Uther Pendragon as the Magister Utriusque Militiae Gerontius and Vortigern as Maximus (the Tyrant): A Confusion of Legendary Proportions?

Constantine III, AV Solidus

Quite some time ago, I fooled around with the idea that Uther Pendragon was, in reality, a Welsh attempt at the Magister Utriusque Militiae title given to the 5th century Gerontius. For those who would like to read my full treatment of the proposed identification, please see the following link:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/09/gerontius-magister-utriusque-militiae.html

I abandoned the notion because it was hard to demonstrate any parallels at all between Geoffrey of Monmouth's notably fictional account and the historical narratives.  But I now think there may be another reason to consider the possibility.

Gerontius raised up as emperor one Maximus.  The sources are unclear as to whether this man was a son of the British chieftain or merely a "domesticus".  But we do know that this Maximus, probably the same as the one called Maximus Tyrannus around 420 A.D., was based in Spain.  His imperial name was doubtless chosen to copy that of the Spaniard Magnus Maximus, a previous usurper (d. c. 388) who was hailed by British troops.  

This previous Maximus is known in Welsh tradition as Macsen Wledig or Maximus the Tyrant!

I've demonstrated before that the Ambrosius brought into connection with Vortigern (a name which means 'supreme king') was either the Prefect of Gaul father of St. Ambrose (who had the same name and might conceivably have gone to Britain with Constans I in 343) or a conflation of the father and the saint.  We know that the historical St. Ambrose interacted with Magnus Maximus.  The true date of Ambrosius is preserved in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, which has this warleader fight against the grandfather of Vortigern.  

Constans II (named for Constans I) was murdered by Gerontius, but at the time Maximus the Tyrant was emperor.  The general employed barbarian troops for the deed. In Geoffrey's tale, it is Vortigern who has Constans killed by Picts.

So what I'm suggesting is this: not only did Constantine III and Constans II become merged in popular tradition with their earlier namesakes, with Ambrosius being literally moved up in the chronology as a result, the same conflation occurred between Vortigern, Magnus Maximus and Maximus the Tyrant.  The only "big player" missing in this major distortion of fact is the British general Gerontius.

Should we, then, seriously entertain Gerontius magister utriusque militiae as Uther Pendragon?  And, if we do, what do we make of a man who died in 411 as the father of an Arthur who fights his two most famous battles in 516 and 537?

Well, as I've said before, there appear to have been later Gereints in Dumnonia.  If we can have a remarkable confusion of identical names with the other leading figures of the day, then we can very easily allow for the possibility that the Gerontius who died in 411 had a namesake whose floruit was more towards the last half of the 5th century.  

Needless to say, if we accept a mid-5th century Dumnonian Gereint as Arthur's father, the whole Arthurian arena shifts back to Devon, Cornwall and Somerset.  Which is where tradition has pretty much always centered it. 

Map Courtesy ARTHUR THE KING IN THE WEST by R. W. Dunning

PROFESSOR ROGER TOMLIN ON LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS

What is pasted below are jpegs of Professor Roger Tomlin's analysis of the text found on the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone. I've now been confirming this reading for several months with every good Roman historian and Latin epigrapher I could find.  Most recently, Dr. Michael Bishop (https://independent.academia.edu/MikeBishop) signed on to the ARMENIOS reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S.  Not one scholar will accept the proposed ARMATOS reading of Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani ("Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription", Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 47, Nos. 3 & 4, (Fall/Winter 2019), pp. 415–437). 

I've reached the point now where I no longer believe it is necessary for me to continue exploring this topic.  Malcor wishes to promote the ARMATOS idea for one reason and one reason only: so that she might retain her Arthurian Sarmatian theory.  This theory requires that she place LAC in the period just following the deployment of 5,500 Sarmatians to Britain.  This can't be done if LAC went to Armenia in the 160s.

She also wishes to further glorify LAC's career by both insisting on a late Antonine date for the stone itself (something not demonstrable; most authorities agree with Tomlin on the dating, with a small number refusing to commit to a specific range within the period) and by manipulating the significance of the Roman military designation of dux to prove that this officer was a de facto governor of Britain.  I have shown the fallacy of these claims in my article at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/07/lucius-artorius-castus-no-sarmatian.html.  

I followed up that treatment of the ARMATOS reading with investigations into the probable Dalmatian origin of LAC (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/10/lucius-artorius-castus-birth-and-death.html).  

So, without further ado, here is Tomlin's treatment of the LAC inscription from BRITANNIA ROMANA: ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS AND ROMAN BRITAIN, Oxbox Books, 2018, Reprinted in Paperback 2020...

THE PROBLEM OF ARTHUR SON OF BICOIR: BECCURUS, PETUIR AND THE ISLE OF ISLAY

Islay (photo courtesy Colin Prior)

Sometimes historians accept things at face value - at least in those instances in which they do not feel the need to question the veracity of a source.  I've recently realized there is something I myself have missed: an apparent wrong identification of a 7th century Arthur's patronymic.

In the Irish Annals, we learn of a certain Arthur son of Bicoir "the Briton" who slew the Irish king Mongan off Islay.  It was once thought this Bicoir might preserve a known British name Beccurus.  This name is found on a 6th century memorial stone near Penmorfa in Gwynedd (see https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/stone/pmrfa_1.html).  Patrick Sims-Williams has this as deriving from *Bikkori:x, 'small king'. Professor Peter Schrijver of Utrecht University says that *Bikko-wiro, 'little man', is also possible.

 

However, prior to 2006 (see http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/articles/guestdan2e.htm), I showed that Bicoir was, in fact, merely a corruption for Petuir, one of the spellings of the Dyfed king Petr/Pedr who had a 7th century son named Arthur.  What I didn't pause to ask myself at the time - as it didn't seem important, I suppose - is why a Dyfed prince would be fighting a naval battle off Islay.  

My readers can see from the above-posted map that Dyfed is quite a long ways from Islay.  Furthermore, the Dalriada of Aedan son of Gabran, with its royal centers at Tarbert and Dunaverty (see Bannerman, STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA, pp. 112-113),  is immediately adjacent to Islay. 

In early Irish sources , Mongan's father Fiachna is a contemporary of Aedan son of Gabran of Dalriada. The two fight on the same side against the English at Degsastan (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-new-and-certain-identification-of.html).  Aedan had a son named Arthur - and this means that Aedan's Arthur and Fiachna's Mongan were traditionally thought to belong to the same generation.

I would, then, without hesitation, propose that the Bicoir/Petuir patronymic as applied to the Arthur who slew Mongan is an error.  The real father of this particular Arthur being, of course, Aedan. It is generally believed that the mother of Arthur son of Gabran was British.  If so, she was from the neighboring kingdom of Strathclyde, whose capital was Alclud.  This possibility is especially attractive as we know (again, see Bannerman) that Aedan was in conflict with other Irish in the region.  

How might the error have occurred?

My guess is that Adomnan's Latinization of Alclud as PETRA Cloithe may have influenced the decision to utilize Petuir/Petr in the context of the slaying of Mongan by an Arthur.  Note that in the Irish Annal account, Arthur is said to have killed the Irish king with a stone!

 

ARTHUR AND THE TIPALT-IRTHING GAP: ASSUMING A STRATEGIC POSITION ON HADRIAN'S WALL IN THE DARK AGES

Looking west over the Tipalt–Irthing Gap

In the final revision of my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, I made my case for the name Arthur (from Artorius) having been preserved into the 5th-6th centuries A.D. at or in the vicinity of Carvoran Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  This fort was garrisoned in the late period by Dalmatians.  A woman from Salona was actually buried there.  There is very good reason for believing that the 2nd century Roman Lucius Artorius Castus was born in the same Dalmatian town.

The same volume sets out my argument for Arthur's father belonging to the next fort to the west of Carvoran - Birdoswald.  Here we have remarkable evidence of an Arthurian period stronghold.  The Dacians of draco fame manned Birdoswald for centuries, and it is my contention that Uther Pendragon's epithet and dragon standard both point to this place as the headquarters of Arthur's father.  A Ceidio (a hypocoristic form of a name meaning 'Battle-leader') of the 'Bear-people' (*Artenses, preserved in the Welsh eponym Arthwys) in the Irthing Valley may well represent Arthur as 'dux bellorum.'  Camboglanna/Camlan, where Arthur fell in his final battle, is also on the Irthing river.

Only recently I became aware of the importance of the "gap" between Carvoran and Birdoswald.  Several recent studies have come out that discuss this highly strategic Roman military zone in Northern Britain.  It is not unreasonable to suppose that the same region was deemed critical in Arthur's time in terms of the need to control passage north and south of the central section of the Wall.  

Precisely because of the presence of the Tipalt-Irthing Gap, we can probably safely say that there was a stronger relationship between Carvoran and Birdoswald than mere physical proximity would indicate.  

From https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/protecting-the-roman-empire/hadrians-wall/FF30D6B817124AA48B166FBA8A6E3471/core-reader:

It is widely accepted that the eventual deployment of the pre-eminent auxiliary unit in Britain, the ala Petriana, at Stanwix indicates that the frontier’s assault capability was ultimately focused on the highway north into western Scotland. The priority for efforts to supervise the Wall curtain itself has received less attention, but one short stretch of the frontier zone in the central sector is identifiable as a consistent focus of activity and innovation: the gap between the Tipalt Burn and the Irthing (Symonds 2017, 39; Fig. 36). Prior to the establishment of Hadrian’s Wall, this stretch was supervised by the fort at Carvoran, and the fortlet at Throp. Further forts and a fortlet shadowed the Irthing as it flowed westwards, while towers were established on both sides of its valley. When work on the mural frontier commenced, the milecastles within the Tipalt-Irthing gap were probably among the first to be completed and manned, and at the very least turrets 48a and 48b are also likely to have been fast-tracked (Hill 1997, 42; Symonds 2005, 76; Graafstal 2012, 150). Construction of the Wall curtain also appears to have been accelerated, while the ditch was unusually substantial (Graafstal 2012, 145–146). Following the fort decision, turrets 44b and 45b – directly east of the eastern lip of this topographical bottleneck – became the most artfully positioned examples known on the Wall. To the west of the gap, where the northern lip of the Irthing valley lies hard to the south of the murus, a fort was established at Birdoswald. It is the milecastles along this strip, numbers 49–54, that appear to have been increased in size when they were rebuilt in stone.

While priority construction within the Tipalt–Irthing gap indicates that it was identified as a critical element of the border zone, the sustained innovation along this stretch of frontier could be a response to an unusual level of pressure. This may have been exacerbated by the decision to run the frontier immediately north of the Irthing valley in Wall miles 49–53, which creates a defensive weakness. Even though additional bridges must surely have spanned the Irthing, reinforcement of, retreat by, or even manoeuvring of the Wall garrisons would have been severely impeded by the river. The southern crest of the Irthing valley offered a far stronger and more conventional defensive position, which was exploited by several Stanegate installations. It is probable that the course of Hadrian’s Wall reflects a desire to deny access to the natural corridor created by the Irthing valley.

The juxtaposition of the Tipalt Burn and the Irthing makes control of this gap the key to regulating regional movement. While the Irthing leads west to the Eden, Carlisle, and the coastal plain, the Tipalt Burn flows into the South Tyne, which offers passage both east towards the intensively populated lowlands and south into the Pennines (Symonds 2017, 39). Indeed, the Roman road that leads into the heart of these hills and is now known as the Maiden Way intersects with the Tipalt valley just 1.5 km south of the Wall. In essence, the Tipalt–Irthing gap is a natural junction where passages to both sides of the country open and penetration of the Pennines is possible. Rebuilding the original Turf Wall milecastles 49–54 to unusual size at a time when the fort decision seems to have lessened the importance of many milecastles suggests that existing measures along the length of Wall cut off by the Irthing were found wanting. Critically, though, these revisions imply that local disruption was ordinarily on a scale that could be met by fortlet garrisons. There is, then, every sign that the Tipalt–Irthing gap represented the greatest geographical obstacle to achieving control of north–south movement in the central sector, and that the army understood this and responded accordingly.

One technique to enhance the Wall’s effectiveness as a barrier that has yet to be detected in the Tipalt–Irthing gap is the provision of berm obstacles. These are currently only known to occur in the vicinity of Newcastle, although they have also yet to be sought along many stretches of Hadrian’s Wall. If berm obstacles do prove to be restricted to the eastern sector, they could represent an attempt to tailor the frontier to the human rather than the physical geography. Although the Tipalt–Irthing gap offers the easiest access to the widest number of destinations south of the Wall, on current knowledge the eastern and western sectors of the frontier brought the greatest harm to indigenous interests. This is because these regions were the most densely populated areas divided by the border. In terms of the raw mathematics of frontier control, if there were more people to control, and by default more people whose livelihoods and lifestyles were harmed by the border, it would be sensible to factor that into the design of the Wall and its construction timetable. Indeed, it is possible to advance a logical overall construction scheme for the frontier, with the most heavily populated east and west sectors being closed first, alongside measures to address particularly sensitive areas like the Tipalt–Irthing gap and the North Tyne valley. Control was then incrementally tightened as construction progressed (Symonds and Breeze 2016, 12).

Another excellent site that discusses Birdoswald and Carvoran as guarding the Tipalt-Irthing Gap is here:

https://the-past.com/feature/hadrians-wall-creating-division/

Assessing the Wall forts corroborates this impression that important natural and artificial landscape features received special treatment. The distance between Chesters Fort and its neighbour, for instance, was reduced to six Roman miles, allowing it to dominate the North Tyne valley. An additional fort was later founded only 3²⁄³ Roman miles away at Carrawburgh, creating a concentration of force in the vicinity of the North Tyne valley. The same is true of the Tipalt–Irthing gap, where the forts on its flanks at Birdoswald and Carvoran lay only 3¹⁄³ Roman miles distant, while a third fort was established just three Roman miles away. Indeed, when various unusual Wall elements are superimposed on a single map, they reveal a concentration of anomalies in and around the Tipalt–Irthing gap. That this natural junction in the landscape occasioned so many departures from what might be considered normal suggests that an ability to clamp down on movement is central to what the army was attempting to achieve with Hadrian’s Wall.

For additional information on the signficance to the Romans of the Tipalt-Irthing Gap, see

https://books.google.com/books?id=KA0IEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=tipalt+irthing+gap&source=bl&ots=GjAJfzA-Dr&sig=ACfU3U1lmp3lUGJ2yPZejZxbQWvI1cfpow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir9Pmd-q_uAhU0FTQIHdyPCWUQ6AEwGnoECCkQAg#v=onepage&q=tipalt%20irthing%20gap&f=false

THE SNOWDONIAN ARTHUR: THE ONLY TRULY EXTANT TRADITION SEEMS TO PLACE OUR HERO'S ORIGIN IN GWYNEDD

Dinas Emrys Camp

If I'm right about Geoffrey of Monmouth's Tintagel being a relocation of Caer Dathal (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/01/dinas-emrys-as-caer-dathal-late.html), what are we to make of an apparently buried Welsh tradition that seems to support an origin for the famous Arthur in Snowdonia?

This is an incredibly difficult question - especially for me.  I have spent more than a year now solidifying my theory that Arthur belongs towards the center of Hadrian's Wall (see https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-History-Revised-August-Hunt/dp/1092772839/ref=sr_1_1?crid=IAZ40S4QXIJQ&dchild=1&keywords=the+arthur+of+history+august+hunt&qid=1610563966&sprefix=the+arthur+ofg+his%2Caps%2C232&sr=8-1). Yet no matter how good the Northern Arthur candidate may seem, we can only place him there with cogent argument.  No genealogical record for an Arthur from the Irthing Valley exists, unless we can attach Ceidio son of Arthwys to the 'dux erat bellorum' title.  And we can not relate Uther Pendragon to anyone on the Wall, unless we associate his epithet and comet with the draco of the Dacians at Birdoswald/Banna.

What we do have is the Welsh insistence that Uther had relatives at Caer Dathal, and that Arthur even took a wife (Eleirch, 'Swan') from that fort.[1]  This is in sharp contradistinction to the Cornish/Dumonian Arthur, who might well be nothing more than an reflection of Galfridian fiction.

Taken all together, this looks rather far-fetched.  One might even say imaginative (although, hopefully not delusory!).  Nonetheless, I am "putting it out there" for my readers to consider as a possible rival theory.  It will take me some time to absorb the very real possibility that Caer Dathal of Uther is either Dinas Emrys or Garn Boduan and whether or not we should seek to place Arthur at one of those forts.  Some will say that instead of Dinas Emrys we should look to Amesbury in Wiltshire.  Others will say (as I have myself said in the past) that the Welsh at some point simply wanted to make Arthur "theirs" and that he does, in fact, belong elsewhere (perhaps on Hadrian's Wall). This would have been a natural reaction to Arthur's real territory have long been under the control of the English and/or the Normans as well as an expected result of nascent nationalistic propaganda.  It is also conceivable, I suppose, that it is the Welsh who are guilty of moving Arthur's point of origin from Tintagel to Caer Dathal!

So before we can say with any certainly that Arthur came from Gwynedd, we must explain how it was possible that a prince from northwestern Wales could have become as famous as he became.  If we can't do that, then the Welsh tradition will have to be viewed as being as spurious as that produced by Geoffrey of Monmouth. And we have to bear in mind, additionally, that Arthur appears to have been first made into a British hero by the account of his battles in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, which was probably written in Gwynedd.  In other words, an author with pro-Gwynedd bias may have selected a purely local chieftain and exaggerated his greatness merely to enhance the reputation of the Gwynedd ruling house. 

I think a good point of departure for exploring a Gwynedd-based Arthur might be to compare such a figure with Cerdic of Wessex/Ceredig son of Cunedda (see https://www.amazon.com/Ceredig-son-Cunedda-Founding-Wessex/dp/1976431492/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=ceredig+son+of+cunedda+august+hunt&qid=1610637421&sr=8-1). I once thought it possible that Ceredig son of Cunedda was Arthur.  Although I abandoned the idea, the military career of Ceredig may help us understand that of his contemporary. 

Ceredig's father Cunedda was Irish (not British, as Welsh tradition contends). Ceredig himself carved out (or was granted in a de facto sense) a kingdom in western Wales - Ceredigion - perhaps as a sort of 'federate' of the High King of Wales, who was based at Viroconium/Wroxeter.  If we believe the account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he and the Gewissei fought against Britons in the south (the enemies of the High King?) while allied with the English. A son of Cunedda, the Cynric of the ASC, was buried with honors at Wroxeter (see CUNORIX at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/). 

Welsh tradition records specific locations for the two most important Arthurian battles.  Badon is described as being Buxton (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/osla-or-ossa-big-knife-and-caer-faddon.html), while Camlan is not Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall, but one of the Camlans in NW Wales (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2016/08/arthurs-thirteenth-battle-camlann.html). If Arthur did hail from Caer Dathal in Arfon, then a fatal battle with an enemy not far to the south of that fort is a perfectly reasonable proposition.  We need not adhere to Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall, attractive though that site may be for those looking for some kind of Roman continuation in the sub-Roman period. 

Alas, only one of the other battles listed in Nennius is discussed in early Welsh tradition: that of the Tribruit.  Going by PA GUR poem, there is no doubt its author, at least, saw this 'trajectus' as being located at North Queensferry near Edinburgh. While it is possible to force some of the first battles of the Nennius list into a southern arena, by the time we reach the fourth battle - the Celidon Wood - we are most decided in the North.  And there is simply no way to dislodge the last several battles from their geography. 

It would seem, then, that if Arthur originated in NW Wales, like Ceredig son of Cunedda, that rather than serving with English against Britons in the South, he fought the English in the North.  We could account for this by assuming that Ceredig and Arthur belonged to two different groups.  Cunedda was of the Ciannachta. The Irish ancestry of Uther is unknown.  However, Welsh tradition does record that Cadwallon grandson of Cunedda extended "the dominions of the family in Arfon" and conquered "the greater part of Mon from the Irish inhabitants."  We know that the Laigin were present in Gwynedd, as Dinllaen and the Lleyn Peninsula is literally named for them.  We thus know of two rival tribes of Irish in northwestern Wales.  Might Arthur have descended from the Laigin?

Or can we nail down Uther's Irish descent more definitively?  I have found a very interesting pedigree in RAWLINSON B 502 (https://celt.ucc.ie//published/G105003/index.html:

GENELACH SÍL MOGA RUITH.

¶1508] Cú Allaid m. Laisre m. Fínáin Bic m. Laisre m. Dathail m. Suíre m. Saiglenn m. Dee m. Dere m. Labrada m. Caiss m. Buen m. Moga Ruith m. Fergusa nó ita Mug Roith m. Cuinisc m. Fir Thechet m. Fir Glain m. Loga m. Mathláin m. Mathrai m. Magdoin m. Matheirni m. Allóit m. Nóende &rl.

GENELACH FER MAIGE (FENE)

LL. 326 e 26 cf. Lec. 124 RA 20.

544 CGH, pp.318-9

545 CGH, pp.320-321

546 CGH, p.323

154

Domnall m. Aeda m. Conchobuir m. Mael-Declain m. Dirmata m. Aeda m. Dubacain m.

Limmanaig m. Muridaig m. Dailgaile m. Cellaig m. Con-can-gairm m. Dathail m.

Matnáin m. Síláin m. Lasri m. dathail m. Sairi m. Saiglend m. Dé m. Labrada m. Caes

m. Buain m. Moga-Ruith m. Cuinisc m. Fir-Decet m. Forgib m. Fírglain m. Fírfalid m.

Caer m. Fergusa m. Roig m. Rosa m. Rudraige.547  

The first thing to notice here is that the legendary Mog Ruith was the founder of the Fir Maige Fene of Fermoy. Fene (féni) here is from the same Celtic word that went into the formation of the Welsh regional name Gwynedd (see John Koch's CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, p. 739).  

The Fir Maige Fene near the Deisi (some of whom settled in Dyfed) and the Ui Liathain (who were in southern Wales and Cornwall).  Map from Francis J. Byrne's IRISH KINGS AND HIGH-KINGS.

Dathail is here the same name as Dathal of Caer Dathal.  Lasri or Laisre is to be derived from Irish lassar, 'flame.'  The latter is found in the Irish compound forlassar, 'great fire', and I have made a case for this being present in the gorlassar epithet applied to Uther in the BOOK OF TALIESIN elegy poem.  

The Math- names in the Irish pedigree are important, too.  Dr. Jurgen Uhlich of the Department of Irish and Celtic languages at Trinity College has assured me these are "tabooistic" bear names.  He had this to say on two of them:

"Nom. Mathri and its gen. Mathrach (confirming ‘king’, so 'Bear-king') are found in ZcP 21 (1940), 313. Beyond that, the two forms are found mixed up (as happens also elsewhere especially with consonant stems), namely we find a nom. Mathrach on the one hand and a gen. Mathra(i) on the other, the former yielding a new o-stem (as if ending in productive adjectival -ach; no gen. Mathraig is attested, however) and the latter a new io-stem. Note in passing that there is also the variant Maithreach (once in Lec. as v.l. to Rawl. B 502, 147b40, sim. Mathreth, LL), reflecting the common pattern of palatal vs. neutral compound seam, with one being phonologically regular and the other due to reinterpretation/’reinstating’ the form of one of the simplex words involved. In the present case, math ‘bear’ is a u-stem, and before a palatal vowel in the second part this regularly yielded palatal syncope, i.e. > Maithri, gen. Maithrech, but then reinstating the simplex math yielded Mathrai, gen. Mathrach.

Now for your odd Mathlain after all: I find this attested at Rawl. B 502, 158.40, in the sequence gen. Mathlain m. Mathrai, but right there the corresponding passages in LL and Laud have the variant Mathrain, and the latter reoccurs at Rawl. 161a7. Thus Mathlán simply appears to be a corruption (e.g. by dissimilation against the second -r- in the sequence Mathráin maic Mathrai?) of a name Mathrán, which will then likely be a hypocoristic derivative from the father’s name Mathrai, which was already treated as a new io-stem.

Anyway, for all this evidence, check ZcP 21 (1940), 309, §1, 313; Ériu 3 (1907), 139, 141-2; Geneal. tracts [as per DIL] 170, no. 145; rest CGH (ed. O’Brien)."

Thus in the early genealogy of Lasri/Laisre son of Dathail we have not only a bear name, but a name meaning 'Bear King.'  We are reminded immediaely of Math son of Mathonwy of Caer Dathal in the Welsh MABINOGION.  This Math is not from Welsh, but from either Irish or a Celtic *matu- that did not survive in the Welsh language.  Welsh sources regularly associate the name Arthur with the bear, as arth in Welsh means 'bear.'  Some have claimed that Arthur, though from Roman/Latin Artorius, is a decknamen [2] for an Irish or Welsh name (Artri, Artr[h]i) meaning 'Bear-king.'

Now the real question is when did Lasri/Laisre live? 

Well, according to Immo Warntjes, Ussher Assistant Professor in Early Medieval Irish History, Department of History, Trinity College Dublin -

"The Cú Allaid heading the genealogy died in 709 according to the Annals of Ulster (https://celt.ucc.ie//published/T100001A/). From this you can work the generations backwards: Laisré was the great-grandfather of Cú Allaid, so I would guess he flourished in the early seventh century."

Dr. Keven Murray of Univeristy College Cork would opt for a slightly earlier date:

"This is a thorny question and one which I don't think is amenable to any quick answers (most of my book are inaccessible at work so I am not in a position to do any proper digging into this question). As you probably know, the oldest stratum of the genealogies was probably committed to writing in the mid-eight century, but is thought to contain some material which is accurate back to the mid-sixth century. In lineage societies (such as medieval Ireland), oral memory takes you back about seven generations in genealogies (with three generations usually reckoned per century). Mog Ruith (whence Síl Moga Ruith) as you probably know was the famous druid who was involved in the siege of Knocklong (Forbuis Droma Damhghaire https://iso.ucc.ie/Forbuis-droma/Forbuis-droma-sources.html) which is traditionally dated to the third century AD (there are other texts, however, which give different chronologies for Mog Ruith). If we could take this as a dating anchor (and that is very problematic to begin with), then Laisre m. Dathail may be a sixth-century figure."

On Cu Allaid, he added:

"The reference you mention (Bellum Dolo in Campo Eilni, AU2709.1 [= ATig. 708]) is very interesting as Cú Allaid occurs only in the Síl Moga Ruith genealogy and not in the Fir Maige Féne one (as Fir Maige Féne are from north Cork and it is very improbable that a king of Fir Maige Féne would be involved so far away from home). This reference would fit a Cú Allaid from the north of Ireland as Campus (= Mag) Eilne is in County Derry. 

Again, however, accepting this identification would place Laisre mac Dathail in the period c. 600AD, not very far away from the sixth-century approximation already suggested."

These estimations, however, are just that.  Murray informed me that, generally speaking, 3 generations are thought to cover approximately 100 years.   Professor Pádraig  Ó Riain told me to allow for 30 years per generation.  The problem with such a system of reckoning is that it cannot possibly take into account the actual reign durations or birth/death-dates of the princes listed in the genealogy.  Some of these chieftains may well have lived much longer than 30 years, and it is not impossible that at least one of them may have lived to be an old man.  

If we would permit just a little "stretching" in this particular pedigree, then we could make Laisre/Lasri a contemporary of Gorlassar/Gorlas, i.e. the Terrible Chief-dragon of Dinas Emrys/Caer Dathal. And if we can do that, we could naturally ask the next question:  was Uther Lasri/Laisre?

It goes without saying that I realize all too well this Irish genealogy may have nothing whatsoever to do with Arthur - that it may, in fact, merely betray a coincidence of names.  It may be as fictional as that created for Arthur by Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Still, I firmly believe in investigating everything and anything that may aid us in our quest for a historical Arthur - no matter how silly it may seem.   

[1]

Dr. Simon Rodway has helped with the conflicting accounts of Arthur's precise relationship with the men of Caer Dathal:

"As it stands, the Red Book text clearly means 'his father', whereas the White Book means 'their father'.  However, initial mutations are not always noted in either MS, so the White Book reading could also mean 'his father'."

[2]

The decknamen hypothesis is very hard to accept.  In the first place, all the leading Celticists and Welsh language experts have assured me Arthur cannot have come directly from something like *Arto-rix.  It has to come from Artorius.  As Dr. Simon Rodway has more than once told me:
 

 "The o in Artorius is long, and this regularly becomes u: in Brittonic.  The o in Artorix is short.  Bear-king in Welsh would be Erthyr (as per Koch)."

Similar sound explanations can be offered against other Celtic derivatives for Arthur, like the often proferred *Arto-viros or 'Bear-man.'  Schrijver, for example (see STUDIES IN BRITISH HISTORICAL PHONOLOGY, 1995, pp. 151-2) says that Archaic Welsh Art(u)ur from *Arto-viros ought to have developed into Old Welsh *Arthgur and Middle Welsh *Arthwr.  

There is no reason to consider Arcturus, even though it has been shown to be plausible linguistically (Jackson, "Language and History in Early Britain, 1953; Sims-Williams, "Dating the Transition to Neo-Brittonic: Phonology and History, 400-600").  Arthur was not a mythical figure based on a Classical star name.

For Arthur (from Artorius) to have been substituted at some point for an earlier Irish or British Bear-king name or the like, those making the substitution would need knowledge of, and indeed preference for, the Artorius name.  And this is difficult to account for in NW Wales.  I have shown in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY that Artorius/Arthur may well have continued in use as a personal name on Hadrian's Wall at Carvoran, where a Dalmatian garrison was long in attendence and a woman from Salona was buried (Lucius Artorius Castus having been born in Salona, Dalmatia).  Carvoran is just a little to the east of the Irthing Valley, or Valley of the Bear River, where we find both Banna and the Camboglanna Roman forts.  

This problem of Artorius as a decknamen again makes me believe that the Welsh tradition is a spurious one.  I have before suggested that Arthur was associated with Caer Dathal merely because Math son of Mathonwy had been the ancient king there.  Had someone known that Irish math meant 'bear', then it would have been natural to place Arthur at that fort, as his name was linked to Welsh arth, 'bear.'  It has been noted before that Arthur's Breguoin/Brewyn battle was fought at Bremenium/High Rochester, where a bear god named Matunus was worshipped.

We should also bear in mind (pun strictly intended!) that Geoffrey of Monmouth claims Uther came from Brittany, in Welsh Llydaw, and that Llyn Llydaw is the source of the Glaslyn that flows past Dinas Emrys.  The lake's name, therefore, may well have contributed to Arthur's father being placed near/at Caer Dathal. 

Coming Soon: THE SNOWDONIAN ARTHUR: THE ONLY TRULY EXTANT TRADITION SEEMS TO PLACE OUR HERO'S ORIGIN IN GWYNEDD

Dinas Emrys Camp

DINAS EMRYS AS CAER DATHAL: A LATE FOLKLORE RENAMING OF A FAMOUS HILLFORT IN NORTHWESTERN WALES?

Gelert's Grave at Beddgelert, Gwynedd, Wales

In the past, I have written a great deal about both Dinas Emrys and Caer Dathal, two famous Arfon forts in early Welsh tradition.  The location of the first is well-known, while that of the second is not.  In this article I would like to suggest that both places are, in fact, the same.

As always, names are important.  Dathal is now thought to be an Irish name.  If we have it in its more or less proper form and it is not for another Irish name (Tuathal), then I have this on its meaning from Dr. Jürgen Uhlich, Department of Irish and Celtic languages, Trinity College. Note that there were two similar names, and it is the second one we are interested in:

"Daith + gal and Daith + -(w)al, ‘having quick valour’ (possessive = Bahuvrīhi compound with final noun) and ‘quickly ruling’ (verbal rection/governing compound with verbal root at the end)."

Other Irish onomasticists agree that Dathal is to be derived from daith.  See, for example, Donnchadh o Corrain of University College Cork in his IRISH NAMES has

"DATHAL (do-hal) m. Perhaps from daith, 'swift, nimble'.  An early name which occurs amongst the people of Fermoy."

On Gelert of Beddgelert (for all spellings of that place-name, enter it into the head-name search blank at http://www.e-gymraeg.co.uk/enwaulleoedd/amr/cronfa_en.aspx), I have proposed that it comes from a Latin celer derivative.  Although the story of the hound is merely a folktale, the name itself may be quite significant.  Prof. dr. P.C.H. Schrijver, Departementshoofd Talen, Literatuur & Communicatie, Keltische Talen en Cultuur, Departement Talen, Literatuur en Communicatie, Universiteit Utrecht, responded to my idea thusly:

"I never thought about this before your message, but Celert has a cluster -rt that cannot have arisen in any native British word (old *rt should have become rth, and old *rd should have become rdd). The only reasonable way in which this could have come about is on the basis of late Latin syncope in a Latin word with antepenultimate stress, which then entered Welsh after native *rt had become *rth (so that it could no longer take part in that development; Jackson dates *rt > *rth to the mid to late 6th century). So not celerá:tus but celéritas ‘speed’ or celériter ‘speedily’."

Richard Coates, Professor Emeritus of Onomastics, Bristol Centre for Linguistics, University of the West of England, agrees with Schrijver:

"He is right, especially about the requirement of antepenultimate stress in the Latin source word. Celeritas (and not the oblique form celeritatem, which if an early borrowing would give something like modern *cylerdawd > *cylerdod - compare awdurdod from autoritatem) is formally possible."

Dr. Simon Rodway, Department of Welsh and Celtic Studies, Aberystwyth University, said merely 

"I have nothing to add to what Peter [Schrijver] says.  As far as I can see, he is right."

celeritās ātis, f

celer, swiftness, quickness, speed, celerity

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0060%3Aentry%3Dceleritas

Cf. Irish daithe, 'swiftness' (eDIL)

If this is correct, then we could argue that Latin Celeritas is merely an effort to translate the Irish personal name Dathal.  And that would mean that the original name of Dinas Emrys next to Beddgelert was Caer Dathal.  Emrys or Ambrosius became connected to the site in another folktale.  Although, Ambrosius is said in Galfridian tradition to be the brother of Arthur's father, Uther.  Dinas Emrys became confused with Amesbury and its nearby Stonehenge in the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. 

Uther himself was related to the Sons of Iaen ('ice-sheet') at Caer Dathal.  Iaen as a descriptor points to a fort that was prone to be ice-covered in the winter and that only fits places like Dinas Emrys, high up in Snowdonia.  It cannot have been used to describe any of the lowland forts in Arfon, even though some rivers in the valleys below Snowdonia could freeze over (information courtesy NRW fisheries officer Walter Hanks, https://naturalresources.wales/?lang=en).

I have elsewhere shown that Caer Dathal may have been relocated by Geoffrey of Monmouth to Tintagel in Cornwall. 

The Celeritas-Dathal substitution need not seem an outlandish notion.  We have a great deal of evidence that the Welsh royal genealogists sought to cover up Irish roots in several kingdoms.  The Dessi pedigree for Dyfed has ancestors with Irish names being replaced by good old Roman names.  The same is true of Cunedda.  The Irish are present at Dinllaen and the Lleyn Peninsula (Laigin), and the Ui Liathain were in southern Wales.  Brycheiniog was also an Irish-founded kingdom.  

At least one example in stone displays an attempt to render at least part of a king's name in Latin.  By coincidence (?), I am referring to the stone found in Dyfed honoring Votepor.  There "PROTICTORIS and *votep give the same semantic meaning of `shelter, refuge'." See the following website for details:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/. 

I have many times before pointed out the fact that all Arthurs subsequent to the Arthur of Nennius and the Annals belong to Irish-founded dynasties in Britain.  In the past, the only reason I could come up with to account for this was that the original Arthur had himself been at least part Irish.  If Dathal is an Irish name and Uther was related to the men of that fort, then there may well have been Irish in Arthur's ancestry. 

  

THE REAL LOCATION OF CAER ARIANRHOD

Pen Y Garreg Hillfort

Caer Arianrhod

The Route From Dinas Dinlle to Caer Arianrhod

Pen-Y-Garreg (= Caer Arianrhod?)

The identification of Caer Arianrhod of the MABINOGION tale 'Math Son of Mathonwy' with a small group of rocks (part of a submerged reef) off the coast of Arfon has long been held traditionally.  And, indeed, at least one reference to the place in that story would suggest this goddess's fort had to be reached by water.  We are told in the relevant episode that Gwydion and Lleu left Caer Dathal and walked along the coast between there and Aber Menai.  They then sailed from there to Caer Arianrhod.

Conclusive as this may seem, there is a rival account for the fort's location in the very same story.

We are told that Gwydion and Lleu leave Dinas Dinlleu (D. Dinlle) and travel first to Brynaerau and then to Cefn Clun Tyno (http://www.nantlle.com/mabinogi-saesneg-places-mentioned-in-the-fourth-branch.htm). From the Tyno site they ride to Caer Arianrhod.  We can see immediately the problem this account poses when we view the map.  They have traveled well past the rocks of C. Arianrhod.  The Tyno place-names are concentrated only a very short distance from the Pen-Y-Carreg hillfort:

https://coflein.gov.uk/en/site/302372/details/pen-y-garreg-hillfort

Their journey also took them past the Y Foel hillfort (well to the WSW, in fact):

https://coflein.gov.uk/en/site/95338/details/y-foel-camp

How are we to reconcile these two opposing geographical placements of Caer Arianrhod?

Well, I don't think it's difficult to imagine that as the story was told and retold over the centuries, different strands of tradition were accidentally retained, sometimes literally side by side. As the offshore rocks are in no sense a fort, it may well have been considered at some point in time a sort of Otherworld location.  On the other hand, Pen-Y-Carreg would represent an actual settlement imprinted on the ancient landscape.  

Final edition of my book on a historical King Arthur candidate, over two decades in the making

https://www.amazon.com/Arthur-History-Revised-August-Hunt/dp/1092772839/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3UA96HPYGIGZ5&dchild=1&keywords=the+arthur+of+history+august+hunt&qid=1609776796&sprefix=the+arthur+of+history%2Caps%2C231&sr=8-1