CRUDELISQUE TYRANNI AND UTHER PENDRAGON: WAS CEREDIG OF STRATHCLYDE ARTHUR'S FATHER?

Dumbarton Rock and Castle

According to Nicholas J. Higham (see https://books.google.com/books?id=dn11DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=nicholas+j.+higham+moses+joshua&source=bl&ots=npHhnjKoFk&sig=QybB4c9HCnwnPkT1NSGY03gzSzk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimqsuDsePfAhWLL3wKHVaIDm8Q6AEwCHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=nicholas%20j.%20higham%20moses%20joshua&f=false), the account of Arthur is found after that of St. Patrick because the former was thought of as a British Joshua, while the latter was an Irish Moses.  This is an interesting idea, to be sure, but I think there could be a much more literal reason why the HISTORIA BRITTONUM'S famous Chapter 56 follows that of Chapters 54-5.

I'd long been aware of St. Patrick's letter [1] to the Strathclyde king Coroticus, called Ceredig Wledig in the early Welsh genealogies.  But I did not know that this same king is mentioned in Muirchu's Life of St. Patrick.

From https://www.confessio.ie/#:

I.29

(1) I shall not pass over in silence a miraculous deed of Patrick's. News had been brought to him of a wicked act by a certain British king named Corictic, an ill-natured [actually infausti is 'unfortunate' or 'ill-omened'] and cruel ruler.(2) He had no equal as a persecutor and murderer of Christians. Patrick tried to call him back to the way of truth by a letter, but he scorned his salutary exhortations. (3) When this was reported to Patrick, he prayed to the Lord and said: 'My God, if it is possible, expel this godless man from this world and from the next.'(4) Not much time had elapsed after this when (Corictic) heard somebody recite a poem saying that he should abandon his royal seat, and all the men who were dearest to him chimed in.Suddenly before their eyes, in the middle of a public place, he was ignomiously changed into a fox, went off, and since that day and hour, like water that flows away, was never seen again.

Latin:

I.29

(1) Quoddam mirabile gestum Patricii non transibo silentio. Huic nuntiatum est nequissimum opus cuiusdam regis Brittanici nomine Corictic infausti crudelisque tyrranni. (2) Hic namque erat maximus persecutor interfectorque Christianorum. Patricius autem per epistolam ad uiam ueritatis reuocare temptauit; cuius salutaria deridebat monita.(3) Cum autem ita nuntiarentur Patricio orauit Dominum et dixit: "domine, si fieri potest, expelle hunc perfidum de praesenti saeculoque futuro". (4) Non grande post ea tempus effluxerat et musicam artem audiuit a quodam cantare quod de solio regali transiret, omnesque karissimi eius uiri in hanc proruperunt uocem.Tunc ille cum esset in medio foro, ilico uulpiculi miserabiliter arepta forma profectus in suorum praesentia ex illo die illaque hora uelut fluxus aquae transiens nusquam conparuit.

This story is repeated in Jocelyn (see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18482/18482-h/18482-h.htm):

CHAPTER CL.

A wicked Tyrant is transformed into a Fox.

In that part of Britain which is now called Vallia, lived a certain tyrant named Cereticus; and he was a deceiver, an oppressor, a blasphemer of the name of the Lord, a persecutor and a cruel destroyer of Christians. And Patrick hearing of his brutal tyranny, labored to recall him into the path of salvation, writing unto him a monitory epistle, for his conversion from so great vices. But he, that more wicked he might become from day to day, laughed to scorn the monition of the saint, and waxed stronger in his sins, in his crimes, in his falsehoods and in his cruelties. The which when Patrick heard, taught by the Divine Spirit, he knew that the vessel of evil was hardened in reprobation, prepared in no wise for correction, but rather for perdition; and thus he prayed unto the Lord: "O Lord God, as thou knowest this vulpine man to be monstrous in vice, do thou in a monstrous mode cast him forth from the face of the earth, and appoint an end unto his offences!" Then the Lord, inclining his ear unto the voice of his servant, while on a certain time the tyrant stood in the middle of his court surrounded by many of his people, suddenly transformed him into a fox; and he, flying from their sight, never more appeared on the earth. And this no one can reasonably disbelieve, who hath read of the wife of Lot who was changed into a pillar of salt, or the history of the King Nabuchodonoser.

Commentators on this chapter in Jocelyn make the observation that Vallia = Wales.  This is an error, of course, for Ceredig son of Cunedda's kingdom of Ceredigion in western Wales.   What is obvious to me, therefore, is that the compiler of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, in summarizing the Vita sancti Patricii, confused this British king Coroticus/Ceredig for Ceredig son of Cunedda of Wales, the Cerdic of the Gewissei. He then quite naturally followed his section on Patrick (and Coroticus) with that of Arthur.

In this sense, then, Arthur does not suddenly appear "out of the blue", as it were.  Rather, Arthur appears right after Coroticus of Strathclyde.

According to P. C. Bartram,

"The date of the raid by Coroticus was put by J.B.Bury in 458 (Life of St.Patrick, pp.195, 303). This assumed the traditional date of 432 for Patrick's mission to Ireland. But James Carney, putting Patrick's mission in 456, has suggested 471 for the date of the raid."

This would mean, of course, that Ceredig Wledig would fit the chronological requirement as a father for Arthur.

But most importantly, I would point out that the crudelisque tyrranni description given to Coroticus is very interesting.  Uther (uthr) has among its several meanings cruel (GPC: fearful, dreadful, awful, terrible, tremendous, mighty, overbearing, cruel; wonderful, wondrous, astonishing, excellent), while teyrn (cognate with Latin tyrannus) has much the same meaning as Pendragon.  We are reminded of the Nennius interpolation which says that  Arthur was called "in British mab Uter, that is in Latin terrible son, because from his youth he was cruel (Mab Uter Britannice, id est filius horribilis Latine, quoniam a pueritia sua crudelis fuit)."

So, crudelisque tyrrani = Uthr Pendragon? The epithet here meaning either Chief-warrior or Chief of warriors, i.e. a 'tyrant?' Do note, however, that Welsh has the word teyrn/deyrn for 'tyrant' quite early on, so why pen + dragon would have been used instead of that word is a good question. 

Could it be that Ceredig of Strathclyde is the real father of Arthur?  And that Arthur was easily enough transferred in story from the Dumnonia in the North to the one in the South?  Ceredig's son and successor is said to be one Cinuit (Cynwyd), but if Arthur died before he could become king of Strathclyde, then he would not have been included in the royal pedigree for the Men of the North.

We know that Aedan of Dalriada named his son Arthur, and that the Dalriadans intermarried with the Britons of Strathclyde. If the Strathclyde Britons had produced a great hero in a 6th century Arthur, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Aedan, through a British wife, would have given his own son this famous name.

In Ceredig of Strathclyde, then, we appear to have yet another possible historical candidate for Arthur's father.  Or a least a chieftain of the North who could have been made Arthur's father during the course of the building of heroic legend.

[1] Letter to the soldiers of Coroticus

1

I declare that I, Patrick, – an unlearned sinner indeed – have been established a bishop in Ireland. I hold quite certainly that what I am, I have accepted from God.[Nota] I live as an alien among non-Roman peoples, an exile on account of the love of God – he is my witness that this is so. It is not that I would choose to let anything so blunt and harsh come from my mouth, but I am driven by the zeal for God. And the truth of Christ stimulates me, for love of neighbours and children: for these, I have given up my homeland and my parents, and my very life to death, if I am worthy of that. I live for my God, to teach these peoples, even if I am despised by some.

2

With my own hand[Nota] I have written and put together these words to be given and handed on and sent to the soldiers of Coroticus.[Nota] I cannot say that they are my fellow-citizens, nor fellow-citizens of the saints of Rome, but fellow-citizens of demons, because of their evil works. By their hostile ways they live in death, allies of the apostate Scots and Picts. They are blood-stained: blood-stained with the blood of innocent Christians, whose numbers I have given birth to in God and confirmed in Christ.

3

The newly baptised and anointed were dressed in white robes; the anointing was still to be seen clearly on their foreheads when they were cruelly slain and sacrificed by the sword of the ones I referred to above. On the day after that, I sent a letter by a holy priest (whom I had taught from infancy), with clerics, to ask that they return to us some of the booty or of the baptised prisoners they had captured. They scoffed at them.

4

So I don't know which is the cause of the greatest grief for me: whether those who were slain, or those who were captured, or those whom the devil so deeply ensnared. They will face the eternal pains of Gehenna[Nota] equally with the devil; because whoever commits sin is rightly called a slave and a son of the devil.[Nota]

5

For this reason, let every God-fearing[Nota] person know that those people are alien to me and to Christ my God, for whom I am an ambassador[Nota]: father-slayers, brother-slayers, they are savage wolves devouring the people of God as they would bread for food.[Nota] It is just as it is said: ‘The wicked have routed your law, O Lord’[Nota] – the very law which in recent times he so graciously planted in Ireland and, with God's help, has taken root.

6

I am not forcing myself in where I have no right to act. I have a part with those whom God called and destined to preach the gospel, even in persecutions which are no small matter, to the very ends of the earth. This is despite the malice of the Enemy through the tyranny of Coroticus, who respects neither God, nor his priests whom God chose and granted the divine and sublime power that whatever they would bind upon earth would be bound also in the heavens.[Nota]

7

Therefore I ask most of all that all the holy and humble of heart should not fawn on such people, nor even share food or drink with them, nor accept their alms, until such time as they make satisfaction to God in severe penance and shedding of tears, and until they set free the men-servants of God and the baptised women servants of Christ, for whom he died and was crucified.

8

The Most High does not accept the gifts of evildoers. The one who offers a sacrifice taken from what belongs to the poor is like one who sacrifices a child in the very sight of the child's father.[Nota] Riches, says Scripture, which a person gathers unjustly, will be vomited out of that person's stomach. The angel of death will drag such a one away, to be crushed by the anger of dragons. Such a one will the tongue of a serpent slay, and the fire which cannot be extinguished will consume.[Nota] And Scripture also says: ‘Woe to those who fill themselves with what does not belong to them’.[Nota] And: ‘What does it profit a person to gain the whole world and yet suffer the loss of his or her soul?’[Nota]

9

It would take a long time to discuss or refer one by one, and to gather from the whole law all that is stated about such greed. Avarice is a deadly crime.[Nota] Do not covet your neighbour's goods. Do not kill. The murderer can have no part with Christ. Whoever hates a brother is guilty of homicide. Also: Whoever does not love a brother remains in death.[Nota] How much more guilty is the one who stained his hands in the blood of the children of God, who God only lately acquired in the most distant parts of the earth through the encouragement of one as unimportant as I am!

10

Surely it was not without God, or simply out of human motives, that I came to Ireland![Nota] Who was it who drove me to it? I am so bound by the Spirit that I no longer see my own kindred. Is it just from myself that comes the holy mercy in how I act towards that people who at one time took me captive and slaughtered the men and women servants in my father's home? In my human nature I was born free, in that I was born of a decurion father.[Nota] But I sold out my noble state for the sake of others – and I am not ashamed of that, nor do I repent of it. Now, in Christ, I am a slave of a foreign people, for the sake of the indescribable glory of eternal life which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.[Nota]

11

If my own people do not recognise me, still no prophet is honoured in his own country.[Nota] Could it be that we are not of the one sheepfold, nor that we have the one God as our Father? As Scripture says: ‘Whoever is not with me is against me’;[Nota] and ‘whoever does not gather with me, scatters’.[Nota] But it is not right that one destroys while another builds.[Nota] I do not seek what is mine: it is not my own grace, but God who put this concern in my heart, that I would be one of the hunters or fishers whom God at one time foretold would be here in the final days.[Nota]

12

They watch me with malice. What am I to do, Lord? I am greatly despised. See – your sheep around me are mangled and preyed upon, and this by the thieves I mentioned before, at the bidding of the evil-minded Coroticus. He is far from the love of God, who betrays Christians into the hands of Scots and Picts. Greedy wolves have devoured the flock of the Lord,[Nota] which was flourishing in Ireland under the very best of care – I just can't count the number of sons of Scots and daughters of kings who are now monks and virgins of Christ. So the injuries done to good people will not please you – even in the very depths it will not please.[Nota]

13

Who among the holy people would not be horrified to take pleasure or to enjoy a banquet with such people? They have filled their homes with what they stole from dead Christians; they live on what they plundered. These wretched people don't realise that they offer deadly poison as food to their friends and children. It is just like Eve,[Nota] who did not understand that it was really death that she offered her man. This is how it is with those who do evil: they work for death as an everlasting punishment.

14

The Christians of Roman Gaul have the custom of sending holy and chosen men to the Franks and to other pagan peoples with so many thousands in money to buy back the baptised who have been taken prisoner. You, on the other hand, kill them, and sell them to foreign peoples who have no knowledge of God. You hand over the members of Christ as it were to a brothel.[Nota] What hope have you in God? Who approves of what you do, or who ever speaks words of praise? God will be the judge, for it is written: ‘Not only the doers of evil, but also those who go along with it, are to be condemned’.[Nota]

15

I do not know what to say, or how I can say any more, about the children of God who are dead, whom the sword has touched so cruelly. All I can do is what is written: ‘Weep with those who weep’;[Nota] and again: ‘If one member suffers pain, let all the members suffer the pain with it’.[Nota] This is why the church mourns and weeps for its sons and daughters whom the sword has not yet slain, but who were taken away and exported to far distant lands, where grave sin openly flourishes without shame, where freeborn people have been sold off, Christians reduced to slavery: slaves particularly of the lowest and worst of the apostate Picts.

16

That is why I will cry aloud with sadness and grief: O my fairest and most loving brothers and sisters whom I begot without number in Christ,[Nota] what am I to do for you? I am not worthy to come to the aid either of God or of human beings. The evil of evil people has prevailed over us.[Nota] We have been made as if we were complete outsiders. Can it be they do not believe that we have received one and the same Baptism, or that we have one and the same God as father.[Nota] For them, it is a disgrace that we are from Ireland. Remember what Scripture says: ‘Do you not have the one God? Then why have you each abandoned your neighbour?’[Nota]

17

That is why I grieve for you; I grieve for you who are so very dear to me. And yet I rejoice within myself: I have not worked for nothing;[Nota] my wanderings have not been in vain. This unspeakably horrifying crime has been carried out. But, thanks to God, you who are baptised believers have moved on from this world to paradise. I see you clearly: you have begun your journey to where there is no night, nor sorrow, nor death, any more.[Nota] Rather, you leap for joy, like calves set free from chains, and you tread down the wicked, and they will be like ashes under your feet.[Nota]

18

And so, you will reign with apostles and prophets and martyrs. You will take possession of an eternal kingdom, as he (Christ) testifies in these words: ‘They will come from the east and from the west, and they will recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of the heavens.[Nota] Left outside are dogs and sorcerers and murderers; with the lying perjurers, their lot is in the pool of eternal fire’.[Nota] It is not without cause that the apostle says: ‘If it is the case that a just person can be saved only with difficulty, where will the sinner and the irreverent transgressor of the law find himself?’[Nota]

19

So where will Coroticus and his villainous rebels against Christ find themselves – those who divide out defenceless baptised women as prizes, all for the sake of a miserable temporal kingdom, which will pass away in a moment of time. Just as cloud of smoke is blown away by the wind,[Nota] that is how deceitful sinners will perish from the face of the Lord. The just, however, will banquet in great constancy with Christ. They will judge nations, and will rule over evil kings for all ages.[Nota] Amen.

20

I bear witness before God and his angels that it will be as he made it known to one of my inexperience. These are not my own words which I have put before you in Latin; they are the words of God, and of the apostles and prophets, who have never lied. ‘Anyone who believes will be saved; anyone who does not believe will be condemned’ – God has spoken.[Nota]

21

I ask insistently whatever servant of God is courageous enough to be a bearer of these messages, that it in no way be withdrawn or hidden from any person. Quite the opposite – let it be read before all the people, especially in the presence of Coroticus himself. If this takes place, God may inspire them to come back to their right senses before God.[Nota] However late it may be, may they repent of acting so wrongly, the murder of the brethren of the Lord, and set free the baptised women prisoners whom they previously seized. So may they deserve to live for God, and be made whole here and in eternity. Peace to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

UTHER PENDRAGON AS A POETIC TITLE FOR AMBROSIUS AURELIANUS (An Old Idea Refloated)

Vortigern, Ambrosius and the Dragons

Years ago I wrote the following, suggesting later that Uther Pendragon as a doublet for Ambrosius Aurelianus was merely a 'chronological gap filler' in Arthurian story.  In other words, with Ambrosius being a contemporary of Vortigern, and Arthur's father being unknown, it was found necessary to "pad out" the relevant genealogy with an intervening generation.  At the time I was not particularly happy with the revelation.  Like most Arthurians, I wanted Uther to be a real person and the real father of Arthur.

In reality, of course, the temporal dislocation of Ambrosius relative to Arthur is much more profound than the medieval writers believed.  For I have shown conclusively that Ambrosius was of the 4th century, not the 5th, and that he probably never even set foot in Britain (although see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/why-ambrosius-aurelianus-was-put-in.html).  

Given the prominence of Ambrosius in both Gildas and Nennius, it is not surprising that Arthur should have been made his descendant. In fact, in terms of the development of heroic legend, this makes perfect sense. Yet there may be more to it than this.  

Having carefully reconsidered the idea that Uther = Ambrosius, I must say that it is a very elegant solution to an extremely difficult problem.  It does make more sense to me, at least, than any other proposed identification for Uther.  This does not mean it's correct, of course.  Only that it adequately explains the inconsistencies embedded in the garbled, distorted historical traditions of the earliest British sources.

***  

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of the comet that appears on the death of Aurelius Ambrosius (the Ambrosius Aurelianus of Gildas), Merlin tells Uther that the dragon star signifies himself.  This is NOT in accord with the prevailing medieval view.  Simply expressed, a comet heralded the death of the king – something that Geoffrey does start out saying in his account.  But such a star DID NOT represent, in any way, the dead king’s successor.  And Geoffrey certainly would have (should have?) known this.

Uther had nothing to do with the dragons of Dinas Emrys. Beginning with the account of Emrys Guletic (Ambrosius the Prince) in Nennius, it is ONLY Aurelius who has to do with the dragons.  In Geoffrey’s History, Merlin is intruded and here wrongly identified with Ambrosius.  Uther is placed in charge of obtaining the stones from Ireland with Merlin Ambrosius’s help, but all this is done by order of Aurelius.  In the original Dinas Emrys story it was Emrys/Ambrosius who revealed the dragons under the fort and who was then given the site to rule from by Vortigern.  In fact, we are told Vortigern “gave him [Emrys] the fortress, with all the kingdoms of the western part of Britain.”  This is omitted, of course, when Geoffrey divides the Dinas Emrys episode from the Amesbury/Stonehenge one.  Uther is buried with Ambrosius at Stonehenge.

One more point is important here.  According to Nennius (Chapter 31), Vortigern was in FEAR or DREAD (timore in the Latin text) of Ambrosius, who is called the “great king” (rex magnus) “among all the kings of the British nation”.  This title is a Latin rendering for his Welsh rank of guletic.  In Welsh, uthr is an adjective and has the meanings of ‘FEARFUL, DREADFUL’ (see the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru).  Thus the great king who was the terror of Vortigern could have become, quite naturally, the Terrible Dragon/Pen.  Uther Dragon/Pen would then merely be a doublet for Ambrosius.[1]

This possibility is reinforced by the fact that the late French Vulgate refers to Ambrosius as Pendragon. In the words of Bruce's THE ARTHURIAN NAME DICTIONARY: 

"After Geoffrey's chronicle, Ambrosius disappeared from legend and romance for some time. The authors of the Prose MERLIN and the Vulgate Cycle renamed him PENDRAGON. He resurfaces in the seventeenth century...

In the Prose abd Vulgate Merlin, the name Pendragon is given to the character elsewhere called AMBROSIUS AURELIANUS... Uther is said to have adopted his brother's name as a surname in memory of the slain king." 

If Uther is Ambrosius, we could account for the former's association with Gwythur (Gwythyr) or Victor in the elegy MARWNAT VTHYR PEN.  For St. Ambrose, son of the Ambrosius who was a governor of Gaul in the 4th century, was a contemporary of the usurping British emperor, Flavius Victor.  In fact, he had been influential is helping Victor's father, Magnus Maximus, take over the rule of Gaul, Britain, and Hispania.

Thus it would appear that as far as the post-Galfridian writers were concerned, Ambrosius = Uther Pendragon.  Modern scholars and enthusiasts have misinterpreted this identification as meaning instead that Pendragon was a hereditary title belonging to Arthur's family.

The question then becomes: if Uther was not Arthur's father, who was?

[1]  A much better Welsh rendering of rex magnus would have utilized the words mawr and brenin.  Accepting Pendragon for rex magnus thus demands major poetic license. If the former does apply to Ambrosius, the epithet may have to do with the Red Dragon of Dinas Emrys - which in the Gwarchan Maeldderw belongs to Vortigern. It is not known whether the Red Dragon in this context refers to a standard or symbolically to the Britons over whom Vortigern ruled. An important thing to recognize is that according to Geoffrey of Monmouth Ambrosius had nothing whatsoever to do with a draco.  Only Uther was associated with that particular Roman standard.

***

The Sword in the Anvil and the Sword in the Floating Stone or How a Lot of Silliness Goes into the Making of a Great Story

[For my older pieces on Arthur's sword, found in my book THE MYSTERIES OF AVALON, see

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/07/king-arthurs-sword-excalibur-lightning.html and https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-casting-of-excalibur-into-lake.html.]

The King offering the sword on the altar. The Coronation Book of Charles V, King of France. 1365-1380. Source: Cotton Tiberius B. VIII, f.49

For quite a few years now, on and off, I've fooled around with tracing the possible influences that went into the forging of the Sword in the Stone story.  I always come up against one indisputable fact: the sword is never in a stone.  At the beginning of Arthur's rule, it is in an anvil.  The anvil is atop a stone.  Near the end of his life, it is merely a coronation sword placed atop an altar for purposes of consecration.  I will treat of the second example first.

In THE QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL, the sword is supposedly stuck into a red marble slab which miraculously float on the river.  This one is simple.  We have several floating altars in medieval saints' lives.  One occurs in the Life of St. Carantoc/Carranog, where we are told Arthur tries to commandeer it as a table.  We also know that in medieval coronation ceremonies, the king's sword was often laid upon the altar to bless it (see https://books.google.com/books?id=m6nsnzLRPlIC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=in+a+medieval+coronation+ceremony,+a+sword+was+placed+upon+the+altar+to+be+consecrated&source=bl&ots=Pc5Wv8hA4u&sig=ACfU3U0UUf03LD9OEFMP4wG2oRIzB1bqyA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4hcOJsdjkAhUKr54KHbdMCgUQ6AEwDnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=in%20a%20medieval%20coronation%20ceremony%2C%20a%20sword%20was%20placed%20upon%20the%20altar%20to%20be%20consecrated&f=false).  So there is no mystery about the floating stone and sword in the context of Galahad's selection as the purest knight and the chosen winner of the Holy Grail.  He is thus marked out as the sacred king, whereas Arthur belonged to the profane.

In Robert de Boron's MERLIN, we are told the following:

"They led him [Arthur] to the altar, and he laid the sword [that he had drawn from the anvil on several occasions] upon it."

Needless to say, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with ancient rituals attached to various Roman or pre-Roman period peoples from Central Asia.  Herodotus has the Scythians set up a sword atop a vast pile of brushwood.  Ammianus tells us the Alans put a sword in the ground.  And that is all.  There is no mention of an anvil or a stone.  The parallel simply is not there. [1] The author of the QUEST was merely making use of materials and practices well-known to him from his own historical period. As any good story-teller would do!

And we must always remember that the Old French romance author probably was reading from a Latin source.  In Latin, the word "in" means not only 'in' or 'within', but 'on' or 'upon.'  So it would have been a very easy matter, either intentionally or accidentally, to read Latin "in" as meaning the sword was in/within the stone, rather than merely on/upon the stone.  The latter, of course, was actually the case.  

As for the sword in the anvil, well, that's a bit trickier to untangle.  The episode originates with Robert de Boron, who put it down in his MERLIN romance.  

Robert says that Uther was ill, carried in a litter, defeated the Saxons, etc., then was returned to 'Logres' (England).  This fits the account found in Geoffrey of Monmouth, where Uther fights the Saxons in the territory of Loth of Lodonesia (the kingdom of the Votadini) and then returns to St. Albans.  We can ignore that fact that 'Albans' here is most likely an error for Albany or Scotland.  The important thing to consider is that, so far as Robert de Boron is concerned, Uther had returned to St. Albans.

More importantly, however, is the involvement of Dubricius (Welsh Dyfrig) in the crowning of Arthur.  This is found in Geoffrey of Monmouth.  In Robert de Boron, Dubricius is merely referred to as the Archbishop.

Dubricius was supposedly the archbishop of the City of the Legions.  However, his roots, and all his legitimate associations, are with the small Welsh kingdom of Ergyng (see the entry for Dyfrig at https://www.library.wales/fileadmin/fileadmin/docs_gwefan/casgliadau/Drych_Digidol/Deunydd_print/Welsh_Classical_Dictionary/05_D-E-F.pdf).  Why is this significant?

Ergyng is named for the Romano-British town of Ariconium, a place known as one of the most important iron-producing centers in all of Britain.

To quote from Pastscape (https://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=111914):

"The whole area has traces of iron workings. Vague discolorations visible from the air indicate ground disturbed by occupation or iron-working but there has been no hint so far of substantial buildings, streets or defences (4). Excavations in 1922 (2) on Cinder Hill (trial trenching 'A' - 'F' on illustration card) revealed an oblong building (SO 6465 2403 'G'- sited from map) with the remains of a second nearby. In 1963 a Romano British iron working site was excavated (SO 6444244 'H' - sited from plan) to the north of the area."

In my opinion, Robert de Boron or his source(s) had knowledge of Archbishop Dubricius's connection with iron-rich Ergyng.  This naturally led to the placement of the sword there.  Furthermore, the presence of the anvil tells us in no uncertain terms that the author was proclaiming that the sword had made made in the location specified, i.e. in Ergyng. In late Welsh tradition, Arthur and his family are strongly linked to Ergyng.  He has sons placed there (in reality personified place-names), and his mother Eigr is made a daughter of Anblaud, King of Ergyng.  There is even a Constantine found in Ergyng who could be brought into connection with Arthur's pedigree, as it is designed by Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Now, granted, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth the actual coronation of Arthur took place at Silchester (which, as I've shown before, he confused with the Welsh Kelliwig; Silchester's/Calleva Atrebatum's Bishop Mauganius = St. Mawgan, whose Cornish place-names are near Castle Killibury and Callywith hard by Castle Canyke).  But the Archbishop who proceeds over the coronation ceremony is still Dubricius of Ergyng.

Still, we would left with trying to account for where the actual sword in the anvil motif came from.  Claiming it belonged to the iron-producing region of Ercyng seems insufficient.

One corollary with Geoffrey of Monmouth's story is missing: the burial of Uther Pendragon.  Robert de Boron simply says that he died, leaving the land without an heir. But Geoffrey concludes by saying that Uther's body was taken to the monastery of Ambrius, where it was buried inside the Giants' Ring.

This is a vitally important distinction that has been overlooked by everyone - the present author included.  

Long ago I proposed a connection between the Sword in the Stone motif and Geoffrey of Monmouth's claim that the Saxons had drawn their knives from their heels.  Here is a selection from my article on that topic:

***

In the HISTORIA BRITTONUM (Chapters 45-46), we are told of the treachery the Saxons committed against the Britons during  a peace meeting.  The Saxons hide their daggers, i.e. saxes, under their feet in their shoes.  When Hengist tells his men to draw their "saxas", they do so, setting upon their unsuspecting victims.  

The version in the HB is written thusly:

And here is Geoffrey of Monmouth's rendition:

We notice immediately that Geoffrey of Monmouth has caligas for shoes/boots, a word related to the Latin word for heel:

calx, calcis  N  C     3 1  C   [XXXBO]  

heel; spur; pad (dog); forefeet; kick (Roman toe was unprotected); butt (beam);

calceus, calcei  N  M     2 1  M   [XXXCO]  

shoe; soft shoe, slipper; [~ mullei/patricii => red shoe of ex-curule senator];

In addition, he locates the "Treachery of the Long-Knives" at the site of the future STONEHENGE.  

At this point I would call attention to the so-called Heel Stone at Stonehenge.  From Aubrey Burl's "John Aubrey & Stone Circles: Britain's First Archaeologist From Avebury to Stonehenge":

The following diagram shows the location of Stone 14:

Gerald Hawkins and others describe the folktale associated with Stone 14.

Stone 14 (photo courtesy http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/2014/05/stone-14.html)

Heel Mark in Stone 14

As it is readily available online, I will allow my readers to search for it themselves, should they care to do so.  Some theorists have tried to make the case of Stone 14 being named the Heel Stone only after the real name for the current Heel Stone was misunderstood.  The current Heel Stone, which marks the entrance to the Avenue and upon which the Summer Solstice sunrise aligns itself to the center of the circle, could owe its name to the Welsh (or, perhaps, Cornish) word for the sun. 

Here is the GPC listing for the word haul, 'sun':

haul 

[H. Grn. heuul, gl. sol, Crn. C. houl, H. Lyd. houl, Llyd. Diw. heol: < Brth. *sāu̯l-; Llad. sōl] 

eg.b. (un. bach. heulyn, b. heulen) ll. heuliau, -oedd.

Y corff nefol y teithia’r ddaear o’i gwmpas, gan dderbyn gwres a goleuni oddi wrtho, y cyfryw wres a goleuni, huan, heulwen, hefyd yn ffig.:

sun, sunlight, also fig. 

10g. DGVB 141, di houl, gl. in aduerso.

13g. C 296-8, Dydav yr heul, or duyrein ir goglet.

id. 3810-11, Aun[a]eth tuim ac oer. a. heul a lloere.

14g. T 3719-20, Owres heul. Ac oeruel lloer.

id. 4026, heul haf ae rywres.

1346 LlA 20, Gloewach oed seithweith nor heul.

id. 91.

14g. GDG 340, Yno ’dd oedd, haul Wynedd yw.

id. 416, Hoywliw ddeurudd haul ddwyrain.

c. 1400 R 11557-8, a syr asygneu aheul a luna.

id. 14186-7, Pony welwch chwir heul yn hwylaw r awyr.

c. 1400 RB ii. 337, ac y bu diffyc ar yr heul.

Another possible Welsh origin for the name 'Heel' in this context is heol, hewl, "street, road, way, path, passage".  If this is the correct etymology, then clearly the word refers to the Avenue of Stonehenge.  

In either case, what matters to us right now is the word "heel."  What I am proposing, ever so tentatively, is that the story of the Saxons hiding their knives or saxes under their feet, i.e. under their heels, is a misinterpretation of the Heel Stone.  Further confusion enters the picture when we remember that the name Saxon derives from the name of their knife, the seax, and in Latin the word for stone is saxum, saxi!  In fact, both seax and saxum are generally derived from the same Indo-European root meaning 'to cut (see https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/lex/master/1671).' So what we have in this story is warriors drawing their long knives from the Heel Stone at Stonehenge.  

Arthur draws the sword from the stone - and all except for the last time, puts it back (!) - on four special Christian holy days:

Christmas Eve (near midwinter)

Candlemas (a substitute for the Celtic Imbolc; note that the star Arcturus or "bear-guard" rising in the east at this time marks the beginning of Spring, according to The Book of the Year: A Brief History of Our Seasonal Holidays by famed archaeoastronomer, Anthony F. Aveni)

Easter (a substitute for Beltine or the Spring Equinox)

Pentecost (near midsummer)

"Arcturus, an orange-giant star about 37 light-years away in Boötes, the Herdsman, is the fourth brightest in the night sky. We can usually start to spot it in the east in mid-February, when it lags a bit behind Regulus, one of the other corners of the Spring Triangle. That bright, red-orange color is gorgeous and striking against the still bare late-winter branches. Arcturus culminates, reaching its highest point for the night, at 9:00 p.m. local time in mid-June, not long before the summer solstice. It disappears from nights in October." - https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/all-season-triangle-lights-late-spring-nights/

Thus the pulling out and replacing of the sword at the four times of the sacred year clearly marks solar stations.  And this kind of calculation could only happen at a place like Stonehenge.  That Arthur kept the sword after extracting it at Penecost heralds him as the Midsummer King.

Could Arthur's foster-father in Robert de Boron - Antor, an otherwise unidentifiable figure - represent the star Antares?  On this star from https://earthsky.org/sky-archive/moon-and-star-antares/:

"In our Northern Hemisphere, Antares is considered a summertime star, because it’s during the summer months that this star shines in the evening sky. By October, this star appears only briefly after sunset, and follows the sun beneath the horizon shortly thereafter. By November, Antares has disappeared from the nighttime sky.

Every year, the sun and Antares are in conjunction on or near December 1. In other words, that’s when Antares is most directly behind the sun each year, as seen from our earthly vantage point. Then, the sun and Antares rise and set pretty much in unison, so that Antares is lost in the light of the sun throughout late November and early December. However, by mid to late January, the sun drifts far enough east of Antares so that this star appears above the southeast horizon before sunrise. What’s really happening, of course, is that Earth has moved far enough along in its orbit so that Antares appears to the west of the sun, instead of behind it."

According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the long knives were drawn from the heels of the Saxons on the first day of May, i.e. on Celtic Beltaine.  

We can observe the solar alignments on the following diagram (courtesy http://www.wwu.edu/planetarium/a101/stonehenge.shtml):

So what exactly is happening with the Sword in the Anvil/Stone story?  Well, it is obvious that the anvil and/or stone is a sighting stone at Stonehenge.  Quite possibly the Heel Stone.  As for the sword itself, we must ask ourselves what, on a seasonal basis, was seen to pierce the stone, be drawn out and then replaced.  In other words, in the context of Stonehenge, what did Arthur's sword symbolize?

As I interpret this, there are just three possibilities.  One, the sword could be, essentially, the gnomon of a sundial (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnomon).  Inserted into the stone at certain times of the year, it would show where the sun was at those times.  Once removed, the special day thus marked out would be past.  

Second, the sword represented the rays of the sun on each of the holy days when the sightings were taken.  These rays metaphorically "pierced" the stone until the sun's annual motion carried them to a different position relative to the stone and whatever alignment was being honored.  

I think given how common sacred sun-kings were to the ancient world, it makes the most sense to see Arthur here as the solar hero whose rays were envisioned as a magical sword.  As he and he alone was identified with the sun god, no one else could wield the weapon.  

However, I've mentioned above how the words for Saxon and their long knife the sax could easily have been confused for the Latin word for stone.  What if the Sword in the Stone IS the Heel Stone?  In other words, the stone (saxum) and the sword (seax) that is drawn from it are one and the same?  Nothing is actually being inserted and withdrawn to mark holy days on the Stonehenge astronomical calculator.  Instead, the sun marks those days on the stone that was mistakenly identified as a sword.  

The whole story began with Geoffrey of Monmouth, who associated the saxes of the Saxons with the Heel Stone of Stonehenge doubtless precisely because he had wrongly linked the name of the Saxon weapon with the Latin word for stone.  From there it was a simple matter to confuse the Heel Stone and the sword and create the Sword in the Anvil/Stone that marked out the sacred solar year. 

In going with the idea of a sword in a stone, might we fancifully identify the heel mark in Stone 14 as the place where the sword was thought to have been inserted and then drawn forth?

I think this is the most logical conclusion I can arrive at concerning the Sword in the Stone story.

   

***

[1]

SCYTHIANS AND THE SWORD OF MARS

Dr. Linda Malcor has long sought to associate the Scythian Sword of Area of Herodotus 4:62 with Arthur's sword.  Unfortunately, there is no relationship between a sword stuck in variously a pile of sticks or the ground and the taking of Arthur's sword from an anvil on a stone.  In the story of Attila and the sword, the great king of the Huns is gien the sword by a shepherd; he does not draw it forth from the cow pasture himself.  

Here is the account of Herodotus:

Such is their way of sacrificing to all other gods and such are the beasts offered; but their sacrifices to Ares are on this wise. Every district in each of the governments has in it a building sacred to Ares, to wit, a pile of fagots of sticks three furlongs broad and long, but of a less height, on the top of which there is a flattened four-sided surface; three of its sides are sheer, but the fourth can be ascended. In every year an hundred and fifty wagon-loads of sticks are heaped upon this; for the storms of winter ever make it sink down. On this pile there is set for each people an ancient scimitar of iron, which is their image of Ares; to this scimitar they bring yearly sacrifice of sheep and goats and horses, offering to these symbols even more than they do to the other gods. Of all their enemies that they take alive, they sacrifice one man in every hundred, not according to their fashion of sacrificing sheep and goats, but differently. They pour wine on the men's heads and cut their throats over a vessel; then they carry the blood up on to the pile of sticks and pour it on the scimitar. So they carry the blood aloft, but below by the sacred building they cut off the slain men's right arms and hands and throw these into the air, and presently depart when they have sacrificed the rest of the victims; the arm lies where it has fallen, and the body apart from it.

Ammianus condenses the account considerably in Book 31:2 -

No temple or shrine is to be found among them, not so much as a hut thatched with straw, but their savage custom is to stick a naked sword in the earth and worship it as the god of war, the presiding deity of the regions over which they range

A still later account is found in Jordanes, where we are told of Attila the Hun finding the weapon:

And though his temper was such that he always had great self-confidence, yet his assurance was increased by finding the sword of Mars, always esteemed sacred among the kings of the Scythians. The historian Priscus says it was discovered under the following circumstances: "When a certain shepherd beheld one heifer of his flock limping and could find no cause for this wound, he anxiously followed the trail of blood and at length came to a sword it had unwittingly trampled while nibbling the grass. He dug it up and took it straight to Attila. He rejoiced at this gift and, being ambitious, thought he had been appointed ruler of the whole world, and that through the sword of Mars supremacy in all wars was assured to him.

THE DACIAN ANDESITE SUN ALTAR AND ITS STONE RAY: ANOTHER SWORD IN THE STONE?

Images Courtesy http://www.cosmopoetry.ro/astrosarmizegetusas/

Many years ago, in my book THE MYSTERIES OF AVALON (due to be revised sometime in the next year), I discussed all the various motifs that might have gone into the origin and development of the Arthurian Sword in the Stone story (or Sword in the Anvil atop a Stone story).  Here is a piece that built upon those earlier researches:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-sword-in-stone-seax-and-sun-stone.html

More recently, I suggested that the Sword in the Stone was more of a Sword on the Stone, and might be represented by images of the Dacian falx carved on dedicatory altars at the Birdoswald Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-contributive-motif-to-sword-in-stone.html  

But I kept coming back to something that other Arthurian scholars have noticed (see, for example, http://www.maryjones.us/jce/swordstone.html).  That is, the Sword in the Stone motif seemed to have a sacred-seasonal element.  While I was thinking along these lines, I happened to stumble across the great stone altar called the Andesite Sun, discovered in a religious precinct in the ancient capital of Dacia.  This altar, upon which sacrifices were offered, is believed to have been the scene of magical rituals involving Dacian warriors.  For details, see sources such as the following article: 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259673423_Andesite_Sun_in_Carpathian_Mountain

What really caught my eye is the altar's so-called stone arrow or ray, a line a large stone blocks that marks directional north.  It seems to pierce the altar like a sword. The position of the sun's shadow upon the ray/arrow had special significance when calculating the passage of the solar year.

My question regarding this altar and its arrow or ray is a simple one: could knowledge of it have traveled to Hadrian's Wall with the Dacian soldiers?  And did some vague folk memory of it percolate down to later generations, only to reemerge in the story of the Sword in the Stone?

Seems unlikely, to be sure.  But religious tradition is very conservative, durable, even tenacious.  The reader is referred to the first link to my blog site posted above for my thoughts on Stonehenge and its Heel Stone, which as it happens align themselves very well with what we now perceive to be the function of the Dacian Andesite Sun and its stone ray.   

THE COMATI OR 'LONG-HAIRED' ONES: A CLASS OF DACIAN WARRIOR

A Dacian Warrior

9.1 “Decebalus had sent envoys even before his defeat, not the long-haired men [comati] this time, as before, but the noblest among the cap-wearers [pileati]."

 From http://www.trajans-column.org/?page_id=41

I've managed to confirm, through numerous scholarly sources[1], that the free warrior class among the Dacians were referred to as the comati, 'the long-haired ones.'  There are too many resources to list here, and I encourage any doubtful readers to pursue their own research on this topic.  I have approached some leading experts on Dacian language, social structure and warfare and will post their responses below as soon as I receive them.

For now I will only state this:  I have made a very strong argument for the presence of Uther Pendragon at the Birdoswald/Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  I've also discussed his relationship with the dragon-comet and the Dacian draco, as the Dacians garrisoned Banna for centuries.  Now we may have one more reason to link Uther to a comet.  For if the Dacian free warriors thought of themselves as the long-haired ones, a designation that is all but identical with the Greek kometes, a 'long-haired [star]', i.e. a comet, then we might well apply even more significance to Merlin's pronouncement in Geoffrey of Monmouth's HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF BRITAIN that the dragon-star was Uther himself.

This is not to say that I'm equating the long-haired ones with comets, in the sense of a certain class of Dacians being "comet warriors."  Nothing of the sort.  I am instead suggesting that it might have been possible for the military designation and comets to have become confused in popular tradition.  Of course, it may be the case that the long hair of these warriors was meant to symbolize the long hair of comets. Such warriors would have been viewed as particularly sacred because they partook of the nature of these heavenly bodies.

As I've demonstrated before, in the early Welsh elegy MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, we are told God (not Merlin/Myrddin) transforms the hero, so that he becomes 'like a star in the gloom.'  The Gorlassar epithet, used in this poem for Uther himself, was converted into a separate personage in the fiction of Geoffrey.  Scholars insist the epithet, which means literally 'the very blue/greeb/blue-green', has to do with Uther's enameled armor and/or weapons.  I would contend instead that it describes a comet, which to the naked eye can appear blue or green in color.  

[1] For example, the following from Dr. Graziela Byros, WEINBERG COLLEGE
OF ARTS & SCIENCES, Northwestern University, Department of Classics:

"Based on the little we know about the organization of pre-Roman Dacian society from ancient sources, the comati (=long-haired ones, from the Lat. adj.  comatus, -a, -um = long-haired) were the commoners, the lower class, who are certainly depicted on Trajan’s column as fighting in the Dacian Wars alongside the Dacian aristocratic warrior class (forming the cavalry), known in Latin as the pileati (from pileus = cap), because they wore a distinctive cap (as can be seen in depictions on the Column), or in their native Dacian language as tarabostes.

Capillatus does mean “long-haired,” like comatus, but in common Latin idiom capillatus tended to be used in reference to soft, effeminate men, dandies, whereas comatus was used more in reference to the “long-haired barbarians” (like the Gauls –see Gallia Comata, Dacians etc.). But they are synonyms in terms of basic meaning."

https://www.classics.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/faculty-directory/graziela-byros.html

Images of the Falx from Ancient Dacia

https://www.academia.edu/19730425/Dacorum_falces._Armele_%C3%AEncovoiate_ale_dacilor

The bottom images are of the falx as found at the Birdoswald/Banna fort on Hadrian's Wall, which I have discussed before. The others were described for me by the author of the cited study, and decent English translations describing them are here drawn from the ENCYCLOPEDIA DACICA. For more information on the Legion IV Flavia Felix, see https://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-iiii-flavia-felix/.

The most interesting use of the falx in Dacia is in representing the name the Roman legion.  Ignoring obvious translation errors, Dr. Catalan Borangic tells us that

"A marble plaque discovered at Sarmizegetusa and partially preserved shows the name of the IV Legion Flavia Felix through some weapons. Today we have two drawings of the epigraph in which the text of Legio IIII Flavia Felix was rendered with the help of silhouettes of curved arms, swords and daggers alike, represented with the tip down, having the meaning of the letter L, followed by a sickle interpretable as eg, then of two daggers and their keys, resulting in the figure of the unit and of two curved swords with the tip pointing up that build the initials of the legion's name, FF."

***

Figure 1

Among the first carvings that portray the Falx is one from a chalk block discovered at Gradistea Muncelului and kept in the Museum of Deva. This was found outside the perimeter of the fortress and it is not large (height-0.83m width-0.57m; thick-0.33m),it is roughly done, poorly maintained and illustrates two characters: one of them standing and holding a lance and the other one sitting down, having his head covered by a cap. Near this character-without any doubt a Dacian tarabostes-there lies a curved sword, actually straight, only with its head curved. This man's nationality is given by the curved sword near him. It is a sword that often appears on Roman Imperial coins especially on those that appeared after the wars with Dacia and on Roman monuments from Britain.

[To which Dr. Borangic adds:

"Limestone fragment, discovered at Sarmizegetusa and kept at the Museum of Dacian and Roman Civilization in Deva. The relief, rudimentary and awkward sculpture, can be understood as a Roman soldier armed with a spear, and another warrior sitting whose ethnic identity is revealed by the silhouette of the weapon in the lower right corner. The advanced state of degradation of the piece does not permit us to see the entire contour of the weapon, only the top part which is thin and curved."]

Figure 2

Other representations of the Falx can be found on the marble plaque discovered at Gradistea Muncelului amongst the ruins of a building and also kept in the Museum of Deva. This plaque is a bit larger than the chalk block (1,115 m X 0,57m) and on its superior side, bordered by a tabula ansata, there are various signs carved and artistically representing the name of the Legion IV Flavia Felix. The researchers established that this legion camped at Sarmizegetusa -probably some watching detachments after the first Dacian war and more of them after the second war (Dio Cassius XVIII, 9, 7). It is very important the fact that a legion chose to carve its name in the shape of curved swords, because this fact shows us just how famous this Falx was. (M. Macrea, Sargetia, II 1941 p 133-36).