Friday, December 23, 2022

A SECOND LOOK AT THE UTHER PENDRAGON = MAGISTER UTRIUSQUE MILITIAE THEORY



Uther Pendragon

By now my readers know that from time to time I find it valuable to reflect back upon my own former Arthurian theories.  One such proposed that the name/epithet Uther Pendragon was, in fact, a fairly standard folk etymology derived by the Welsh from the Roman military title 'Magister Utriusque Militiae.'  While on the surface this seemed rather ridiculous, I was encouraged to further develop the idea by scholars like Professer Peter Schrijver, who thought it possible.

I had suggested the Uther Pendragon = MVM equation for a number of reasons. First, when reading the ever unreliable 'history' of Geoffrey of Monmouth, I noticed that one of the big players of the time period was missing - namely, the great general Gerontius, who had served under Constantine III prior to betraying the usurping emperor.  Gerontius was a Briton, and he held the title of MVM.  While he was slightly too early to have been Arthur's father, he had later sub-Roman namesakes (Geraints) in Dumnonia, one of whom could easily have been Uther.  It was not unreasonable to assume that such a namesake may have become confused with the earlier, more famous Gerontius, and the MVM rank of the latter became attached to the Dark Age figure.

The nice thing about this theory is that is allowed us to accept the preserved tradition on Arthur as having Dumnonian connections.  The modern propensity has been to move away from this tradition, and I have myself been guilty of contributing to that.

The problem for Arthurians has always been the name/epithet Uther Pendragon.  While it seems pretty straight-forward (for we have other examples of a personal name that is also simply a Welsh adjective, followed by a heroic or at least a descriptive epithet), there is the tendency to seek to identify this chieftain with another known, attestable personage.  This is done, supposedly, to add validity to Arthur's historicity.

There are always problems with such identifications. For instance, when I sought to identify Uther with Sawyl Benisel, I was faced with the need to explain why a famous Northern chieftain with a perfectly good name and epithet already would have another name and epithet foisted upon him.  I could get away with doing so only by supposing that Sawyl (whose name may be preserved in Samlesbury near the Ribchester fort of the Sarmatian veterans) had been linked in legend to the draco standard, known to be a special attribute of the Sarmatians.  'The Terrible Chief-dragon(s)' could then designate his relationship with the draco, or even with the old Roman rank of magister draconum. Alas, this argument was markedly flawed, as Welsh scholars know that the word dragon in early Welsh heroic poetry is a metaphor for a warrior.

Another example was Uther Pendragon as Cunedda (the Irish Cuinedha mac Cuilinn/the Gewissei Ceawlin/the Wroxeter Stone Maqui-coline).  Why alter such a famous man's name at all?  I could only explain that by pointing to the dragons of Dinas Emrys (perhaps partly traceable to the double snake standard of the Segontium Roman garrison) - in which case we were still replacing one proper name with another - or to an effort to conceal Cunedda's/Ceawlin's identity because the English had claimed him as their founder of Wessex.  In the same way, I had reasoned, Arthur was used by the Welsh rather than Ceredig son of Cunedda.  After all, Cerdic of Wessex had been co-opted as an English hero. Or, perhaps, Uther Pendragon was invented because knowledge that Cunedda = Ceawlin (two different names, after all!)  were the same person was forgotten.  In this scenario as well, though, we would not expect one personal name to be replaced by another.  

This problem with the Uther Pendragon name/epithet continues to haunt me (obviously, as I've spilt a lot of ink on the subject).  Why, then, might the Magister Utriusque Militiae solution be any more acceptable than anything else that has been put forward, by myself or others?

Well, precisely because the general Gerontius had proven to be a traitor to Constantine III, and had himself suffered an ignominious end.  It seems very plausible that in order to "disguise" him, his title was substituted for his name.  In this scenario, at some point he was referred to as the MVM.  But over time, folk etymology produced Uther Pendragon.  Alternately, the title was mistakenly taken as a name at some point and thus separated from Gerontius, creating, quite literally, a new entity.  

In either case, we can justify seeing in Uther Pendragon a Welsh rendering (and garbling) of the Magister Utriusque Militiae rank of Gerontius.  

One of my more important pieces did not discuss a technical aspect of Arthurian research or, indeed, any new finding, but rather the motivations behind such research:


In that post, I basically admitted to being just as guilty as everyone else when it came to placing my own ego before the requirements of academic objectivity and personal integrity.  The twin pillars that lead to perdition in the field of Arthurian Studies are these: desperately wanting/needing to be the "discoverer" of the real Arthur and wanting/needing to accomplish that by conjuring a (hopefully) unique valid historical candidate.  I emphasize the word 'unique' in that context because it is only by finding someone new to convert into Arthur that we can come across as the sole revealer of the Truth. The desire for some of us to accomplish this can be so strong that it takes us down a very unhealthy and often unpleasant road.  It is this desire which lies at the root of dogmatic views and even fanaticism.  Eventually, we become so fixed on our quest and so possessive of our Holy Grail - i.e. so inflexible in our thinking and so committed to our pre-conceived beliefs -  that we will forsake all ability at rational argument and even go so far as to reject verifiable evidence and consensus of expert opinion.  Methodology and character attacks and, ultimately, full-blown cognitive dysfunction become our last lines of defense in the face of better counter-theories.  All along we puff ourselves up with self-importance, seeing in ourselves the righteous guardians of the sacred Secret.  The rest of the world is, so far as we are concerned, composed entirely of ignorant or outright hostile and potentially destructive people.  We become paranoid in defense of our thesis.  The wilder and crazier the belief, the more profound the attending, gnawing doubt.

When I pause to consider all that, I tend to feel somewhat ashamed of myself.  For I have, from time to time, engaged in all of it, to one degree or another.  Although, to be perfectly honest, I have striven mightily to submit all my own work to critical self-examination (some might say self-immolation!) and have actually abandoned a handful of theories which after significant development had seemed especially promising.  I do try very hard not to become too enamored with any of my ideas and am more than willing to revise them or discard them as new evidence or superior logical deduction demands.  This kind of behavior has subjected me to accusations of being indecisive or "wishy-washy".  One reader who purchased a book complained that every time he turned around there was a new book out by me presenting an entirely different historical Arthur candidate.  To placate him, I sent him a free copy of the latest volume.

Now, what possible bearing do the principles expressed in that philosophical aside have on the Uther Pendragon = MVM theory?

Simply put, regardless of how we feel about the pseudo-history of Geoffrey of Monmouth, are we justified in creating Arthurian theory that runs counter to the extant tradition placing Arthur firmly in Southwestern England?  I mean, as we have nothing else extant (and, no, I am not including in this statement information on Arthurs subsequent to the son of Uther), for what reason can we categorically state that Arthur should be removed from his strong associations with Devon, Somerset and Cornwall?  Given that the only genealogical trace we have for him ties him to the Dumnonian royal house, how can we legitimately substitute for that lineage an imaginatively reconstructed or manufactured pedigree?

For those reasons, I believe we must allow the 'MVM' theory to remain in the game.  In the end, it may turn out to be the most valid of any notion I have put forward to help pin down a historical Arthur.

NOTE on the Arthurian name:

We Arthurian researchers also get all caught up in the name Arthur.  I myself have sought to use its Roman/Latin origin (Artorius) to prove a connction to various sites in Britain.  The problem with this approach is that, well, Arthur is just a name.  As such, we cannot possibly know why it might show up in this or that locale in Dark Age England, Wales or Scotland.  There are a fair number of Roman names that crop up in the early Welsh genealogies and no one bothers to ask how these names ended up where they're found.  Artorius was, in the words of Professor Roger Tomlin, "quite a common nomen."  We need not restrict its first occurence in Britain to the second century officer L. Artorius Castus merely because his memorial stone in Croatia is our only extant record of an Artorii in Britain.  Nor must we accept that the name could only have been remembered and handed down through the generations among people who knew of Castus, viz. Dalmatians who had served in Roman Britain in the late period, or a ruling family at York.  The idea that his name was preserved among the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester is not possible, as Castus served in Britain prior to the arrival there of the transported Sarmatian troops.

If Arthur had born another Roman name, and that name was otherwise unattested in the British record, we would simply accept it for what it was.  Instead, because we have a second century Artorius in Britain, we ASSUME the 6th century name Arthur must derive from that.  This is faulty logic.  

Thus, we must stop trying to use the Artorius etymology to situate Arthur in the landscape. 

Unless, of course, L. Artorius Castus really did take legionary troops to fight in Armorica.  The later kingdom of Domnonee was in Armorica, and there is reason to believe that Dumnonia in Cornwall and Domnonee in Brittany may once have been, essentially, one kingdom, ruled over by a single king or related chieftains.  As stated in CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA (p. 606):

"Domnonia was probably settled, at least in part, from
insular Dumnonia (see Breton migrations). It is
likely that British and Armorican Dumnonia functioned
at times as a single sea-divided sub-Roman
civitas and then as an early medieval kingdom."

Had Castus and his British troops fought successfully in the region that became Domnonee in Brittany, his name may have been remembered in the hero tales of the Dark Age Dumnonian kingdom and used for a royal son of the 6th century. 

To read some of my old articles on the subject, please see the following blog post links:















Saturday, December 17, 2022

SHORT STATEMENT ON WHY I FINALLY SETTLED ON THE 'ARMENIOS' READING FOR THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE


For a few years now, I have worked feverishly on determining the best possible reading for the fragementary 'ARM[...]S on the LAC inscription.  What follows in a summary of my reasons for preferring ARMENIOS, as opposed to either ARMORICOS or ARMATOS.

ARMORICOS -

It can be made to fit on the stone, with the right ligatures
(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html).  But it does not work in any other way.  There is no independent record of a British force going to Armorica (which at the time should have been spelled AREMORICAE, at any rate). If we adopt ARMORICOS as the reading, we must be talking about the Deserters' War which happened during the reign of Commodus.  A lot has been written on this event, but what we can say it that while Gaul was involved in the conflict (as was Spain and Germany), ARMORICOS is not a word LAC would have used in this context.  We know that the army of Maternus came to be classified as 'hostes publici'
 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351783693_Emperor_Commodus%27_%27Bellum_desertorum%27), 'enemy of the Roman state.'  This would have made the most sense, but he could also have used any number of specific terms, from Maternus' name itself to descriptions such as latrones or deserteres.  Lastly, Commodus is said to have demanded forces been raised in opposition to Maternus only from those provinces affected by the rebellion.  Britain was not one of those provinces.  There is simply no reason for LAC to have resorted to ARMORICOS if we are talking about the Deserters' War.

ARMATOS -

Considered ridiculous by every good epigrapher and military historian I have consulted.  The phrase 'armed men' is simply too vague, non-specific and out of character with the detail found in the rest of the LAC stone.  He would no more say that he was taking detachments of three British legions against armed men than he would say he was taking them against INERMES, 'unarmed men.'  That his enemy was armed would be assumed by anyone reading the memorial stone.  Several other very specific terms were available to him ('hostes/publici', 'defectores', 'rebelles', or even 'desertores'), as well as regional designations or personal names.  We can't apply ARMATOS to the army of Maternus, and we can't apply it to the Praetorians of Perennis (who, in any case, were never engaged in battle by the 1500 British spearmen).  We can't apply it to Britain as a matter of internal security, for once again a specific term would have been used, most probably a tribal designation or something regularly used of mutinous troops. Proponents of the ARMATOS idea insist that this word is used in many Latin literary sources, yet in each and every cited instance context clearly shows who the armed men are or, at least, where they are (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/my-rebuttal-of-antonio-trincheses.html).  Such is not the case with the LAC inscription. This proposed reading must be abandoned as utterly wrong.

ARMENIOS -

The only workable reading for ARM[...]S.  We know Statius Priscus, the Roman governor of Britain, was sent to Armenia on an emergency basis.  It would have been quite reasonable for him to have taken some soldiers with him, as we know troops were taken from the Rhine and the Danube.  Those who quibble about the distance are the same group who have no problem with 5,500 Sarmatians being taken almost as far in the opposite direction.  And I have aptly demonstrated that these kinds of movements of vexillations did happen (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/12/vexillations-sent-from-britain-to-fight.html).  In addition, the military reorganization of Dalmatia occurred under Marcus and Verus shortly after the Armenian War, and this is the only time we know of for Liburnia being founded as a geopolitical entity distinct from Dalmatia.  As one of the chief tasks of a provinicial procurator was recruitment, and that's what was going on at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars in Dalmatia, we can be fairly sure this was the time LAC was appointed to his Liburnian procutorship.  

Anthony Birley (THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, 2005) accepted ARMENIOS, although he believed at the time this referred to action by British troops under either Caracalla or Alexander Severus: 
"However, the improved reading by Loriot shows that Arme[nio]s, the
Armenians, must be restored in line 7. Hence the context is an eastern expedition,
most probably either under Caracalla in 215 (cf. Dio 77. 21) or Severus
Alexander.⁸¹

⁸¹ X. Loriot, BSNAF (1997), 855ff., refers to the photograph published by J. Medini, Diadora, 9
(1980), 363ff. For operations in Armenia under Severus Alexander he cites IGR i. 623=ILS 8851,
Tomi."

Near the end of his life, however, he admitted that Tomlin has it right in selecting Statius Priscus instead (personal communication).  The dates for Caracalla and Alexander are far too late to allow Castus to have become procurator over the newly formed Liburnia in the late 160s.  Furthermore, Tomlin has pointed out that 

"The British legions contributed to Caracalla's German campaign, to judge by RIB 369, but I don't know any evidence that they contributed further east. Nor, I think, does Birley. He would surely have said so. I would agree with Martin Henig that the stone is second-century, not third."


“I've now had a chance to look at the objects in question.  I fully trust Roger's [Tomlin] verdict with regard to the dating of the inscription and the carving of the letters. Generally speaking, it certainly looks firmly 2nd century to me. As for the vegetal decoration, I would equally say that the shape of the flowers and tendril ornament do not support a date later than, roughly, the mid-2nd century AD (which includes the 160s). Although the pieces come from a provincial context, the ornament does not show any of the characteristics which we would expect for the Severan and later periods (i.e. a lot of drill-work and sharp contours).”

If ARMENIOS is the actual reading of ARM[...]S, then we can be sure L. Artorius Castus had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians in Britain, as he simply wasn't there when they were.  Any theory seeking to account for the Arthurian tradition that relies on Castus' presence in Britain with the Sarmatians is invalid and should be rejected.  

Monday, December 5, 2022

A NOTE ON CAER ARIANRHOD





Caer Arianrhod is another important locator in 'Math Son of Mathonwy.' It is within both walking and boating distance of Caer Dathal (Caer Engan) and Dinas Dinlle, the 'Town of the Fort of Lleu.'

Traditionally, Caer Arianrhod has been identified with a coastal rock between Dinas Dinlle and Maen Dylan, the 'Stone of Dylan.'  Dylan was the god Lleu's twin brother, another son of Arianrhod.

I think, however, the real Caer Arianrhod was an entirely different place.  



The Bryn Arien mentioned as lying on the way to Caer Arianrhod along the sea from Dinas Dinlle has been identified with a hill near Brynaerau (see Sir Ifor Williams, Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi , Cardiff, Second Edition, 1951, pp. 278-9).  Cefn Cludno or Cefn Clun Tyno was thought by Sir Ifor Williams to be in Capel Uchaf and others have since agreed (see 150 Jahre "Mabinogion" - deutsch-walisische Kulturbeziehungen by Bernhard Maier and Stefan Zimmer, Walter de Gruyter, 2015).  There is a Coed Tyno just a little north of Capel Uchaf. 

Foel Hillfort near Tyno

Foel Hillfort

If Gwydion and Lleu really did take horses from Coed Tyno, then the most obvious fort close by is that of Foel.  

However, there is a Bryngwydion, 'Hill of Gwydion', just a little north of the Craig-Y-Dinas promontory fort.  And as Dylan's Stone is near the mouth of the Afon Llyfni, the 'port' of Arianrhod must be at the mouth of the river.  Note also the Lleuer (= W. lleuar, 'light, brightness'?; see https://www.academia.edu/35985785/Some_Cornish_place_names_with_lyw, citing Enwau lleoedd sir Gaernarfon by John Lloyd-Jones, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 1928, for lleu-erw: lleu 'goleu') place-names at Craig-Y-Dinas, which may well hearken back to the god Lleu. The Llyfni flows through Lleu's Nantlle, and Dolbebin in Nantlle was named for the father of Math's virgin footholder, Goewin.

Craig-Y-Dinas

Either of these forts could be Caer Arianrhod.  The deciding factor might be that when Gwydion and Lleu take horses from Coed Tyno, they are not said to have crossed or forded the Llyfni.  To have gone to Brynaerau, thence to Coed Tyno and on to Craig-Y-Dinas would mean they were doubling back on their course needlessly. The mouth of the Llyfni could serve just as well as the 'port' of the Foel hillfort.  Finally, the two Lleuer places are south of the Llyfni, so more accessible from Foel.  Craig-Y-Dinas is on the north side of the river.  The hill of Foel is over 220 meters high, making it much more imposing in the landscape than Craig-Y-Dinas.

For these reasons, I think we must favor Foel as Caer Arianrhod.  



Rachel Browich and others have favored Aran- for the first component of Arianrhod's name.  If such scholars are correct, it might be that Aranrot was originally a name for the hill of Foel.

The following discussion of the meaning of her name is from the TRIADS (p. 284):


The standard line of reasoning for the etymology of Aran is set forth by Dr. Richard Coates in https://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina_articles/Nomina_35_Coates.pdf.  

However, John Koch (in CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCOLPEDIA) is surely right in settling for Arianrhod as the correct spelling of the name:

A NEW IDENTIFICATION FOR UTHER'S CAER DATHAL: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CREUWRYON AND DOL PEBIN IN 'MATH SON OF MATHONWY'

Dinas Dinorwig

Dinas Dinorwig and Cororion

Ffynnon Cegin Arthur at Dinas Dinorwig

Cororion and Dinas Dinorwig

Not long ago I found a way to identify the lost ancient fortress of Caer Dathal - an important place, as the Welsh claimed Arthur's father Uther was related to the people there - with Dinas Emrys.  My argument for that can be read here:


While the case I made seemed fairly convincing (or, at least, intriguing!), I found myself disturbed by some of the premises.  Firstly, there was the possibility that Dathal was not the Irish name Dathal, but instead a Welsh corruption of Irish Tuathal (whose cognate in Welsh is Tudwal).  Secondly, we would have to assume a) that the Irish connected Dathal with Irish daith, 'swift', and b) that they then substituted Latin Celeritas/Celert/Gelert , a name we find at Beddgelert, the parish in which is found Dinas Emrys.  The more I looked at all that, the less I liked it.   Eventually, I lost my infatuation with the idea and, ultimately, became dissatisfied with it.  Had I been too clever for my own good? I knew I owed it to myself and others to take another look at the problem.

Where to start?  Why, at the beginning, of course.  I returned to the pages of the MABINOGION, more specifically to the tale of 'Math Son of Mathonwy'.  It is there that we learn the most about the whereabouts of Caer Dathal.

And, sure enough, I had missed something.  In the story of Gwydion's theft of the magical swine of Dyfed, we are told that he herded them to Creuwryon in Arllechwedd, and thence to Caer Dathal.  Creuwryon is modern Cororion.  This identification was made by Williams and has been approved of since by several Welsh place-name authorities, including Dr. Andrew Breeze:



When I went to look at Cororion on the map, and zoomed in, I was more than a bit surprised.  For this place was on the Afon Cegin, a stream whose headwaters start at Dinas Dinorwig, the Town of the Fort of the Ordovices, and Ffynnon Cegin Arthur, the 'Spring of Arthur's Kitchen.'  

More notably, the hillfort was directly between Cororion and Segontium/Caernarfon on the Afon Seiont. 

Creuwyron/Cororion was nowhere near Dinas Emrys!  But it was very close to the pre-Roman oppidum of the Ordovices, and the Segontium, which the Romans had built on the Menai Strait to replace the tribal center.

Before I go any further, it is important to take a look at Dinorwig as 'Fort of the Ordovices', as this etymology has been questioned.  We may begin with a statement made by the great Melville Richards.



Richards does have in his archives the following attestation for Dinorwig in 1618:

DINORWIG Dinorthveg 1618 WYNNSTAY WYNNSTAY MSS 86/31

In looking at maps, the earliest form I could find (at https://maps.nls.uk/view/104188168) is DINAS ORUEG (1662-1665).  However, the Melville Richards Archive 

Dr. Simon Rodway of the University of Wales remarked (personal communication):

"I wouldn’t take that [Richard's objection to the Ordovices derivation] to be fatal, considering there are *no* attestations prior to the 14c.  His later statement on the form (which I cited) suggests that he did not entirely discount it.  The loss of dd in a consonant cluster is not that surprising.  

In Enwau Tir a Gwlad, p. 77, he says ‘it would be dangerous to build too much on this’.  But such a statement does not constitute a ‘shooting down’ of the Ordovices etymology, in my opinion.

R. Geraint Gruffydd also accepted it in 1996, and Patrick Sims-Williams (albeit cautiously) in 2000.  They may all be following Rivet and Smith in Place-names of Roman Britain (1979).

I guess that Richards assumes that the 17c. form in th is due to popular etymology, which could be right, but I also think that it might have a basis in reality."

John Koch, the eminent Celticist, also accepts Dinorwig as the Fort of the Ordovices (in CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA:

There are, however, traces of Ordovician survival. The inscription
from Penbryn, Ceredigion (reading CORBALENGI
IACIT ORDOVS ‘of Corbalengos, the Ordovix lies
here’) shows that the tribal name was still a meaningful
identifier in the 5th century, in this case by a man
whose name appears to be Irish (Macalister, Corpus
Inscriptionum Insularum Celticarum no. 354 = Nash-
Williams, Early Christian Monuments of Wales no. 126;
see Jackson, LHEB 619). Dinorwig, north of Llanberis
in Snowdonia, means ‘hillfort of the Ordovices’, and
Rhyd Orddwy near Rhyl means ‘ford of the Ordovix’.
Cantref Orddwyf as an old alternative name for
Meirionnydd suggests that the early medieval kingdoms
of the Cuneddan foundation legend—such as
Meirionnydd ‘land of Meirion’ < Latin Mari\nus—never
completely obliterated the stubborn Iron Age tribe.
The name is Celtic and means ‘sledge-hammerfighters’;
cf. Old Irish ordd, Breton orz, Welsh (g)ordd
‘sledge-hammer’, and for the second element, Old Irish
fichid ‘fights’. 

Of course, it goes without saying that the abandoned Iron Age hillfort of Dinorwig cannot have been Caer Dathal. While archaeology has been brought to bear on the site, it is highly unlikely we would see any reoccupation of the fort in the sub-Roman period.  Instead, we can presume that Segontium continued in one form or the other.  And, indeed, Caernarfon has been proposed before as a candidate for Caer Dathal (although see below).  It is interesting that when we list all the Arfon and surrounding sites mentioned in 'Math son of Mathonwy', Caer Seiont is conspicuously absent.

I will now return to John Koch's account of the Ordovices.  The most important part of his treatment of the subject has been highlighted.

Ordovices ’Ord(o)ouikej were an ancient tribe
of what is now northern and central Wales (Cymru),
and their lands possibly extended beyond the modern
border into Shropshire (swydd Amwythig) and
northern Herefordshire (swydd Henffordd). In the
opening decades of the Roman period in Britain
they offered prolonged resistance, first in the period
ad 45×51 as supporters of Carat\cos, the displaced
leader of the Catuvellauni (Tacitus, Annales 12).
In the period ad 58/9 they fought Suetonius Paulinus
prior to his conquest of Anglesey (MĂ´n) in ad 60.
Shortly before Agricola’s arrival in ad 78, the
Ordovices nearly annihilated an auxiliary cavalry unit
stationed in their country. This was the first challenge
of his governorship. Tacitus (Agricola 18) explains that
the Ordovices kept to the highlands and would not
engage the Romans on the plains—presumably taking
strategic advantage of the terrain of Snowdonia
(Eryri)—but Agricola did come to grips with their
fighting force and destroyed it in 78/9, after which
he had to retake Anglesey. Eventually, the tribe was
pacified. Ptolemy lists two towns in their country:
Mediolanon (which has the same name as the more
famous centre in Cisalpine Gaul, and was possibly
the fort at CaersĂŸs, Powys, or Whitchurch in Shropshire)
and Branogenion. But it is doubtful whether
their country ever became a Romanized civitas,
accepting settled urban life, as did most of the
Romano-British tribes. The strongly fortified nativestyle
hillfort of Tre’r Ceiri—built around a massive
cairn of the Early Bronze Age and strategically viewing
Lleyn, Anglesey, and Snowdonia—was occupied
through most of the Roman period, showing an incomplete
Romanization of this area. The accounts
of Cunedda and his son Ceretic imply that Irish
settlers occupied lands between the rivers Dee
(Dyfrdwy) and Teifi in the late Roman and/or earliest
post-Roman periods, a scenario which finds some
support in a scattering of ogam inscribed stones and
Irish place-names in the region. However, we do not
know whether these Irish groups were settled within
a continuing Ordovician tribal structure—having perhaps
supplied a new dynasty for the tribe, as had
occurred in Dyfed—or whether the Ordovices had
already been supplanted by Irish groups before
Gwynedd and Ceredigion were founded.

Of course, Koch is not here privy to my discovery that Cunedda was himself Irish (= Cuinedha Mac Cuilinn of the Ciannachta of Drumanagh) and not a Briton from extreme northern Manau Gododdin.  We can allow for Dathal being either Irish Dathal or Tuathal.  It is tempting to opt for the latter, as we have a legendary Irish record for Tuathal Techtmar, an Irish king born and raised in Britain by a British princess. Techtmar was supposedly the founder of Mide (cf. the Brega of the Ciannachta in Mide) and has been tentatively associated with Drumanagh.  For a good, balanced piece on this Tuathal, see 

Can we, therefore, propose that Caer Dathal is another name for Caernarfon?

No, I don't think so - tempting though that is.

We are still missing another part of the puzzle. Math has as his virgin footholder Goewin, daughter of Pebin.  The name Pebin is found at Dol Bebin in Nantlle, very close to the Caer Engan hillfort.

Dol Bebin with Caer Engan hillfort to the west
(and some of the Coed Madoc sites)



This is more than just a coincidence.  For if we allow Dathal to be from Irish Tuathal, but then accept Tuathal itself as an Irish substitution for Welsh Tudwal, Caer Dathal magically appears from the mists of time. [Conversely, a W. Tudwal could have later been substituted for an original Irish Tuathal, which the Welsh had pronounced Dathal/Tathal.]

As it happens, there was a local St. Tudwall whose name is preserved in Gwynedd:

"TUDWAL, ST. There is a group of two islands off the south coast of the LlÅ·n peninsula called St.Tudwal's Isles. On the eastern island, the larger of the two, there was formerly a small chapel, under Llanengan, dedicated to St.Tudwal (PW 86). It is mentioned in the Taxatio of 1291, p.291, as “Eccl'ia Prions de Enys Tudwal”. Ffynnon Dudwal formerly existed on Penrhyn, in the parish of Llanengan (LBS IV.274). Tudwal may have given his name to Tudweiliog, a parish in LlÅ·n on the opposite side of the peninsula, although the dedication is to St.Cwyfen. Compare Rice Rees, Welsh Saints, p.134." [P.C. Bartrum A CLASSICAL WELSH DICTIONARY]



The Engan (W. Einion) of Llanengan is exactly the same name as we find in Caer Engan.  But could he be the same man?  The Llanengan Einion is none other than -

EINION FRENIN ab OWAIN DANWYN. (b. circa 470)
The saint of Llanengan in LlÅ·n (PW 86). He was the son of Owain Danwyn according to
Bonedd y Saint (§9 in EWGT p.56). His commemoration is on February 9 (LBS I.70). See further LBS
II.422-4. [Bartrum]




What I am suggesting is simple: the Tudwall/Tuathal/Dathal of Llanengan at some point also gave his name to the hillfort on the Llyfni.  Thus Caer Dathal is Caer Engan next to Dol Bebin.

Uther, then, would have relatives at Caer Engan.  In my book THE BEAR KING, I argue for Uther being the great Cunedda - not a Briton from Manau Gododdin in the far north, but Cuinedha Mac Cuilinn, an attested Dark Age Irish chieftain from Drumanagh just across the Irish Sea from Gwynedd. Einion and Owain were, in fact, descendents of Cunedda.

I had long ago demonstrated the Madog son of Uther was the Madog whose place-names are found in Nantlle, and the Eliwlad belonged there as well (the Coed Madoc in Nantlle was relocated to Cutmadoc in Cornwall, and Eliwlad the death-eagle in an oak was copied from the story of the dead Lleu in the oak tree at Nantlle). According to the Stanzas of the Graves, the god Mabon, servant of Uther Pendragon in the PA GUR, was buried in Nantlle. Finding Uther's Caer Dathal so close to Nantlle is a happy result of my research. 

And, yes, there is good reason to believe (as I have written about extensively before; see, for example, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/06/notes-on-cornish-place-name-tintagel.html) that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Tintagel is a relocation of Caer Dathal.    

BRYNGWYDION

Now, while we are not told about such a place in "Math Son of Mathonwy", Welsh tradition does know of a Caer Wydion, named for Gwydion, nephew of Math.  

"Caer Wydion is attested as a Welsh name for the Milky
Way, and there are traditions of a son of Gwydion named
Huan ‘sun’ (on which, see Blodeuwedd); compare with
this the similarity of Lleu and Welsh lleuad ‘moon’."

- John Koch CELTIC CULTURE, p. 867

Could it be that in terms of mythical landscape, Caer Wydion is to be identified with Bryngwydion just a little north of the Afon Llyfni and the Craig-Y-Dinas promontory fort?

Probably, as Bryngwydion has its own ancient enclosure (see http://www.heneb.co.uk/hlc/caernarfon-nantllethemes.html), designated a smaller 'ring-fort.'  This placed would have been thought of as where Gwydion lived.  

A NOTE ON CAER ARIANRHOD



Caer Arianrhod is another important locator in 'Math Son of Mathonwy.' It is within both walking and boating distance of Caer Dathal (Caer Engan) and Dinas Dinlle, the 'Town of the Fort of Lleu.'

Traditionally, Caer Arianrhod has been identified with a coastal rock between Dinas Dinlle and Maen Dylan, the 'Stone of Dylan.'  Dylan was the god Lleu's twin brother, another son of Arianrhod.

I think, however, the real Caer Arianrhod was an entirely different place.  



The Bryn Arien mentioned as lying on the way to Caer Arianrhod along the sea from Dinas Dinlle has been identified with a hill near Brynaerau (see Sir Ifor Williams, Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi , Cardiff, Second Edition, 1951, pp. 278-9).  Cefn Cludno or Cefn Clun Tyno was thought by Sir Ifor Williams to be in Capel Uchaf and others have since agreed (see 150 Jahre "Mabinogion" - deutsch-walisische Kulturbeziehungen by Bernhard Maier and Stefan Zimmer, Walter de Gruyter, 2015).  There is a Coed Tyno just a little north of Capel Uchaf. 

Foel Hillfort near Tyno

Foel Hillfort

If Gwydion and Lleu really did take horses from Coed Tyno, then the most obvious fort close by is that of Foel.  

However, there is a Bryngwydion, 'Hill of Gwydion', just a little north of the Craig-Y-Dinas promontory fort.  And as Dylan's Stone is near the mouth of the Afon Llyfni, the 'port' of Arianrhod must be at the mouth of the river.  Note also the Lleuer (= W. lleuar, 'light, brightness'?; see https://www.academia.edu/35985785/Some_Cornish_place_names_with_lyw, citing Enwau lleoedd sir Gaernarfon by John Lloyd-Jones, Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, 1928, for lleu-erw: lleu 'goleu') place-names at Craig-Y-Dinas, which may well hearken back to the god Lleu. The Llyfni flows through Lleu's Nantlle, and Dolbebin in Nantlle was named for the father of Math's virgin footholder, Goewin.

Craig-Y-Dinas

Either of these forts could be Caer Arianrhod.  The deciding factor might be that when Gwydion and Lleu take horses from Coed Tyno, they are not said to have crossed or forded the Llyfni.  To have gone to Brynaerau, thence to Coed Tyno and on to Craig-Y-Dinas would mean they were doubling back on their course needlessly. The mouth of the Llyfni could serve just as well as the 'port' of the Foel hillfort.  Finally, the two Lleuer places are south of the Llyfni, so more accessible from Foel.  Craig-Y-Dinas is on the north side of the river.  The hill of Foel is over 220 meters high, making it much more imposing in the landscape than Craig-Y-Dinas.

There is another reason for rejecting Craig-Y-Dinas as Caer Arianrhod - and it is a big one.  When Gwydion goes to the stronghold of Pennardd to follow the sow that will lead him to Lleu in Nantlle, we are told that this place lies downstream from Dyffyrn Nantlle or the Valley of Nantlle.  This can only be Craig-Y-Dinas on the Afon Llyfni which is, in fact, downstream from Nantlle.  

In another episode we are told that Math musters an army and takes it to Pennardd. During the night, Gwydion and his nephew Gilfaethwy return to Caer Dathal. At dawn the following day they return to Pennardd.  The context plainly suggests that Caer Dathal and Pennardd are close to each other, and this fits Craig-Y-Dinas and Caer Engan.  

For these reasons, I think we must favor Foel as Caer Arianrhod.  



Rachel Browich and others have favored Aran- for the first component of Arianrhod's name.  If such scholars are correct, it might be that Aranrot was originally a name for the hill of Foel.

The following discussion of the meaning of her name is from the TRIADS (p. 284):


The standard line of reasoning for the etymology of Aran is set forth by Dr. Richard Coates in https://www.snsbi.org.uk/Nomina_articles/Nomina_35_Coates.pdf.  

However, John Koch (in CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCOLPEDIA) is surely right in settling for Arianrhod as the correct spelling of the name:













Thursday, December 1, 2022

VEXILLATIONS SENT FROM BRITAIN TO FIGHT ON THE CONTINENT: THE PRECEDENTS FOR L. ARTORIUS CASTUS'S ARMENIAN CAMPAIGN

CIL 03, 03228 (http://lupa.at/11536)

Because there has been continued resistance to the notion that L. Artorius Castus could have taken legionary vexillations to Armenia, I have been advised to research any known instances of the sending of other British vexillations to the Continent. We may start with the following source, 

From Anthony R. Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, p. 364:

<Under Valerian and Gallienus troops were sent from Britain to reinforce the
Rhine and Danube armies at the time of barbarian invasions and civil wars:

CIL xiii. 6780=A. v. Domaszewski, Westd. Ztschr. 18 (1899), 218 f., Mainz: [milites] leg(ionis) XX pro
sal(ute) | canabe(nsium) ex v[o]|to pos[uerunt] regr(essi) [ad] 4| can[ab(as) ab expedit]|ione VI Kal(endas)
[ . . . Vale]|riano III et G[allieno co(n)s(ulibus)].

The soldiers of the Twentieth Legion, set this up in accordance with their vow for the welfare
of the dwellers in the canabae, having returned to the canabae from the expedition, on the sixth
day before the Kalends of . . . , Valerian for the third time and Gallienus being the consuls (255).

CIL iii. 3228.=ILS 546=CIL iii. 2328, Sirmium: [I(ovi) o(ptimo)] m(aximo] | monitori [p]ro salute
adque 4| incolumitate d(omini) n(ostri) Gallieni Aug(usti) | et militum vexil(lationum) legg. (legionum) |
[G]ermanicianar[r(um) 8| e]t Britannici(a)n(arum) | [cu]m auxilis [e]arum | . . . [V]italianus, | [pro]tect(or)
Aug(usti) n(ostri), | [somnio mon]itus, 12| [praepo]situs, | [v(otum)?] p(osuit).

To Jupiter, Best and Greatest, Monitor, for the welfare and safety of our Lord Gallienus
Augustus and of the soldiers of the vexillations of the German and British legions, with their
auxilia, . . . Vitalianus, protector of our Emperor, commander, set up his vow?

The British legionaries are not recorded on Gallienus’ legionary coins and are
thought to have returned to Britain before these were issued.¹¹⁷ However,
those recorded at Sirmium, evidently under Gallienus as sole emperor,
between 260 and 268, may have been absorbed into other units: they could
have hardly returned to Britain after it fell into Postumus’ hands.¹¹⁸>

It is also now the consensus that British troops went to Germany, and then returned home.  For a discussion of the inscription which informs us of this, see https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1322.  I am citing the scholarly opinions concerning this stone here:

<Addenda from RIB+add. (1995):

The mason also omitted R in pr(aetore). When detachments were drawn from more than one legion, the plural was used: vexillarii or vexillationes. In normal usage vexillatio followed by the name of a unit means a detachment of [not ‘for’] that unit. (In the context of Julius Verus’ governorship, when there was trouble in northern Britain, this creates a problem.) Wilkes notes that vexillarii is the earlier term; this seems to be the first epigraphic instance of vexillatio, and confusion may have resulted.

There have been four attempts to emend or explain:

i. EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIS) DVOBVS Wilkes, ‘(contributed) to the two German armies’. ii. Birley Fasti, citing Wilkes but understanding ‘(contributed) from the two German armies’. iii. by haplography (EX) EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIS) DVOBVS Bogaers, ‘(contributed) from the two German armies’, re-stated by Frere, but dismissed as far-fetched by Haverfield in EE ix. iv. EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIANIS) DVOBVS Speidel, ‘(contributed) to the two German armies’ [and now returning], a possibility noted by Wilkes but thought to conflict with con(t)r(i)buti.
(iv) is the best compromise so far between the natural sense of the Latin and the historical context. It requires a previous troop-movement (from Britain to Germany), but Speidel can argue from ILS 1071 and AE 1924, 74 that a second army had been temporarily concentrated in Upper Germany. This would have been after the completion of the Antonine Wall, when northern Britain was peaceful.>

NOTE: Professor Roger Tomlin agrees with suggestion IV.  In fact, what is said here in RIB is taken from Tomlin's long note at the end of the reprint/new edition of RIB in 1995 (confirmed through personal communication with Tomlin).

In BRITAIN DURING THE THIRD CENTURY CRISIS (Anthony R. Birley, pp. 45-55, 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwz64.8), the author says that the following British troops were found on the Continent:

Brittones at Walldurn Germany AD 232

AD 255 Men from the XXth at Mainz

British legionaries at Sirmium not long after that

Roger Tomlin tells me of an earlier group sent to the Continent.  Details on this group can be found in 


"In AD 87 – 88, the whole legion was moved from Britain to Pannonia – legio II
Aduitrix was relocated from Chester to Budapest, Hungary (Jones B.W. 1992, 132-133; Farnum 2005, 16). Together with the legio II Adiutrix various detachments taken from other legions and auxiliary units stationed at that time in Britain were also redeployed to the Continent (Strobel 1989, 80). One such detachment, ala Tampiana vexillatio Britannica, is recorded on an inscription in the legionary fortress Carnuntum, modern Bad Deutsch-Alteburg in Austria (CIL III 4466)."

Incidentally, that publication is an excellent resource in general for Britons on the Continent and beyond.

In treating of Robert Saxer's work, Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des Römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (Studies of the vexillations of the Roman Imperial Army from Augustus to Diocletian), Anthony Birley (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27684466#metadata_info_tab_contents) remarks that 



Birley's mention of well over "42 such cases" in which the word vexillationes (or vexilla, etc.) is implied is significant.  I had found one such and used it to counter the argument of Dr. Linda Malcor that vexillations could not be implied in the Castus inscription (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/proof-positive-that-vexillations-are.html).  I now know there are many more inscriptions that clearly refer to detachments, even if the detachments in question are not specifically described.  

As is evident, Birley once held that the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the Castus inscription should read ARMORICANOS.  He later recanted this (personal communication), admitting that Tomlin was correct in choosing ARMENIOS instead.  ARMORICANOS, at any rate, will not fit the space provided on the stone,. ARMORICOS with two ligatures, one of them rather uncommon, can be fit onto the line.

Birley furthermore says of Saxer's study 

"Vexillations of the British army are dealt with on pp 65-74; pp 22-5 treat vexillations sent from Britain to fight on the Continent, and there are various other references."



***
I finally obtained a copy of Saxer (1/6/2023).  The section on British legionary detachments serving abroad (as Birley stated, on pp. 22-25):
CIL 13, 12539, 7

The inscription belongs to Mirebeau bei Dijon in Germanica Superior. Roger Tomlin told me this about it:

"XIII 12539, 7 is unhelpful: one of a collection of brick-stamps by vexillations, but I can't see which one."

The inscription before that merely lists the offices of a man who had been a prefect of vexillation(s) of the XXth victricis, but also of many of legions, and this one was found in Syria. It is headed as Dessau 9200, and the man is Caio Velio Salvi son of Rufo.

Tomlin:

"Velius Rufus, as his name should be, was commander of vexillations drawn from Britain and elsewhere who campaigned far afield."

CIL XIV 3612 has a tribune leading vexillations of the IX Hispana to Germany, and I know that at some point this legion was stationed in Britain.  

Tomlin:

"XIV 3612 is Roscius Aelianus, who was later suffect consul in AD 100, so his trip to Germany has been linked to Domitian's German campaign.

The Carnuntum example from modern Austria follows (the one Tomlin discussed above)."

[1]

In Anthony Birley's "Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (AD 133 and 162)", 
the author echoes Tomlin's words, saying that Statius Priscus would have taken men with him to Armenia:



And for more on Statius Priscus, here is a selection from "Two Governors of Dacia Superior and Britain", also by Birley.  I have elsewhere in my blog supplied the longer treatment of this man from the same author's THE ROMAN GOVERMENT OF BRITAIN.  

Note in particular that Priscus had served in Britain prior to his being sent there as governor, and was likely taken by Severus from  Britain to Iudaica.  This would parallel Priscus taking Castus with him to Armenia.

<Julius Severus almost certainly took several officers from Britain. They included M. Statius Priscus, prefect of cohors III Lingonum, about whom more must be said presently, who was to be decorated for service in the expeditio Iudaica...

M. Statius M. fil. Claudia Priscus Licinius Italicus (cos. ord. 159)

Finally, one must turn to Statius Priscus, most of whose long career was under Antoninus Pius.69 After his prefecture of the cohors IIII Lingonum in Britain, which he may have taken to Judaea, his further service in the equestrian militiae included three legionary tribunates, one or perhaps two of them in Judaea during the Bar-Kochba war, followed by the prefecture of an ala in Pannonia Inferior,70 then a lowly procuratorship Gaul. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. But he did not receive any remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as in the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic wars. This reflects the conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over thirty when he entered the senate as quaestor, and well over fifty when he became consul. Still, once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola, Julius Severus, and Lollius Urbicus: only two posts, the first a legionary command, between praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, attested by eight inscriptions in the province, as well as by his cursus inscription at Rome (ILS 1092), immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158; and a dedication made at Apulum sub M. Statio Prisco consule designato can be assigned to autumn 158. Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo – only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, no doubt in fighting against free Dacaians and Jazyges, as revealed by inscriptions from that province.71 After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161. It may have seemed a good idea to put him back close to the region where he had won his victories in AD 158. He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain. It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of Britain, or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of the province, that led the new Emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M. Ant. Phil. 8.7), which as it turned out had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor Sex. Calpurnius Agricola (cos. suff. 154).72 Priscus can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious situation arose in the east: a Parthian attempt to take control of Armenia, resulting in the defeat and suicide of the governor of Cappadocia, with the loss of a legion –– perhaps it was IX Hispana ?––, then the invasion of Syria by the Parthians. Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9.1, cf. Verus 7.1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned (Dio 71.3.11). These successes allowed Lucius Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163. The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of the enemy dropped dead’ (How to write history 20). Hardly serious evidence, but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the east exactly parallels the sending of Julius Severus to Judaea thirty years earlier. Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that connection (Dio 69.13.3, see 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the high military status of Dacia and of Britain and their governors.>