ONE IMPORTANT CHANGE TO THE 'BEAR KING' THEORY: THE FINAL IDENTIFICATION OF UTHER'S CAER DATHAL

NOTE:  Since writing this piece, I have come across some new information that supports my identification of Caer Dathal with Dinas Dinorwig.  Please see 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/05/caer-dathal-is-actually-identified-in.html

Dinas Dinorwig, Gwynedd, Wales

In December of 2022, I wrote the follwing article:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/12/a-new-identification-for-uthers-caer.html

Why did I decide to move on from the conclusion I had reached regarding Caer Dathal as Dinas Dinorwig?  Well, I must admit to "buying into" my clever argument for Dathal as an Irish name whose first component matched that of the Gelert name found at Dinas Emrys (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/01/dinas-emrys-as-caer-dathal-late.html) .  Plus, the allure of Dinas Emrys, with its folktale of Ambrosius and the two dragons, cast just as powerful a spell over me as it has over many another Arthurian researcher.

Unfortunately, as has so often been the case, precisely because I am not an expert in medieval Welsh, I had relied on some inferior translations of a critical passage in 'Math son of Mathnowy' that accurately pinpoints Dinas Dinorwig as Caer Dathal.

The sentences in question has been perfectly rendered for me by Dr. Simon Rodway only just this morning:

‘Where are the animals you went after?’ said Math. ‘They have made a sty for them in the other cantref below,’ said Gwydion.

Now, the sty is in Arllechwedd at Creuwryon, modern Cororion.  Gwydion had brought the pigs to this place from the cantref of Rhos.  Cororion's elevation is 95 meters (information courtesy The Historic Place-Names of Wales (https://historicplacenames.rcahmw.gov.uk/). If we travel upstream along the Afon Cegin from Cororion, we come to Dinas Dinorwig in Arfon, the oppidum of the Ordovices, the dominant tribe of Gwynedd in the Roman period. This fort has an elevation of 170 meters.  The only other possible site for Caer Dathal would be Caernarfon farther to the SW.  But Caernarfon is at a mere 20-30 meters in elevation (with its Twthil - a Middle English word meaning a lookout point - at 60 meters).

issot, the word meaning "below" that is used in 'Math Son of Mathonwy', can be used for 'to the south' as well (according to Dr. Simon Rodway).  But Cororion is NE of Dinas Dinorwig, and Caernarfon is even farther to the SW from Cororion than Dinas Dinorwig.  In this context, then, issot has to refer to elevation, as in the drop from the summit of Dinas Dinorwig to Cororion.  It may also refer to the fact that Cororion is downstream on the Afon Cegin from Dinas Dinorwig.

In other words, the only fort that could be described as having Cororion below it in the neighboring cantref is Dinas Dinorwig.  

This identification of Dinas Dinorwig as Caer Dathal fits another passage on the 'Math Son of Mathonwy' story, in which we are told

Thereupon, he [Gwydion] went away angrily, made his way to Caer Dathal, and stayed that night. The next morning he arose, and taking the boy [Lleu] with him, journeyed along the sea-shore between there and Abermenai.  

Abermenai was near Caernarfon (see below), itself on the Menai Strait. 

If, Dinas Dinorwig is Caer Dathal, then we must allow for Dathal being yet another Irish name, viz. Tuathal. 

Professor Hywel Wen Owen had once told me that Melville Richards, the famed Welsh place-name scholar, guessed that Dathal was a Cymracization of the Irish name Tuathal.  This has been discussed by other scholars since, including Patrick Sims-Williams in his Irish Influence on Medieval Welsh Literature, p. 172:

https://books.google.com/books?id=4QgWDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=%22irish+influence+on+medieval+welsh+literature%22%2B%22Dathal%22&source=bl&ots=UK6bPRPKAi&sig=ACfU3U3hD57QeQCRl3k17Wxk4kDPgv_sFg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBrcmg4N2FAxWmJzQIHRhcAq0Q6AF6BAgbEAM#v=onepage&q=%22irish%20influence%20on%20medieval%20welsh%20literature%22%2B%22Dathal%22&f=false

Now, I knew that Irish tradition claimed that the famous Tuathal Techtmar (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BAathal_Techtmar) had lived for many years in Britain, and that his mother was the daughter of a British king.  It would appear the British king in question resided at the capital of the Ordovices, and was, therefore, the king of that tribe. 

We could suppose that what happened was this:

The Roman period oppidum of the Ordovices at some point became the home of Tuathal Techtmar and so took on his name.  When exactly this happened it is difficult to say, but that Uther/Cunedda the Irish warlord would have come to reside there need not surprise us.  The famous Art son of Conn descended from Tuathal, and the former was the great benefactor of Tadg son of Cian of Cunedda's Ciannachta tribe. Tuathal is said to have founded Mide, which contains the Brega of the Ciannachta.

I will be revising my book THE BEAR KING to reflect this change of identification for Caer Dathal. 

What does this mean for Dinas Emrys, though - other than the fact that we can no longer see that fort as being Caer Dathal?

Well, we don't need Dinas Emrys and its dragon story for Uther/Cunedda.  Dinas Dinorwig is only a half dozen or so kilometers from Segontium/Caernarfon.  The Afon Cegin empties into the Afon Seiont just east of Caernarfon, and the Seiont itself runs just a couple of kilometers south of Dinas Dinorwig.  If the Roman period Segontium military unit's shield pattern truly represents two crossed (fighting?) serpents, then surely Dinas Dinorwig is much more likely to have been influenced by this standard than more distant and isolated Dinas Emrys.

Indeed, it is generally believed that Roman Segontium replaced the Ordovician stronghold at Dinas Dinorwig. Hillforts could - and often were - reoccupied after the Roman army withdrew from Britain.  So although according to Tacitus the Roman governor Agricola pretty much exterminated the Ordovices, there is no reason why there could not have been sub-Roman or early medieval occupation of Dinas Dinorwig.

 

 

AND THE WINNER OF THE ARTHUR SWEEPSTAKES IS...

NOTE: The material on Dinas Emrys as Caer Dathal, maintained below, was updated later on when a good translation of a key line of the MABINOGION tale 'Math son of Mathonwy' was provided to me.  The site of Uther's kindred is actually elsewhere in Arfon, and I will reveal that in a new blog post shortly.  

                Dinas Emrys Hillfort

Having written this post just the other day -

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/04/uther-and-caer-dathal-second-look-at.html

- it has become painfully clear to me that I have reached a major crux in my decades of Arthurian research.  It is now time to, as they say, "Put up or shut up."  Decision time, once and for all.  Something that I have been chary to do, given the ambiguity of the source materials pertaining to Arthur and the plethora of theories those materials have spawned. 

Everything comes down to how I choose to read those critical lines of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN:

May our God, the chief luminary, transform me

It's I whose a second Sawyl in the gloom

or as

May our God transform me, the Chief Basket 

It's I whose like a star in the gloom

In the first case, I must see in the emendation 'Sawyl' something beyond mere poetic metaphor.  I must see in it either St. Illtud (based upon a perhaps dubious placement of Uther at Dinas Powys of the River Ely in the PA GUR poem) or Sawyl Benisel of the North, himself wrongly conflated with St. Illtud due to the latter's Latin military titles.  I'm not particularly happy with either of these, although in the past I have tried making much of both.  The beginning of the end for the Sawyl of Ribchester idea is represented by my failure to prove the existence of the Sarmatian draco 

(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html).

In the second case, I can utilize kawell ('basket')  unemended to identify Uther with Ceawlin/Cunedda (acceptable in terms of poetic usage for the elegy in question - and given AS ceawl = 'basket'), and I can demonstrate how Geoffrey of Monmouth came up with his dragon star by rendering kawyl as can[n]wyl (something perfectly allowable, according to Welsh language experts like Dr. Simon Rodway).  Opting for this choice happens to dovetail nicely with Caer Dathal/Dinas Emrys as the site of the kin of Arthur's father according to CULHWCH AND OLWEN.  The dragon connection with Uther can only be maintained if we fall back on the dragons of Dinas Emrys.

That all seems deceptively simple, doesn't it?  I'm amused and not a little embarrassed that it has taken me so long to reach a conclusion that in and of itself seems self-evident.  Yet odd little details can so easily derail a theory that initially seems incredibly promising.  When I made the possible connection between Pen Kawell and Ceawlin - how long ago now? - I was ecstatic and thought for sure I had made a huge discovery.  But then I received what appeared to be very bad news from a couple of Welsh experts, viz. that kawell did not match the required end-rhyme pattern and so the emendment to cannwyll (candle, and by extension a luminary or heavenly body) was required.  Well, I believed them and abandoned the theory - and felt that to be a crushing defeat.  Indeed, it took me a good long time to recover from my disappointment.  Eventually, after I had gone down several other false paths of investigation, I decided to take another stab at kawell.  This time I managed to find scholars who were better equipped to answer my question - including the actual modern editor of the poem, Professor Marged Haycock.  And their answer literally blew me away: kawell was, in fact, allowable given the structure of the poem and the rules of composition under which it was crafted.  

As a result of this revelation, I am putting forward as my favorite Arthurian theory one that identifies Uther Pendragon with the great Cunedda, and his son Ceredig ( = Cerdic of Wessex) with Arthur.  

My book THE BEAR KING: ARTHUR AND THE IRISH IN WALES AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND will soon be reissued, and I will not be seeking to keep other books in print. As I have no new research on the horizon, and have no new resources at my disposal, my work on Arthur is being suspended.  I may return to the hero in the future, but if so it will only be if some new discovery is made by someone else, or a better argument surfaces for a historical candidate.  I'm not entirely forsaking the possibility of producing some fiction on Arthur, but for now I'm very much in need of a protracted break.  My obsession with things Arthurian has taken a toll and it's time for me to move on at last. 

UTHER AND CAER DATHAL: A SECOND LOOK AT THE ONLY LOCALIZATION OF UTHER'S POINT OF ORIGIN IN PRE-GALFRIDIAN TRADITION

NOTE: The material on Dinas Emrys as Caer Dathal, maintained below, was updated later on when a good translation of a key line of the MABINOGION tale 'Math son of Mathonwy' was provided to me.  The site of Uther's kindred is actually elsewhere in Arfon, and I will reveal that in a new blog post shortly. 

Dinas Emrys Hillfort

Years ago I came up with what I thought was a good argument for Dinas Emrys as Caer Dathal.  From there I went to Caer Dathal as the original site later relocated to Tintagel by Geoffrey of Monmouth.  And while I neglected to make much about it, I went to the trouble of demonstrating the the language in the Welsh MABINOGION tale 'Culhwch and Olwen' pointedly remarks that the men of Caer Dathal/Dinas Emrys were related to Arthur on his father's side.  I did not bother to consider that if his father's relatives were at Caer Dathal, then the natural conclusion to be reached is that Uther was from Caer Dathal.

Among the many pieces I wrote on these subjects, here are three of the most important:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/01/dinas-emrys-as-caer-dathal-late.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/06/why-we-must-pay-attention-to-caer.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/11/dinas-emrys-just-whose-fort-was-it.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/06/why-we-must-pay-attention-to-caer.html

Obviously, we have to be careful when looking at Dinas Emrys and Uther's supposed connection with it. The whole Ambrosius story is nothing more than a fable (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-ghost-ambrosius-reading-4th-century.html), yet it was an early one, being found in its incipient form in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM. As Uther was made a brother of Ambrosius in Geoffrey of Monmouth's HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF BRITAIN, we might logically expect to find him placed at a fort that had been renamed for Ambrosius.  

However, it is remarkable that 'Culhwch and Olwen' does not call the fort Dinas Emrys, but resorts to the earlier name, Caer Dathal.  There is no attempt here to link Uther with Ambrosius in Gwynedd.  Instead, the absence of the Emrys name in this context points to my old idea that Emrys, who is given all of western Wales by Vortigern, is a substitution for Cunedda, himself of Irish extraction (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-true-identity-of-uther-pendragon.html). 

The case for Uther as Cunedda seemed reasonable to me, but I abandoned it when one interpretation of some critical lines of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN elegy came to be favored over another.  Which reading is to be preferred is mere personal choice, as either are allowable given the construction of the poem. My readers know I have discussed this problem in infinite detail.  Why again is it so important?

Well, if we read the relevant lines as

May our God, the chief luminary (corrected from pen kawell to p. kannwyll), transform me

It's I whose a second Sawyl (corrected from kawyl) in the gloom

we end up entangled in the Illtud mess I have also treated of in an excruciating way.  Illtud comes into the picture because of his association with the Biblical Samuel and the Welsh form of the name Sawyl, and because his military titles in his VITA can be spliced together and rendered by W. Uther Pendragon. Some weight was given to this identification or mistaken conflation (?) through Mabon servant of Uther's presence in the Ely (Elai) Valley, where Illtud's Dinas Powys fort is located.  Of course, just because Mabon is situated in Glywysing does not necessarily mean Uther should be there, as Glywys is an eponym for a man from Glevum and in 'Culhwch and Olwen' Mabon is a prisoner at Caer Gloyw/Gloucester, the Roman period Glevum.  The church of Llanfabon is also not far from the Ely next to a river that shares an estuary with the Ely.  

Utilizing Sawyl we can then extrapolate that Uther was, in actuality, Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  The problem with this identification is that the only real bits of "evidence" that can be presented in favor of it is the possible presence of the draco at the Ribchester Roman fort of the Sarmatian veterans and Madog Ailithir son of Sawyl.  Uther also had a son named Madog, and this Madog had a son named Eliwlad - a name which can be interpreted as semantically identical to the Ailithir epithet of Sawyl's son Madog.  

Alas, there is good reason to localize both Uther's son Madog and Eliwlad (as the 'Grief-lord', another even better etymology for the name which I proposed) in the valley of Nantlle in Gwynedd, not far from Dinas Emrys (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/a-shocking-discovery-real-location-of.html). Eliwlad as a death-eagle in an oak tree is a motif copied from the death-eagle Lleu in an oak tree between the two lakes of Nantlle ("Math Son of Mathonwy").  According to the STANZAS OF THE GRAVES, Mabon's grave is in Nantlle. This might show a traditional identification of the two gods.

Now, if we interpret the lines of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN in a different way, thusly

May our God transform me, the Chief Basket (or Chief of the Basket; W. kawell left unemended)

It's I whose like (eil can mean either 'like' or 'a second') a star (kawyl becomes kannwyll) in the gloom

We end up in a totally different place.  First, kannwyll could not only in a transf. sense mean star, it could also mean leader and that would match the meaning of tywyssawc yn tywyll, 'leader in the darkness', found one line before that which contains pen kawell. If we allow for Uther to be transformed into a star we can account for Geoffrey of Monmouth's dragon-star, which the author of that pseudo-history literally says represents Uther himself.  We already know that Geoffrey took the gorlassar epithet Uther uses for himself earlier in the elegy and transforms the word into a separate personage, Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, and then shows the connection between Uther and Gorlois by having the former through Merlin's magic become the latter.  

While we can easily see how Geoffrey misinterpreted Pendragon ('chief of warrior/warriors' according to Rachel Bromwich) as 'the Dragon's Head', and may have thought of the Roman draco, it is difficult to account for the dragon-comet if we refuse to adopt the elegy reading I have suggested above.  Sure, there may have been an actual tradition extant regarding a comet which attended the death of Ambrosius, but if so, it has not survived in Welsh tradition.  Instead, Ambrosius/Emrys is linked to the dragon of Dinas Emrys.

And then there is Pen Kawell.  In the past, this has been considered a meaningless phrase.  Marged Haycock, modern editor of the poem, went so far as to suggest this might be a basket for containing trophy heads (as such heads are mentioned later in the poem).  But I have shown there is another solution - and one which allows us to identify Uther with Cunedda.

I have demonstrated that the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE'S Ceawlin bears a name which, if interpreted literally, seems to be composed of ceawl + -in, ceawl being the English form of the word basket, derived from the same Latin source as W. cawell.  Cunedda himself bore a second name - Irish Coline ( = Cuilenn), found on the famous Wroxeter Stone and confirmed by Irish records.  I have only recently shown that this name could have become Ceawlin in the AS:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/03/how-to-get-ceawlin-from-coline.html

That is where things stand at present for my many years of Arthurian research.  While I like having the Arthurian battles in the North, they can be shown to be Welsh versions of Gewissei battles found listed in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  If Uther = Cunedda and Cerdic of Wessex is, indeed, Ceredig son of Cunedda, and we must have an extant Camlan, the one in NW Wales works just fine as that location is near Ceredig's kingdom of Ceredigion.  Ceredig has several Arth- names among his immediate descendents and an Arth River in the center of his kingdom, so Arthur from Artorius as a decknamen for Ceredig is not improbable.  

All in all, if we respect the Welsh tradition regarding Caer Dathal and Nantlle and decide against the Sawyl emendation of the Uther elegy poem, I must admit to having found nothing that will cause me to reject the Uther = Cunedda equation.  

THE FATAL FLAW IN THE LOGIC OF UTHER PENDRAGON = SAWYL BENISEL

[NOTE:

Utilizing proper logic is tough. I may not have done so in the piece posted below.

It has occurred to me that just as Uther Pendragon in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN elegy could refer to himself as gorlassar, why could not Sawyl have been referred to at some point as Uther Pen[dragon]?

I was reminded of a post I wrote years ago, which discussed Urien of Rheged's epithet udd dragonawl:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/11/urien-pen-and-dragon-repost-of-udd.html?m=1

I imagine an exploration of Welsh heroic poems would find many similar examples.

In the case of Sawyl Benisel, it could have "gone down" like this:

Sawyl is called the Terrible Chief warrior or Chief of warriors. This poetic name/title is used for a poem which supplies his real name by having him transformed by God the chief luminary into a second [Biblical] Samuel. At the same time he is gorlassar and (in another line) a leader in darkness.

Given the flexibility of poetic usage, there's really nothing wrong with this. I have been reluctant to drop the Madog-Ailithir = Madog-Eliwlad  connection, as well as the Irish wife of Sawyl (who alone can account for the subsequent Arthurs being from Irish-descended dynasties in Britain). 

Sure, the nice tie-in with the fabled Sarmatian draco would have been a welcome addition to the pro-Sawyl argument, but every scholar I've approached on the question has failed to produce a shred of evidence in support of the existance of the Sarmation standard. And, certainly, if Sawyl was wrongly identified with Illtud the warrior-monk, it is because dragon was understood to mean warriors. Otherwise, Uther Pendragon could not have been improperly associated with the saint's Latin military descriptors and ranks.

For now, this is where I will leave my Arthurian research. For no other reason, really, than I see no clear way to proceed along any other path.]

I may have been right when I wrote this post only a short time ago:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/03/banna-or-bust-on-getting-stuck-in-web.html

Why might this be so?

Because there is a fatal flaw in the logic of my argument in favor of Uther Pendragon = Sawyl Benisel.

I voiced it, indirectly, in another article, published here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/04/removing-fly-from-ointment-uther-as.html

"For Illtud to be identified through his Latin military titles with Sawyl Benisel, the latter would have to be the original bearer of the Uther Pendragon name/epithet.  Or, Sawyl in the Uther elegy poem is merely a metaphor, used of Illtud because he was actually Uther Pendragon from the very beginning." 

Let's begin with a simple analysis of the first sentence.  Sawyl of Ribchester already had a name and an epithet, the latter being Benisel.  Uther Pendragon for a Sawyl at Ribchester might work if it were a reference to the draco standard at the Sarmatian fort, but I have shown that the notion the Sarmatians were to be associated with the draco is a mistaken one (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html). Instead, 'dragon' in Welsh poetry denoted a warrior.  Thus Uther Pendragon being identified with the Latin military titles of Illtud (terribilis miles, magister militum, princeps militum). As this is true, we can't really allow for Uther Pendragon = Sawyl Benisel.  Why create two names and two epithets for the same person?

The second statement is patently false.  Yes, if Uther Pendragon was conjured as a Welsh rendering of Illtud through the latter's Latin military titles, then any Sawyl poetic comparison of Uther would belong, properly, to Illtud. But it is also possible that a totally separate personage whose name was Uther and whose epithet was Pendragon and who was compared to the Biblical Sawyl, was wrongly identified with Illtud, who then took on the Sawyl association.

The same be said of Illtud, from a different perspective. Ordinarily, the Wels would just give Illtud an epithet. And, indeed, they did, calling him 'knight', for instance. To have taken terribilis from terribilis miles and add it to magister militum seems an unlikely way of deciding to refer to the saint. It seems far more likely that a real name and epithet, viz. Uther Pendragon, has been fancifully associated with the separate Illtud Latin military titles. Any Sawyl association attached to Uther would then be transferred to the saint.

The thing smacks of legendary development, not history. One should not try to extrapolate hidden facts from sources like the Welsh PA GUR - even though such sources may have been informed by earlier tradition and, in turn, informed a burgeoning body of later literature.

Sometimes a person can attempt to be too clever.  I have been guilty of this sin more than once.

If we take Uther Pendragon as a genuinely separate entity, either a name + epithet or a special designation for someone having to do with a dragon, and allow for the Welsh dragon as 'warrior' to have originated with the Roman draco (something that is quite plausible and, indeed, probable), then a 'Chief dragon' (or magister draconum?) is allowable.  And there is one place where the Roman draco may have been held in special reverence: the Dacian-garrisoned Hadrian's Wall fort of Birdoswald/Banna, where we have found an Arthur-period royal hall.   I have theorized that the Birdoswald fort, only a few kilometers from Camboglanna/Castlesteads in the same river valley, was referred to as the 'Aelian dragon', a reference to the garrison and, by extension, that fort itself.  This is a reading now held to be possible by experts on the Ilam Cup inscription whom I have consulted. 

I have thus come around once again to viewing the whole Illtud-Sawyl business as spurious tradition.  There was the tendency among the Welsh to relocate famous heroes of the past from areas that had long been English to Wales itself.  It is not at all unreasonnable to assume that they did the same to Uther by identifying him with Illtud. That Sawyl Benisel became confused with the mix to be expected given a litereal interpretation of Sawyl in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, rather than viewing the name simply as a poetic metaphor.

Accepting all of this would free me up to offer one and only one theory for Arthur: that he originated at Birdoswald, with his name (and possibly his mother) coming from the neighboring Hadrian's Wall fort of Carvoran/Magnis, which in the late period was garrisoned by a Dalmatian unit.  A L. Artorius Castus who served in Armenia appears to have had close relationships with Dalmatian officers and himself became procurator of Liburnia.  The Artorii are well attested in Dalmatia, especially at Salona, and we have a gravestone at Carvoran for a woman hailing from Salona.  There would have been no better place for the Artorius name to have been preserved and passed down to a royal son in the 5th century. 

As the 'Terrible Chief-dragon' of Birdoswald, Arthur's father would be the inheritor of the Dacian's peculiar attachment to their own wolf-headed draco, which in the later Roman period in Britain would have become "standardized" (if readers will forgive the pun!) as the Roman draco.  We know the Dacians at Birdoswald held onto their native traditions for some time as we have evidence for the depiction of the Dacian sword known as a falx on stones recovered from the site.  It has been suggested the falx served as a sort of regimental badge.

I've written on these matters and a great deal more in my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF THE NORTH.  This book will remain in print.  I have decided to allow the book on Sawyl (THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER) to lapse.  While interesting from the standpoint of how legendary material was created in medieval Wales, I no longer think of it as a genuinely valid theory when it comes to identifying a decent historical candidate for Arthur.  

https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Leader-North-Definitive-Identification-Legendary-ebook/dp/B0B5CG54RT/ref=monarch_sidesheet

REMOVING THE FLY FROM THE OINTMENT: UTHER AS EITHER ILLTUD OR SAWYL

 

A few days ago I wrote this piece in response to a query from a reader:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/04/the-fly-in-ointment-of-my-arthurian.html

That query was elicited by yet an earlier blog post:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/03/banna-or-bust-on-getting-stuck-in-web.html

In this last, I disparaged Welsh tradition as a means of helping us zero in on a historical Arthur.

Well, that reader "got me to thinkin'", as they say.  Yes, I can come up with all kinds of clever and even convincing arguments to put Arthur at Birdoswald Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  But I can only do that by eschewing the only known identification of Uther I have been able to find in the ancient Welsh sources.  And that strikes me as the wrong position to take on the subject.  Which means I need to treat of this problem one more time, and with ruthless honesty - with myself.  We are all subject to biases and I am no exception.  Lately, my all-too-often publicly displayed antipathy towards the popular "Sarmatian Theory" for Arthur has perhaps clouded my judgment and made me go in a direction I would ordinarily never have taken.

***

For Illtud to be identified through his Latin military titles with Sawyl Benisel, the latter would have to be the original bearer of the Uther Pendragon name/epithet.  Or, Sawyl in the Uther elegy poem is merely a metaphor, used of Illtud because he was actually Uther Pendragon from the very beginning. 

How do we decide which is which?

1) The chieftain substituted for Illtud in the Life of St. Cadog is called Sawyl Benuchel.  Benuchel is a known later substitution for the Benisel of Sawyl of Ribchester. There was a St. Sawyl in southern Wales, in whose parish was found a legendary castle of Mabon the Giant.  In the PA GUR poem, Mabon is the servant of Uther Pendragon.

2) Uther and Sawyl both have sons named Madog. It is likely that the Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther is a Welsh rendering of the Irish Ailithir epithet attributed to Sawyl's son Madog.

3) Sawyl Benisel ruled from Ribchester. This was the Roman period fort of the Sarmatian veterans, a fort with very close ties to the York of the 2nd century Prefect of the Sixth Legion, L. Artorius Castus. Maponus (Mabon) was worshipped at Ribchester.  Although ARMENIOS works well for the inscription of Castus (a reading which would put him in Britain before the arrival there of the Sarmatians), ARMORICOS also works if we allow for Castus' participation in the Deserters' War.  In this last case, Castus would have been in Britain when the Sarmatians were there. Thus the name Artorius could have been transmitted in the vicinity of the Ribchester fort. 

4) All subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain. Sawyl Benisel's wife was an Irish princess.

5) The Arthur battles are still most easily placed in the North, and are easily provided with cogent arguments (several of which rely on early tradition) to support their placement. Badon, linguistically 'Bathum' in English, could be Buxton, called Batham in English.  Badon seems to be identified with Buxton in the admittedly late literary Welsh tale "The Dream of Rhonabwy."

6) There is no evidence that the Sarmatians had their own native version of the Roman draco standard.  However, in the late Roman period the draco was a sacred emblem for the Roman army in general, and although "dragon" in Welsh poetic usage meant warrior, it is probable that the fierce nature of the mythological monster was initially derived from the image of the draco. So, we cannot say that the draco wasn't venerated at sub-Roman Ribchester.  The pendragon epithet could still refer to Uther as the 'chief dragon' or it may even be a relic of the late Roman rank of magister militum.

And the points in favor of Illtud?  Really, only one - maybe.

There is a possible connection between Illtud and Liddington/Badbury.  His Vita has him coming from 'Llydaw' as a son of Bicanus (Llydaw here is an error for Lydbrook in Ercing at Bicknor, both potential transferred sites from the Ludbrook and Bican dike at Badbury in Liddington).  It is true that the Second Battle of Badon in the Welsh Annals appears to be the Liddington Badbury.

Other than that, Illtud is said to be Arthur's cousin and serves as master of the soldiers at Penychen in southern Wales.  He puts away his wife to become a religious.  No children are known. After founding his church/monastery and performing the usual miracles, he dies and is buried in 'Llydaw.'

If we go with Illtud, the Arthurian battles are difficult to place in the south.  In fact, they can only be made to do so through either linguistic contortion (such as suggesting Cymracized forms of the English place-names, or opting for other places immediately adjacent to the English place-names) and/or resorting to a borrowing of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE'S Gewissei battles.  Finally, there is no way to account for the transmission of the Artorius name if we opt for Illtud.

I believe this is a fair assessment of whether Illtud or Sawyl Benisel should be selected as the most likely traditional candidate for Arthur's father.

Where does that leave me?

With a choice, as always.  Respect the tradition and what I've been able to tease out of it, or put Uther and Arthur at Birdoswald because that is where I want them to be.  

That's an easy decision to make: I cast my vote for Sawyl of Ribchester.  Which means, of course, that I am committed to declaring ARMORICOS for the Castus stone (despite my personal preference for ARMENIOS).  

NOTE:

If, despite all of the above, Illtud really IS Uther, then we must allow for a not impossible, but rather unlikely development - but one for which we possess a precedent.

Let us say we have an incredibly martial man, i.e. Uther, who either really did give up warfare as a career and became a religious or (as happened in too many instances to count) was made into a saint posthumously - and perhaps long after he was dead, even centuries later. At some point in the evolution of the saint it was considered desirable to separate him out from the earlier captain of soldiers. And so a name and epithet, viz. Uther Pendragon, was made up and what was once one man became two.

Again, we have precedence for this kind of thing happening - and in an Arthurian context.

Geoffrey of Monmouth plucked the gorlassar ('very blue') epithet from the 'MARWNAT VTHYR PEN' and transformed it into Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall. Yet the connection between the two now separate figures is emphasized when he alters the elegy's transformation of Uther into Samuel (W. Sawyl) to Uther's transformation into Gorlois.  There is no really good reason for him to have done this other than to make his story more interesting.  Sure, it is possible he misinterpreted the poem, but that wouldn't change the result.  We still have what was simply an epithet for Uther being made into a totally new character.

If Illtud IS Uther Pendragon, and IS Arthur's father (not cousin, as the saint's VITA would have it), and the possible connection of Uther with Liddington/Badbury actually records a valid tradition, and the 'Cornwall' of Arthur (and, incidentally, 'Gorlois') is Durocornovium hard by Badbury and not far from Barbury, the "Bear's Fort", then clearly everything changes.  We have a hero who belongs to a region inhabited in the Roman period by the Dobunni, and we must adjust the placement of the Arthurian battles accordingly.  IF such a thing is possible in a way that will satisfy us. Such a model may well involve the 36 year gap for Saxon penetration in Wiltshire I have noted in previous research (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-gewissei-and-badon-at-liddington.html).

In the future, when I have more time and am so disposed, I may take another look at Illtud as Uther - despite the many points in favor of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester as Arthur's father. 

Other than these two chieftains, I have no other Uther candidates left to consider.   It is true that if we go with a L. Artorius Castus who served in Armenia rather than in Armorica, and see in the whole Illtud-Sawyl tradition a spurious one invented by Welsh storytellers who took a poetic metaphor (Uther being compared with the Biblical Samuel) and then made a false identification (Uther for Illtud through the latter's Latin military titles), then my alternate theory of an Arthur at Birdoswald rather than Ribchester remains quite valid. 

THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT OF MY ARTHURIAN STUDIES or THE TERRIBLE SOLDIER RIDES AGAIN?

St. Illtud's Church, Llanelltyd

Okay... so this has happened more than once.  In fact, three times, to be exact.  What, you ask, am I talking about?

Quite simply that the moment I feel like I've settled on a decent Arthurian theory (one that has the hero born at Ribchester), someone brings up the Welsh soldier-monk Illtud again.

This would appear to be a random and supremely ironic occurence, were it not for the fact that I had just written the following post essentially trashing Welsh heroic tradition:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/03/banna-or-bust-on-getting-stuck-in-web.html

And it was exactly that piece that incited a reader to send this complaint:

"Dear Mr. Hunt, no disrespect intended and I am not a troll. Don't have any axe to grind either with my own ideas on Arthur and Uther. Pretty much I've always found it impossible to even know where to begin when it comes to trying to find something historical in the Matter of Britain.  I don't know if it's wise to even try, although it sure seems like a fun exercise. What I don't understand, though, it why you seem to have discovered a "code" in the legendary material that reveals the true identity of Uther kind of like unmasking a superhero to see his alter-ego and then you just pretty much brushed it aside because an unreliable saint's life didn't seem to support the idea.  I am of course referring to your Illtud identification for Uther which you readily admit is the only extant identification that seems provable by the sources you analyzed.  It seems to me and again I mean no disrespect that discounting the only actual identification of Uther offered by those sources just because you want an Arthur in the North and need to trace the Arthur name to the Roman Artorius and find it easier or more satisfying to find Arthur's battles in the North is more than a little problematic. I was going to say unsafe but am not sure that word really works. It just seems to me that the only actual identification for Uther should be provisionally retained simply because it is the only identification we have and it may well be right. Otherwise it seems to me that you are going off on unnecessary tangents chasing the dragon's tail as you have put it yourself by trying to use the Sawyl/Samuel metaphor from the elegy poem on Uther to look towards Ribchester or the presence of Dacians at Birdoswald to put Arthur's dragon-father in one of those two places. I mean, the Welsh use of the word dragon denoted warrior or chieftain in the poetry and it is pretty plain that Geoffrey of Monmouth misinterpreted Pendragon as "Dragon's head" and then made up the story of the dragon-shaped comet and the draco standard.  You showed that in reality Uther Pendragon was a very good Welsh translation of terribilis miles, magister militrum, princeps militum titles used for Illtud before he became a religious.  I'm wondering how you justify ignoring that and going with the draco even though you've written on the nonexistence of the Sarmatian draco and need Geoffrey to support any connection with the draco with Dacian Birdoswald.  It is much more exciting to be able to connect Uther with the Liddington Badbury as you did most convincingly and then inexplicably abandoned. Just some thoughts and I hope you don't mind me bringing them up in the hopes that you may someday revisit the Illtud possibility and write something more about it.  Thank you very much for your time, patience, tolerance and understanding and I look forward to reading more of your future blogs no matter where you decide to go with your Arthurian theory."

Whew!  Wow.  That was a lot to take in.  

To begin, the author is referring to any number of articles I wrote on the Illtud-Uther identification and related matters.  There are several such, but here are some of the more important ones I culled for the blog site:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/12/uther-pendragon-discovered-at-last.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/01/illtud-illtuds-ghost-and-eldad-magister.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/01/illtuds-father-bicanus-and-his-llydaw.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-second-battle-of-badon.html

In essence, I did show that at least as far as the PA GUR poem "evidence" was concerned, Illtud was Uther Pendragon.  While initially very excited by this revelation, I knew that it must be seen as doubtful simply because the entire poem was riddled with legendary/mythological motifs, as well as both English and Gaelic place-names. In other words, it might well represent a fictional identification of Uther with Illtud created by the author of the poem or his source.  I was even more excited by an apparent correspondence of place-names which suggested that the Liddington Badbury (the site of the Second Badon battle, according to the Welsh Annals) was the real origin point of Uther/Illtud. Again, though, as the place-names involved were English in nature I could ascribe the identification to spurious and rather late tradition found in the saint's life or even mere coincidence.

And so, combined with the difficulty of properly placing the Arthurian battles in the South, and with no way to explain the preservation of the name Arthur other than viewing it as a decknamen for an original Celtic bear-name, I dropped everything Illtudish and looked longingly to the North.

Was I right to do so?

Perhaps not. I will be looking into the "Illtud Paradigm" again over the next few weeks.  If for any reason I see fit to embrace the theory, in whatever modified form, I will, of course, publish the results here.  For now I am content to continue questioning everthing, as I always do, whether it drives my readers crazy or not!

PRAEFF in the Inscription of L. Artorius Castus is an Error for PRAEF

Professor Roger Tomlin sees PRAEFF of the L. Artorius Castus inscription as a stonecutter's error:

"No difficulty in supposing that Castus was prefect twice. Your difficulty is that he would have said iterum, as often in inscriptions referring to repeated tenure. praeff is common enough, but it refers to 'prefects' (plural), for example officers 'of the praetorian prefects', praeff praetorio.. 

Doubling the final consonant of an abbreviated title or office is so common to indicate a plural - AVGG for two emperors, never an emperor twice – that you will have to find a good instance of its being done in the way you would like, to refer to an office held twice."

I asked him about what seemed a similar use of praeff leggionum in another inscription:

publication: CIL 11, 05216 = IDRE-01, 00122 

dating: 193 to 235 EDCS-ID: EDCS-22901158

province: Umbria / Regio VI place: Foligno / Fulginiae

[P(ublio) Aelio P(ubli) f(ilio) Papir(ia)] / [Ma]rcello [cent(urioni)] / [frum(entariorum) s]ubprincipi pe/[regrino]rum [a]dstato et pr[incipi] / [e]t pri[mo] pilo leg(ionis) VII G[em(inae) Piae] / [Fel(icis) adle]cto ad mu[nera] / praeff(ectorum) le[gg(ionum) V]II Claud(iae) [et] / [prim]ae Adiutricis v(iro) e(gregio) fla[mini] / [Lu]culari Laurent(i) Lav[ina(ti)] / [pa]t[r]ono et decurio[ni coloniae] / [Ap]ule(n)sium pa[trono] / [civitat(ium) Forofla(miniensium) Fulginia(tium)] / [itemque Iguvinorum splendidissimus] [ordo Foroflam(iniensium)] / [cuius dedicat(ione)

inscription genus / personal status: milites; ordo equester; sacerdotes pagani; tituli honorarii; tria nomina; viri

material: lapis

His comment?

"Yes, an interesting parallel, but it doesn't help you with Castus. Marcellus is acting-prefect of two legions in turn, not of the same legion twice. And he does not use PRAEFF to say that he was prefect twice. The abbreviation PRAEFF follows ADLECTO AD MVNERA, meaning that he 'replaced' the two prefects in turn. This PRAEFF for praef(ectorum) is just like the inscriptions I mentioned to you [1], which honour officers 'of the praetorian prefects' (plural). The double FF simply means 'two (or more) prefects'.

Marcellus in his other inscriptions is described as EX PRAEFECTO LEGION and EX PRAEF LEG (followed by the names of the two legions), not as PRAEFF, which is what you need as a parallel."

An extensive search on my part has failed to produce the same usage of PRAEFF as is found in the Castus stone.  For this reason, I personally am satisfied PRAEFF is, indeed, a stonecutter's error. 

As for how the error was made, the most common-sense explanation has to do with the marked similarity of the letters F and E in the inscription.  Quite literally, an F is an E with the lower leg left off.  PRAEFECTUS could be abbreviated in many different ways, including as PRAEFE (see https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/list.php?abb=&abb_type=exact&abb_word=PRAEFECTUS&abb_word_type=exact&abb_length=&abb_size=&freq=&comb=AND&search=Search). So it is likely that the second F was meant to be an E.  When I asked Professor Roger Tomlin about this, he replied:

"I think you are right to suppose some sort of typo, whether by the man who laid out the inscription or the man who cut it. A typo made easier by the similarity of E and F."

[1]

"These are both examples of what I said, two or more officers of the same rank. Marius Maximus is writing to all the tribunes, prefects and acting-commanders of the military units in his province. The second is a dedication by a vicarius acting as the 'deputy' of the praetorian prefects (plural).

No, I don't think PRAEFF can have the force of 'prefect twice'. To a Roman it would mean 'two prefects'.

PRAEFF is such an easy stonecutter's error that I don't like to overload it with the sense that LAC was prefect twice. He would surely have said so, in the way that a primus pilus for the second time is proud of being iterum.

PRAEFF just won't bear the interpretation of 'prefect twice': it is not really Latin, and I some phrase like praefectus iterum or bis praefectus would have been used for a second command with the same title. I am happy with the traditional interpretation that FF is a stonecutter's mistake, like his IM for IN in Britanicianarum. 

I don't know of any instance of the final letter being repeated in this way, to indicate repeated tenure. It will be spelt out, with ITERVM. He would have remained prefect while dux."

publication: AE 1933, 00107 = AE 1934, +00281          EDCS-ID: EDCS-16000544

province: Syria         place: Qual'at as-Salhiyah / Qalat al-Salihiyah / Dura Europos

Marius Maximus tribb(unis) et praeff(ectis) et praepositis nn(umerorum) salutem / quid scripserim Minicio Martiali proc(uratori) Augg(ustorum) nn(ostrorum) / et notum haberetis adplicui opto bene valeatis / ex(emplum) / curae tibi sit quaesturae nn(umerorum) per quos transit Goces / legatus Parthorum missus ad {ad} dd(ominos) nn(ostros) Fortissimos Impp(eratores) / secundum morem xenia ei offerre quid autem in / quoque numero erogaveris scribe mihi / Appadana / D[ur]a / Ed[da]na / Bi[blada]

inscription genus / personal status: milites;  nomen singulare;  ordo equester;  tria nomina;  viri

And here

publication: CIL 08, 22830 = ILTun-01, 00091 = AE 1902, 00058          EDCS-ID: EDCS-24200630

province: Africa proconsularis         place: Sfax / Taparura

[Felicissi]mis beatissimisq[ue temporibus dd(ominorum) nn(ostrorum)] / [Valentinia]ni et Valentis m[aximorum principum] / [3]sta congeries Rup[ium 3] / [agente pro pra]eff(ectis) per Africam [3] / [3] curante [

material: lapis

 

Banna or Bust: On Getting Stuck in the Web of Folklore

Birdoswald Roman Fort

In my last blog post, after many months of vacillation, and with the generous guidance of the Welsh scholars who know the Uther elegy the best, I decided that relevant portion of the poem should read:

May our God, the Chief Luminary, transform me

It's I who's a second Sawyl in the gloom

Having come to this conclusion, I naturally lept to another: as the PA GUR poem "proved" that Uther Pendragon was merely a Welsh rendering of St. Illtud's various military titles,  and as the saint appeared to have become confused or conflated with Sawyl Benisel of the North, I could settle on Sawyl as Arthur's father.  After all, it did seem like there was some evidence to suggest that Sawyl was the right man.  Both Uther and Sawyl had a son named Madog, for example, and the Ailithir title of Sawyl's son Madog might be reflected in the Eliwlad made a son of Uther's Madog.   

None of this, however, sat particularly well with me. Why?

Because a placement of Uther at the Ribchester Roman fort of the Sarmation forced some things upon me I was not comfortable with. Frankly, these things made me squirm more than a bit.

1) I had to accept Armoricos for the Castus stone so that Castus could be in Britain when the Sarmatians were there.  And this despite all the historical evidence which strongly supported the Armenios reading for the stone. This all has to do with the preservation and transmission of the Artorius name, something I have gone over before in considerable detail.

2) The argument for the existence of a Sarmation draco and its presence at Ribchester collapsed. 

3) The Arthurian PA GUR is hardly a trustworthy source. It is replete with Gaelic and English place-names and mythical creatures and divine figures. Relying upon this heroic poem to identify Uther with Illtud's titles is an incredibly risky proposition.

So let's take a break from all that and ask some serious questions.

1) Might Sawyl in the Uther poem be nothing more than a poetic metaphor? Of course, it could be. Uther is being compared with the Biblical judge and prophet who chose Israel's first king. The name is may not originally have had anything to do with Sawyl Benisel. 

2) Isn't it possible to account for the name Arthur in the North AND to hold on to all of the splendid dragon imagery associated with his father by situating the name and the dragon, respectively, at the neighboring forts of Dalmatian-garrisoned Carvoran and Dacian-garrisoned Birdoswald?  Yes, on both counts. Castus had strong Dalmatian connections, and the Dacians (unlike the Sarmatians) had their own draco, and doubtless would have venerated the subsequent Roman army draco. If I am right about the inscription on the Ilam Cup, the garrison of Banna was actually referred to as the Aelian Dragon. We can have Castus go against Armenia and don't need for him to be in Britain when the Sarmatians were there. The Artorii are attested at Salona in Dalmatia, and a woman of that city was buried at Carvoran. 

3) Doesn't Birdoswald have a unique Arthurian period royal hall complex? And have I not shown that the famous St. Patrick was probably born there? Yes, again, to both questions.

4) Did Arthwys/*Artenses or the Bear People likely live in the Irthing Valley, a river-name possibly meaning 'Little Bear'? And did not the Welsh associate the name Arthur with their bear word, arth? Yes, on both counts. 

5) Are not both Birdoswald and Arthur's Camlann are in the Irthing Valley? Is not Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon" Roman fort with its Lake Goddess just a little farther west on the Wall? Yes, they are.

6) The Ceidio son of Arthwys bears a nickname that would originally have been a two-part "battle" name - one which may have accorded well with a full-length name meaning "Battle-leader." 

7) Are all the Arthurian battles up and down to either side of Dere Street in Lowland Scotland and northern England, where a central control node on Hadrian's Wall makes the most sense? Yes, they are - and, yes, it does.

8) Isn't it true that Dr. Ken Dark and others see in the Banna sub-Roman royal hall the seat of a chieftain who, to the best of his ability, was trying to replicate the Roman office of Dux Britanniarum? Yes, it is so.

There may be more - but I would have to search through past research findings. For now I hope this suffices when it comes to showing what I think is a more valid theory than the one focusing on Sawyl Benisel.

A final question...

Is there really any reason, given all of the above, for NOT placing Uther at the Banna/Birdiswald Roman fort?

None that I can think of.  The only thing standing in our way is the PA GUR's apparent identification of Uther Pendragon with the Latin military titles of St. Illtud.  Uther Pendragon conforms to the very common Welsh formula of name plus epithet.  We have several other examples of the name being an adjective.  If Uther was Sawyl, then why not simply say so?

I feel that I must move away from "my Precious", i.e. the Sawyl Benisel theory, and once again embrace the speculative construct I had presented at the Artorius symposium in Croatia way back in 2019: that Arthur belonged on the Wall, and more specifically, at Banna. 

My Final Conversation with Professor Roger Tomlin Concerning Armoricos Vs. Armenios on the L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone

    Model of the acropolis of Artaxata,

           ancient capital of Armenia

"Roger,

I still think you are right about Armenia and Castus.

Armenia was its own separate kingdom. While it had a Roman client king sitting on the throne everything was fine. When the Parthians replaced him and killed a bunch of Roman soldiers, the kingdom became an enemy. Someone you would go against (adversus) with a military force.

But, Armorica was part of the Roman province of Gallia Lugdunensis. Deserters formed the core of the enemy in this case, and archaeology shows they were devastating the province. Rome's job was pretty much a police action, designed to save lives and property and restore order to the province. So they were only going against the deserters, not against the Armoricans themselves. Chances are the deserters were not themselves Armorican, but were originally from elsewhere and merely stationed in Gaul. Why, then, would Castus have said he was going against the Armoricans?

Furthermore, Dio's account of the march of the 1,500 British spearmen on Rome is presented as solely dedicated to the removal of Perennis. No mention of its connection with the Deserters' War is made. John S. McHugh in his THE EMPEROR COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR reminds us that "The three legates [removed from their posts], important senators in their own right, would have to cross Gaul which was in the midst of massive unrest with an army of deserters, slaves and criminals on the loose.  Such a party would need a large bodyguard to cross the war zone as their number, 1,500, is large for a vexillation but it was known they would be likely to be involved in combat."  In other words, there is no reason to conjure military action in Armorica when Dio's narrative is fine just the way it is.  

When I combine this with

1) The British governor Statius Priscus going to lead the Armenian campaign,

2) The possibly pronounced Dalmatian connections between Julius Severus, Statius Priscus and Castus,

3) The very probable (pretty much proven) early foundation date for the Liburnian province,

4) The many references to Armenia found on stones, as compared to none with Armorica,

5) The better fit on the stone for Armenia than Armorica,

and

6) The superior word recognition of Armenia over Armorica among Romans of the period, especially those in Dalmatia,

there is not much left to recommend Armorica.

Reasonable assessment?"

Professor Tomlin's response?

"I think so – bearing in mind that I am committed to Armenia!"

NOTE:

The proposed reading of ARMATOS, 'armed men', is no longer being considered. This term is so vague as to be meaningless and Castus would never have put such on his stone. That whoever his legionary detachments were fighting happaned to be armed would be assumed by everyone.  ARMATOS fails to identify the opposing fighting force and where that force was located.  It is, therefore, a wholly unacceptable reading.