CAMLAN AS A FOLK RELOCATION OF THE DALRIADAN ARTUR'S MIATHI BATTLE SITE

Maes-y-Camlan at Dinas Mawddwy

Afon Gamlan Tributary of Afon Mawddach

(with Dinas Mawddwy indicated by arrow)

In recent weeks I had a number of revelations or epiphanies concerning the very realy possibility that several of the Arthurian battles in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM list preserve a folk memory not of a Dark Age British Arthur, but of the Roman officer L. Artorius Castus.  

Only one piece of data does not correlate with this picture: the ANNALES CAMBRIAE entry for c. 537 A.D., which has an Arthur and a Medraut falling at Camlan. 

What to do with this entry?  Superficially, it would appear to lend credibility to the notion that a Dark Age British Arthur had existed.  

Well, to begin with, the date is rather easily disposed of.  It could quite easily be a manufactured date, made necessary when Arthur, the preeminent British hero, became attached in legend to the famous Battle of Badon, which was fought c. 516.  Ther e are a great many scholars of the period who have grave doubts about Arthur fighting at Badon.  Most, in fact, think the battle was assigned to him precisely because he was convenient.

But simply proposing that the date has been altered does not help us much with Camlan itself.  Medraut is an unknown entity.  I long ago proposed that the name (based on the Cornish form Modred) represented L. Moderatus. Oliver Padel agreed with me.  But early on Sir Ifor Williams suggested that the name might be connected with the Welsh verb medru ‘to be able, to hit’; but he did not develop the idea, only mentioning it in passing.  John Koch (in his CELTIC CULTURE) says Modred should be derived from the Celtic stem *m\tr- ‘mother’. 

In any case, the name is unknown outside of much later Welsh tradition and subsequent Arthurian romance.

I had long ago shown exactly where the Welsh themselves placed Camlan.[1] This was the Afon Gamlan, a trinbutary of the Mawddach (see maps at top of this blog post).

The other day I happened to take another look at the geography surrounding Welsh Camlan and I noticed something I'd missed before:  a Maes-y-Camlan at Dinas Mawddwy.  So what I had was the curious coincidence of two Camlans at a Mawdd- place-name.

Mawdd is found nowhere else in Wales, and the name has proven impenetrable to the Welsh place-name experts.  I decided to tackle it anew, with the help of Brythonic place-name specialist Alan James.  When I approached James on the subject, he responded as follows:

"I have to quote Wyn Owen and Morgan: 'There is considerable confusion arising from the identity of two closely related rivers, one of which is a tributary of the other. Mawdd (which may well have been a pers. n. originally) features in the names of both rivers. The larger of the two was simply Mawdd (Maviae 13th ct, Maw River 1536-9, Auon uaue 1578 ...) It ... flows into the sea at Abermawdd/ Barmouth. Later it seems to have become Mawddu [Black Maw?; see more from James below] and then changing to the suffix -wy common in river-names ... ' So the river only becomes Mawddwy in early modern times - Mothuaye 1602 is the earliest evidence.

As the name for the territory around the river Mawdd, a suffixed form is evidenced from the 13thct., Mautho 1232 etc., where -wy denotes either the territory around the Mawdd, or belonging to an individual called Mawdd. That's the case at Dinas Mawddwy, and also Llanmawddwy - but, again, the personal name involved is Mawdd, not Mawddwy.

Meanwhile, the tributary stream was called Mawddach, 'little Mawdd', with the diminutive suffix -ach. But, quoting again, 'Consequently, because of this ambiguity (of river and territory),the major river adopted the name of its tributary ... while the original Mawddach was renamed Wnion'."

I could find nothing in Welsh for Mawdd, but knowing as I did that Wales was heavily impacted by Irish raids and settlement, I wondered about an Irish borrowing or even an otherwise unknown Welsh cognate of an Irish word.  And, as it happens, during the course of my search I found such a word.

From the Electronic Dictionary of the Irish Language:

mogda

Cite this: eDIL s.v. mogda or dil.ie/32449

adj io, iā (= O.Ir. mogthae?) big, great , immense? matud mógda merda (of Goliath), SR 5753. ruc leis methil mogda móir `a band of labourers, big and brawny', Metr. Dinds. iii 380.9 . sin Temraig m.¤ , LL 128b47 (` spacious ', MacCarthy 188.7 ). is m.¤ allmarda in tuarascbail stupendous and strange (?), LL 268a6 = MU 40.5 (` servile '). manip do Chonchobar berthair | is derb bid m.¤ in gnim (i.e. the consequences will be terrible), IT i 98.3 . Cf. in menma mogha nó in menma mor. Moga mor mar sin, O'Dav. 93. See magda.

magda

Cite this: eDIL s.v. magda or dil.ie/31282

 

Forms: maghda

adj io, iā. great , vast (cf. mag-)? cath Átha Medoin magdai, LL 183a14 = `of the plains' (?), Arch. Hib. ii 61 § 34. cath Murbuilg magda mōrgais, LL 7a17 = maghda `of plains', Leb. Gab.(i) i 102. in múir masmóir magdai muaid (: Dagdai) `of the fair great vast and noble wall', Metr. Dinds. iv 96. ardurdaig Mhuman magda, Lism. L. 3473. Cf. mogda (perhaps same word).

Professor Jurgen Uhlich helped with the early formation of these words, putting them into the earliest hypothetical reconstructions in Irish for me:

"The etymological starting point is the IE root *mag-. The suffix is Old Irish -d(a)e. So magdae < *mago-dii̯os/-dii̯ā/-dii̯om. No such reconstruction for mogdae, that is simply magdae with its a secondarily changed to o – an analogical process that, needless to say, does not make it in any way ‘wrong’."

When I pitched this to James, he responded:

"Yes, I think either of those could be cognate with Mawdd, and the shared root the basis for an early name, quite possibly applying to the whole river basin and the main watercourses within it."

As the river-name originally occurs as Mawdd, and the Mawddwy names come later, this must be due to a regional suffix being applied. If we originally had Mawddwy, not Mawdd, then we would have the river suffix.

That may (and probably is!) an over-simplification, of course.  When I asked James about that, he replied:

"Essentially, yes.

However, thinking about it further, and studying the evidence of the medieval records and the map, my very tentative view is that the estuary, the valleys draining into it, and the surrounding hills, comprise what might well have been an Iron-Age chieftain's territory, with resources of arable, pasture, meadow, woodland etc. adequate to maintain a largely self-sufficient community with its chief and his retinue - similar in scale and character to the Fleet Valley where I live in Galloway. 

And I'd hazard that *Magda or similar might have been either the early name for the main watercourse (in its upper reaches, either or both of the Mawddach and Wnion), and *Magd-owja or similar could have been a name for such a chieftain's territory, becoming the territorial name Mawddwy. Because of the similarity to other river-names, that name eventually got transferred to the river, though not before what was perceived as the main branch had become *Maw[dd] ddu, 'Black Maw'.

That is, of course, very speculative, but might offer a possible scenario." 

According to the ultimate Welsh place-name expert, Melville Richards

 (in https://www.jstor.org/stable/25509590), "tribal names are found with a suffix in -wy which may denote the tribal area or centre."  If we choose to interpret Mawddwy as such a tribal area, the meaning of the word semantically matches a very significant tribal name in Scotland.  The following is from Rivet and Smith's treatment of MAEATAE in their THE PLACE-NAMES OF ROMAN BRITAIN:

"DERIVATION. Holder II. 388 thought the name Pictish, and it is discussed by Wainwright PP 51-52; it may survive in Dumyat and Myot Hill, near Stirling and thus north of the Antonine Wall. Watson CPNS 58 seems to take the name as wholly Celtic, as is surely right in view of the Continental analogues he cites for the second element or suffix : Gaulish Gais-atai 'spearmen' (*gaison 'spear'), Gal-atai 'warriors' (*gal 'valour, prowess'), Nantu-atai (-ates) 'valley-dwellers'; he notes also the presence in Ireland of the Magn-atai. See also ATREBATES, with further references. One might therefore conjecture that in this name at least the force of the suffix is 'those of. . . '. The first element might be the same as in Maia, probably 'larger', in which case a sense 'larger people' or more strictly 'people of the larger part' may be suitable. It is to be noted that Cassius Dio, as quoted by others, seems to say that Britain north of the Antonine Wall was divided between the Calidonii and the Maeatae, these having subsumed lesser tribes, and it could well be that the Maeatae were the 'people of the larger part'. The name was still in use in Adamnan's day : Miathi in his Life of St Columba, I, 8."

From their treatment of MAIA:

"R&C suggests that the base of the name is British *maios, comparative of *maros (compare Latin maior), from which Welsh mwy derives; Jackson LHEB 357 and 360 appears to accept this. The sense is therefore 'larger (one or ones)', perhaps referring to the size of promontories (Bowness contrasted with Drumburgh). If the name is basically adjectival, it is easy to see how in differing interpretations it could be singular or plural, as the sources appear to show. The root is represented in personal names in Gaul such as Maiagnus, Maianus, Maiiona for *Magiona (Holder II. 387), perhaps Maiorix; in Gaul and Italy a goddess Maia was known. The only relevant place-names abroad seem to be Maio Meduaco between Brenta Vecchia and Brentella in N. Italy, and the Statio Maiensis mentioned under Magis. The North British Maeatae people may have a first element in their name corresponding to the present name."

For a more detailed discussion of the Proto-Celtic involved, I have culled the following for two excellent resources:

larger *mājos-, SEMANTIC CLASS: measure, Gaulish meion (?) ‘larger, more’, Early Irish máa, mó ‘larger’, Scottish Gaelic mò ‘greater’, Welsh mwy ‘bigger, larger, greater, more, louder, longer, further; any more, any longer, again, henceforth, henceforward, from now on, after this, from then on, after that’, Cornish moy ‘larger, more’, Breton mui (Old Breton), muy (Middle Breton), mui ‘larger, more’

increase *mag-e/o-, SEMANTIC CLASS: action, Gaulish Magalos ‘(?)’

English–Proto-Celtic Word-list

with attested comparanda

*magyo- 'great' [Adj]

GOlD: Mlr. maige [io]

GAUL: Magios [PN]

PIE: *megh2- 'great' (IEW: 709)

COGN: Lat. maius

ETYM: Mlr. maige is a rare, poetic word.

REF: LEIA M-10, Delamarre 213, Meid 2005: 197f.

*mliro- 'great' [Adj]

GOlD: Olr. mar, mor [0]

W: OW maur, MW mawr

BRET: OBret. mor, MoBret. meur

CO: OCo. maur gl. magnus, MCo. mur

GAUL: -maros (in PN, e.g. Iantumarus)

LEP: Latu-marui [PN] (Ornavasso)

PIE: *meh,-, *moh,-ro- 'great' (IEW: 704)

COGN: OHG miiri 'news; known, famous, great', Gr. -moros (in

compounds)

ETYM: All Celtic forms (and Gr. -moros) can be derived from *moh,-ro-,

while the e-grade is attested in other languages. The PCelt. comparative and

superlative of this adjective were suppletive. The comparative was *ma-yos-

(Olr. mo, mooMW mlry, Co. moy), and the superlative was *ma-samo- (Olr.

maam, moam). The Brittonic superlatives (OBret. meham, OW muihiam, Co.

moygha) were built with the productive suffix *-samo- added to the

comparative stem *may- ).

REF: LEIA M-18, GPC III: 2379, EIEC 344, DGVB 259, Falileyev 110,

Campanile 1974: 81, Lambert 1994: 28, 32, Delamarre 218, Solinas 1995:

375, Meid 2005: 92f.

Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic By Ranko Matasovic

So what may we conclude from all that?

Well, I'm going to come right out and say it:

I believe the Camlan entry for Arthur (regardless of whom they thought Medraut was) is a folklore relocation of the death-place of the Dalriadan Artur in the territory of the Maeatae to Mawddwy in NW Wales, where there was a very similar tribal region designation.

If this is so, then it follows that our only remaining reason (our having already discounted Badon as belonging to Arthur) for adhering to the idea of the existence of a Dark Age British Arthur - that of the Camlan entry in the AC - has been effectively eliminated.  

All of the battle-site locations of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM, save that of Badon, can most easily be assigned to L. Artorius Castus, who as dux in command of three British legions fought the Maeatae and Caledonii confederations under Severus and Caracalla.  This would be in keeping with my newly proposed ARM.GENTES reading for the Castus's stone ARM[...]S lacuna.

In closing, I would add that Artur of Dalriada's involvement with the Miathi/Maeatae itself could be a confused memory of Castus' fighting against the same tribe in the Roman period.  Please see 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/arthur-and-miathi-artorius-and-maeatae.html for more on this. 

The Dea Latis or Lake Goddess at Birdoswald  and 

Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon", which I've often discussed in the context of a possible Dark Age Arthur on the Wall was, of course, contemporary with Castus. 

The same is true of the Aballava fort itself. The Drumburgh fort or Concavata near Aballava bears a name which links it to a sort of grail 

(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-new-theory-on-concavata-name-for.html). This was a Roman name and a Roman construction and would have been well-known to Castus.  Any Arthur of the 6th century would have been a Christian (see the Christian stone from the Camboglanna fort I was the first to properly translate: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/02/a-sub-roman-christian-inscribed-stone.html).

I will be publishing a post soon on the likely presence of Castus at Camboglanna.  

[1]

Camlan and the Grave of Osfran’s Son

The purpose of this essay is to prove, once and for all, where Arthur’s Camlann battle site was located. Or, more accurately, where Welsh tradition happens to place it!

It is fairly well known that the Welsh record seven survivors of Camlann. Yet, to my knowledge, no one has sought to plot these personages out on a map. To do so may help us pinpoint a geographical region in which Camlann was believed to be situated.

One of the seven – Geneid Hir – it a difficult and otherwise unknown name. P.C. Bartram (in “A Welsh Classical Dictionary: People in History and Legend up to about A.D. 1000) suggests the name may be corrupt and offers an unlikely identification with a personage named Eueyd or Euehyd Hir (often rendered Hefeydd). However, I would see in Geneid ‘Cannaid’, “white, bright, shining, pure, clean, radiant,” an epithet substituted for the original title Ceimiad, ‘Pilgrim’, of St. Elian. Elian had churches on Mon/Anglesey and in Rhos, Gwynedd.

Sandde Bryd Angel looks to be a pun for the Afon Angell, Aberangell, etc., places immediately to the south of the Camlan on the Afon Dyfi in Merionethshire.

Morfran son of Tegid is from Llyn Tegid, now Bala Lake in Gwynedd.

St. Cynfelyn is of Llancynfelyn in Ceredigion just below the Afon Dyfi.

St. Cedwyn of Llangedwyn in Powys, while somewhat further removed than the rest, is still in NW Wales.

St. Pedrog of Llanbedrog is on the Lleyn Peninsula in Gwynedd, just opposite the three Camlans in Merionethshire.

St. Derfel Gadarn is at Llandderfel near Bala Lake in Gwynedd.

Needless to say, if we “triangulate” with all these names/places, we find at the center the three Merionethshire Camlans.

So which one is the right one?

Only one way to know for sure: we must find the Camlann that is claimed as the gravesite of Osfran’s son. This reference comes from the ‘Stanzas of the Graves:’

Bet mab Ossvran yg Camlan,

Gvydi llauer kywlavan…

The grave of Osfran’s son is at Camlan,

After many a slaughter…

[“The Black Books of Carmarthen ‘Stanzas of the Graves’, Thomas Jones, Sir John Rhys Memorial Lecture, 1967, Critical Text and Translation.]

While –fran of Osfran looks like Bran or ‘Raven’, the Os- does not look at all right for a Welsh name. I suspected Ys- and after a first search failed, I defaulted to bryn or ‘hill’ as the original of –bran. Thus I was looking for an Ysbryn.

And I actually found him – or, rather, it! [See “An

Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales  and Monmouthshire: VI – County of Merioneth”, p. 98, RCAHMW, 1921.]

On the Mawddach River in Merionethshire there is a Foel Ispri. It used to be Moel Ysbryn and was the legendary residence of Ysbryn Gawr or Ysbryn the Giant. If we go north on the Mawddach we run into its tributary the Afon Gamlan, i.e. the Water of the Crooked Bank.

 

CAMBOGLANNA ROMAN FORT AND L. ARTORIUS CASTUS WITH CARACALLA

Camboglanna

 Castlesteads Stone to the Emperors Severus, Caracalla and Geta

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1978

The goal of any good historian is try to come up with the best, most plausible scenario to explain scant facts.  Magical thinking does not form a component of this process.

The other day, while at work, I was thinking (not about work, obviously!). Is there a historically attested Arthur that we can situate at a real Camlan?

Well, there is - but just one. 

L. Artorius Castus is a bonified historical entity.  But here comes the tricky part: if we accept that his being made governor of a newly formed Liburnian province with the right of the sword happened because the Empire found itself in an emergency situation, and we accept the time range scholars allow us for his memorial inscription, then we are looking at one of the following possibilities for his governorship:

1) at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars, meaning the ARM[...]S lacuna stands for ARMENIOS

or

2) at the second round of barbarian invasions under Caracalla, meaning that lacuna should be ARM[ATAS] GENTES

If we choose the second (and for all the reasons I've been posting in my last severeal recent posts, this seems the most logical choice to me), then we can actually entertain the notion that Castus may have visited Camboglanna/Castlesteads Roman fort - and maybe even have been in on the rebuilding of the fort there. After all, legionary soldiers were major builders of roads and forts.

Alas, the Castlesteads House estate early on, in order to construct their manor and garden, systematically destroyed the Camboglanna fort.  We have precious little remaining from it. One of the stones we do have is pasted at the top of this blog.  Its inscription is described as follows at the RIB page cited:

Primary

Discipu-
[l]inae
[A]ug(ustorum) (trium)

Secondary

Discipu-
[l]inae
[A]ug-
usti

Apparatus

3, 4.  avg …|vsti, Carlisle, &c.; avg⟦gg⟧|vsti, Lys., F.H.

Translation

Primary

To the Discipline of the (three) August (Emperors).

Secondary

To the Discipline of the August (Emperor).

Commentary and notes

Primary: a.d. 209-11 Severus, Caracalla, Geta; secondary: a.d. 212-17 Caracalla.

For Septimius Severus as vindex et conditor Romanae disciplinae see EE vii 353, CIL viii 17870 (ILS 446) Thamugadi.

Fortunately, we do know that substantial work was done by Severus and Caracalla at the neighboring Hadrian's Wall fort of Birdoswald/Banna.  Here are some pages from Tony Wilmott's archaeaological report on the Birdsowald excavations  of 1987-72:

Simon Elliott in SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND also discusses the major rebuilding on both walls - Hadrian's and the Antonine - under Severus:

It does not seem reasonable to object to the notion that similar rebuilding was undertaken at Camboglanna by both Severus and Caracalla.

So might Castus have been at Camboglanna?

Absolutely.

It is possible, I suppose, that the presence of an Artorius at Camboglanna may have contributed to the story of Arthur dying at Camlan (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/camlan-as-folk-relocation-of-dalriadan.html).  If so, it is an amazing coincidence that there are Camlans in Mawddwy, a regional name that seems to have been used as the justification for relocating the Maeatae battle of an Arthur from Scotland to Wales.

I have identified the *Artenses or People of the Bear (W. Arthwys) with residents of the Irthing Valley.  The Irthing has been identified as a bear river-name by Andrew J. Breeze.  Both Birdoswald and Castlesteads are in the Irthing Valley.  It is possible, as I have from time to time theorized, that Artorius as a perceived bear-name among the Cumbric population of the region was linked to the Artenses and the Irthing.  

Tribruit of Arthur, Trajectus of Artorius: Another Echo of the Severan Campaigns in the North?

A couple of decades ago (!), I first proposed that Arthur's Tribruit battle, found in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM's list, represented a trajectus or crossing-point at Queensferry in Scotland.  Although linguistically and geographically sound, and a solution that respected the source material, the idea did not catch on.  Basically, the idea has been ignored. Amateur Arthurians continued to put the the Tribruit shore wherever they wanted it to be - as they still do to this day.

But since I came up with a new possible reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the L. Artorius Castus stone (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-new-reading-for-arms-lacuna-of-l.html), I remembered that it was believed by some highly respected scholars that a trajectus across the Forth at Queensferry was built by Caracalla, son of the Emperor Severus.  I had actually mentioned this in my treatment of the Tribruit place-name (see entire discussion pasted to the bottom of this post).  Without the context of the Artorius inscription, however, it was merely an interesting observation.

The following two pages (151-152) are from Simon Elliott's SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND: THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS OF THE FIRST HAMMER OF THE NORTH. This section of the book covers the location and significance of the trajectus.  Following the selection is a nice article by a coin expert who agrees with the Forth crossing localization.  The link is given for this online piece, as well as the Conclusions reached by the author.

https://collectingancientcoins.co.uk/roman-coins-about-britain-septimius-severus-caracalla-and-geta-more-about-the-bridge-coins-of-208-and-209-ad/

"Conclusions

It’s probably fair to say that we’ll never know for sure if these coins represented bridges in Scotland, never mind knowing where they would have been. However, their dates coincide perfectly with the British campaigns which were such a large undertaking that it’s hard to believe that the coins could represent something else. The fact that they were celebrated on coins suggests that they were important undertakings related to the war, rather than a run-of-the-mill bridges constructed in safe territory.

The arguments against Severus’ coins being a bridge in Scotland do not stand up well to scrutiny. There was time to build a large permanent bridge over the Tay because it’s not necessary to insist it to be monumental, and not necessary to assume that work could only begin once Severus himself arrived at the building site, ready to clock on for a shift of hard graft. There was a reason to build a permanent bridge over the Tay, and reasons why a boat bridge wouldn’t have been suitable.

The arguments for Caracalla’s bridge to be over the Tay don’t fare well either due to the topology of the river. A one-off boat bridge over the Forth, where a permanent bridge would have been impossible and unnecessary, makes much more sense."

If the Tribruit of Arthur is the trajectus of Caracalla, then we must add this HB battle to that of the Bassas (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/arthur-and-miathi-artorius-and-maeatae.html) as being Artorius battles.  Given that Arthur is also said to have fought in the Celidon Wood, and Artorius would have fought the Caledonii, this battle, too, becomes highly suspect.  I have always identified Arthur's City of the Legion battle with York and, of course, that was the city where Artorius the prefect's Sixth Legion was garrisoned.  [It is unlikley we are talking about the legionary fortress of Inchtuthil in Highland Scotland, as this was evacuated in 86/87 and "never reused, even during the Severan incursions in the early third century" - Simon Elliott, SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND, p. 129.]

Indeed, all of the Arthurian battles of the HB with the exception of Badon fit very nicely into the Severan campaigns as described by Simon Elliott.  The mouth of the Northumberland River Glen, the Devil's Water at its lakes near Linnels (Dubglas in Linnuis), Dunipace (Bassas), Binchester (C. Guinnion) and High Rochester (Breguoin; perhaps also Agned/agued, although this last could be for Catterick, called the place of agued, 'distress', in the GODODDIN). 

Camlann, needless to say, like Badon, does not conform to the activities of Artorius in Britain - if we assume the latter did, in fact, fight in the North with his legions.  

This all begs the question, of course, as to the identity of the Arthur at Badon and Camlann, battles specifically dated to the 6th cnetury AD.  Many scholars have thought Arthur's famous name was merely attached to the Badon battle, and this is certainly possible. But the Camlann entry of the ANNALES CAMBRIAE, which has an Arthur fall with Medraut (= Cornish Modred = L. Moderatus, an identification I first made in 1996: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/06/my-suggestion-to-professor-oliver-j_20.html?m=1), does not look like a false historical event.  

Clearly, I have yet more thinking to do on Arthur.  To that end, I will be exploring in the coming weeks (or months!) where the trail of Artorius may end and that of the slippery Dark Age British Arthur begins. 

The Tenth Battle: Shore of the River Tribruit

The location of the shore (W. traeth) of the river Tribruit has remained unresolved. The clue to its actual whereabouts may lie in the two possible meanings assigned to this place-name.

According to Kenneth Jackson (_Once Again A thur's Battles_, MODERN PHILOLOGY, August,

1945), Tribruit, W. tryfrwyd, was used as an a jective, meaning "pierced through", and sometimes as a noun meaning "battle". His rendering of traeth tryfrwyd was "the Strand of the Pierced or Broken (Place)". Basing his statement on the Welsh Traeth Tryfrwyd, Jackson said that "we should not look for a river called Tryfwyd but for a beach." However, Jackson later admitted (in The Arthur of History, ARTHURIAN LITERATURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES: A COLLABORATIVE HISTORY, ed. by Roger Sherman Loomis) that "the name (Traith) Tribruit may mean rather 'The Many-Coloured Strand' (cf. I. Williams in BBCS, xi [1943], 95).

Most recently Patrick Sims-Williams (in The Arthur of the Welsh, THE EARLY WELSH ARTHURIAN POEMS, 1991) has defined traeth tryfrwyd as the "very speckled shore" (try- here being the intensive prefix *tri-, cognate with L.  trans). Professor Sims-Williams mentions that 'trywruid' could also mean "bespattered [with blood]." I would only add that Latin litus does usually mean "seashore, beach, coast", but that it can also mean "river bank". Latin ripa, more often used of a river bank, can also have the meaning of "shore".

The complete listing of tryfrwyd from The Dictionary of Wales (information courtesy Andrew Hawke) is as follows:

tryfrwyd

2 [?_try-^2^+brwyd^2^_; dichon fod yma fwy

nag un gair [= "poss. more than one word here"]]

3 _a_. a hefyd fel _e?b_.

6 skilful, fine, adorned; ?bloodstained; battle,

conflict.

7 12g. GCBM i. 328, G\\6aew yg coryf, yn toryf,

yn _tryfrwyd_ - wryaf.

7 id. ii. 121, _Tryfrwyd_ wa\\6d y'm pria\\6d

prydir, / Trefred ua\\6r, treul ga\\6r y gelwir.

7 id. 122, Keinuyged am drefred _dryfrwyd_.

7 13g. A 19. 8, ymplymnwyt yn _tryvrwyt_

peleidyr....

7 Digwydd hefyd fel e. afon [="also occurs as

river name"] (cf.

8 Hist Brit c. 56, in litore fluminis, quod vocatur

_Tribruit_; 14 x CBT

8 C 95. 9-10, Ar traethev _trywruid_).

Tryfrwyd itself, minus the intensive prefix,

comes from:

brwyd

[H. Grn. _bruit_, gl. _varius_, gl. Gwydd. _bre@'t_

`darn']

3 _a_.

6 variegated, pied, chequered, decorated, fine;

bloodstained; broken, shattered, frail, fragile.

7 c. 1240 RWM i. 360, lladaud duyw arnam ny

am dwyn lleydwyt - _urwyt_ / llauurwyt escwyt

ar eescwyd.

7 c. 1400 R 1387. 15-16, Gnawt vot ystwyt

_vrwyt_ vriwdoll arnaw.

7 id. 1394. 5-6, rwyt _vrwyt_ vrwydyrglwyf rwyf

rwyd get.

7 15g. H 54a. 12.

The editors of GCBM (Gwaith Cynddelw

Brydydd) take _tryfrwyd_ to be a fem. noun =

'brwydr'. They refer to Ifor Williams, Canu Aneirin

294, and A.O.H. Jarman, Aneinin: Y

Gododdin (in English) p. 194 who translates

'clash', also Jarman, Ymddiddan Myrddin a Thaliesin,

pp. 36-7. Ifor Williams, Bulletin of the

Board of Celtic Studies xi (1941-4) pp. 94-6 suggests

_try+brwyd_ `variegated, decorated'.

On brwydr, the National Dictionary of Wales has

this:

1 brwydr^1^

2 [dichon ei fod o'r un tarddiad a@^

_brwyd^1^_, ond cf. H. Wydd. _bri@'athar_ `gair']

3 _eb_. ll. -_au_.

6 pitched battle, conflict, attack, campaign,

struggle; bother, dispute, controversy; host, army.

7 13g. HGC 116, y lle a elwir . . . y tir gwaetlyt,

o achaus y _vrwyder_ a vu ena.

7 14g. T 39. 24.

7 14g. WML 126, yn dyd kat a _brwydyr_.

7 14g. WM 166. 32, _brwydreu_ ac ymladeu.

7 14g. YCM 33, llunyaethu _brwydyr_ a oruc

Chyarlymaen, yn eu herbyn.

7 15g. IGE 272, Yr ail gofal, dial dwys, /

_Brwydr_ Addaf o Baradwys.

7 id. 295.

7 1567 LlGG (Sall) 14a, a' chyd codei _brwydyr_

im erbyn, yn hyn yr ymddiriedaf.

7 1621 E. Prys: Ps 32a, Yno drylliodd y bwa a'r

saeth, / a'r _frwydr_ a wnaeth yn ddarnau.

7 1716 T. Evans: DPO 35, Cans _brwydr_ y

Rhufeiniaid a aethai i Si@^r Fo@^n.

7 1740 id. 336, _Brwydrau_ lawer o Filwyr arfog.

Dr. G. R. Isaac of The University of Wales, Abe ystywyth, in discussing brwyd, adds that:

"The correct Latin comparison is frio 'break up', both < Indo-European *bhreiH- 'cut, graze'. These words have many cognates, e.g. Latin fr uolus 'friable, worthless', Sanskrit bhrinanti 'they damage', Old Church Slavonic britva 'razor', and others. The Old British form of brwyd would have been *breitos. It is sometimes claimed that there is a possible Gaulish root cognate in brisare 'press out', but there are difficulties with that identification.

It may be worth stressing that the 'tryfrwyd' which means 'very speckled' and the 'tryfrwyd' which means 'piercing, pierced' are the same word, and that the latter is the historically pri mary meaning. The meaning 'very speckled' comes through 'bloodstained' from 'pierced' ('bloodstained' because 'pierced' in battle). But I do not think this has any bearing on the arguments.

Actually, Tryfrwyd MAY mean 'very speckled', but that is conjecture, not certain knowledge. Plausible conjecture, yes, but no more certain for that."

That "pierced" or "broken" is to be preferred as the meaning of Tribruit is plainly demonstrated by lines 21-22 of the _Pa Gur_ poem:

Neus tuc manauid - "Manawyd(an) brought

Eis tull o trywruid - pierced ribs (or, metaphorically, "timbers", and hence arms of any kind,

probably spears or shields; ) from Tryfrwyd"

Tull, "pierced", here obviously refers to Tribruit as "through-pierced".

Professor Hywel Wyn Owen, Director of the Place-Name Research Centre, University of Wales Bangor, has the following to say on traeth + river names (personal correspondence):

"There are only two examples of traeth + river name that I know of, both in Anglesey (Traeth Dulas, Traeth Llugwy) but there may well be others. The issue is still the same however. Where a river flows into the sea would normally be aber. The traeth would only be combined with the river name if the river name was also used of a wider geographical context, and became, say, the name of the bay. Hence traeth + bay name rather than traeth + river name directly."

In the poem, the shore of Tryfrwyd battle is listed one just prior to Din Eidyn and once just after the same fort (I will have more on the Pa Gur battle sites below). The Gwrgi Garwllwyd or ‘Man-dog Rough-grey’ who is also placed at Tryfrwyd has been associated with the Cynbyn or ‘Dog-heads’ Arthur fought at Din Eidyn.

Manawyd's role at Tryfrwyd may suggest that this river or its shore is to be found in or on the borders of Manau Gododdin, which was the district round the head of the Firth of Forth, whose name remains in Slamannan and Clackmannan.

The Fords of Frew west of Stirling have been proposed as the site of the battle, but Jackson claims W. frut or ffrwd, ‘stream’, cannot have yielded frwyd. Jackson also countered Skene's theory that this was the Forth, on the grounds that the Welsh name for the Forth, Gweryd, which would be *Guerit in OW.

The poem may be even more specific, in that Traeth Tryfrwyd is said to be 'ar eidin cyminauc'

(line 28), ‘at Eidyn on the border’. Now, the ‘bo der’ here could be the Firth of Forth, but it is much more likely to be the line of division between Gododdin proper and Manau Gododdin.

The Cynbyn or ‘Dog-heads’ may partly owe their existence to the Coincenn daughter of Aedan, father of the Dalriadan Arthur, and to the Coinchend in the Irish story The Adventure of Art son of Conn. In this Irish tale, Art battles a monstrous woman named Coincenn or ‘Doghead’ who is a member of a tribe bearing the same name.

The Coincenn of the Irish are thought to be a reflection of the Classical Cynacephali.

Ole Munch-Pedersen cites the following note from Cecile Ó Rahilly text of the Irish heroic epic Cath Finntrágha or the “Battle of the White Strand” (Irish traigh is cognate with Welsh traeth):

"The Coinchinn or Coinchennaig are frequently mentioned in Irish literature. From the 8th cen-tury on the name was applied to pirates who ravaged Ireland. Cp. Thurneysen, Zu Ir. Hss., p. 24. In the Adventures of Art mac Cuinn they are represented as living in Tir na nIngnad whose King is called Conchruth (Éiriu III. 168). They are mentioned in a poem in the Book of the Dean of Lismore (Rel. Celt. I. 80) and in a poem is Duanaire Finn (xxxviii) where they are said to have invaded Ireland and been defeated by Finn. In the YBL tale Echtra Clérech Choluim Cille (RC XXVI 160 § 45, 161 § 48) men with dogs' heads are 'of the race of Ham or of Cain'. Similarly in the late romance Síogra Dubh the Caitchean-naigh and Coincheannaigh and Gabharchean-naigh are said to be do chinéal Caim mic Naoi (GJ XIX 99 5-6, cp. LU 122)." (Cath Finntrágha, (1962), lch. 65).

From the English translation of the Battle of Ventry/Cath Finntragha (http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/f20.html):

“'O soul, O Glas son of Dreman,' said the king of the world, 'not a harbour like this didst thou promise my fleet would find, but shores of white sand where my army might assemble for fairs and gatherings whenever they were not fighting.' 'I know a harbour like that in the west of Erinn,' said Glas, 'namely, Ventry Harbour… They went onward thence to Ventry, and filled the borders of the whole harbour so that the sea was not vis-ible between them, and the great barque of the king of the world was the first to take harbour, so that thenceforward its name was Rinn na Bairci (The Point of the Barque). And they let down their many-coloured linen-white sails, and raised their purple-mouthed speckled tents, and consumed their excellent savoury viands, and their fine intoxicating drinks, and their harps were brought to them for long playing, and their poets to sing their songs and their dark conceits to them...

Now, these hosts and armies came into Ciarraige Luachra and to red-maned Slieve Mis, and thence to Ventry Harbour. 'O Tuatha De Danand,' said Abartach, 'let a high spirit and courage arise within you in the face of the battle of Ventry. For it will last for a day and a year, and the deed of every single man of you will be related to the end of the world, and fulfil now the big words ye have uttered in the drinking- hous-es.' 'Arise,O Glas, son of Dreman,' said Bodb Derg the son of the Dagda ,'to announce combat for me to the king of the world.' Glas went where the king of the world was. 'O soul, O Glas,' said the king of the world, 'are those yonder the fi-anns of Erinn?' 'Not they,' said Glas, 'but anoth-er lot of the men of Erinn, that dare not to be on the surface of the earth, but live in sid-brugs (fairy mansions) under the ground, called the Tuatha De Danand, and to announce battle from them have I come.' 'Who will answer the Tuatha De Danand for me?' said the king of the world. 'We will go against them,' said two of the kings of the world, namely, Comur Cromgenn, the king of the men of the Dogheads, and Caitch-enn, the king of the men of the Catheads, and they had five red-armed battalions in order, and they went on shore forthwith in their great red waves.

'Who is there to match the king of the men of the Dogheads for me?' said Bodb Derg. 'I will go against him,'said Lir of Sid Finnachaid,'though I have heard that there is not in the great world a man of stronger arm than he.’”

It is the Dogheads who would appear to hold the key to unravelling the Traeth Tryfrwyd mystery.  Thanks to Lothian native and place-name expert John Wilkinson, who consulted a friend on the matter, I have learned the following:

“Ardchinnechena<n> is a place which the St. Andrews Foundation Account B says was where Hungus son of Forso placed the head of the de-feated Saxon king Athelstan on a pole “within the harbour which is now called Queen’s Ferry” (i.e. North Queensferry?); and which the shorter Account calls Ardchinnechun.  Simon Taylor’s Fife Vol 3 offers ‘height/promontory of the head’ for the first and hints at a dindshenchas con-taining con ‘dog’ (in genitive) for the second.”

Ardchinnechena[n] is generally supposed to be the headland used by the Railway Bridge (see “Place-names of Fife”, vol. 1, 381-2, vol.3, 582-3).

This ‘Height of the Dog’s Head’ in North Queensferry Harbor reinforces my view that the Welsh tryfrwyd, ‘through-piered’, is an attempt to translate Latin trajectus, which has the exact literal meaning.  However, trajectus also was the word used for a river-crossing, like the one at Queensferry. Frere (in his BRITANNIA, p. 162) discusses TRAJECTUS on a coin of Caracalla for a boat-bridge over the Forth or the Tay or both.

 

DID L. ARTORIUS CASTUS REALLY TAKE THREE ENTIRE LEGIONS TO NORTH BRITAIN UNDER SEVERUS?

Courtesy Simon Elliott's SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND, p. 12

For years now I hav insisted that L. Artorius Castus' three British legions were detachments (for an example of my thinking on this issue, see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/implied-vexillations-in-roman.html).  This was based on the belief among mainstream Roman scholars that he had taken this force as dux outside of the province.  We had only two possible choices for the ARM[...]S lacuna on the Castus memorial stone: ARMENIOS and ARMORICOS (which I was the first person to show would fit on the stone with allowable ligatures). 

But if we instead allow for ARM[...]S representing ARM(ATAS) GENTES, 'armed tribes', then we can confine Castus' dux mission to Britain itself.  And when we do that, the situation with the British legionary force changes completely.

I've already posted a passage from Simon Elliott's book SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND on another blog, but will provide that again here for context:

Adding to this (from pp. 146-147 of the same volume), a description of the entire force assembled for the Northern campaign:

The reader will notice the presence of all three legions. 

In my defense, I had commented several times that had Castus led legionary troops north, as prefect of the Sixth he most certainly would have taken his own legion practically entire, along with generous detachments from the other two legions.  

But given Elliott's hypothetical reconstruction, I thought to ask Professor Roger Tomlin (who himself prefers the Armenia reading for the Castus stone) the following question:

"Is it realistic for all 3 British legions to have been taken North by Severus, allowing for skeleton garrisons having been left to man the three legionary forts?"

His response?

Tomlin:

"We don't know whether Castus was appointed with ius gladii or if this was added later – another reason for supposing that his appointment was in response to a special need / crisis. If he were simply being rewarded for good service, then it is more likely that he would have been given the next good job going, rather than having one created simply to reward him.

As for Severus in Britain, it is likely that, as in the Wall-building in the previous century, all three legions would have been mobilised."

CONCLUSION:

If we wish to interpret Castus' dux mission as his commanding three entire legions, rather than assume he was implying legionary vexillations, and we except both the date range of the stone and the emergency nature of the Liburnian procuratorship, then we must conclude that Castus participated in the British campaign of Severus and was made governor of Liburnia by Caracalla.

CARACALLA AND THE LIBURNIA PROVINCE OF L. ARTORIUS CASTUS

Caracalla's Problems in the North

(courtesy Caracalla: A Military Biography

by Dr. Ilkka Syvänne)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian_invasions_into_the_Roman_Empire_of_the_3rd_century:

After about thirty years of relative quiet along the Rhine-Danubian frontiers [Commodus had ended the Marcomannic Wars c. 180], a new crisis broke out along the Germanic-Rhaetian Limes in 212, caused by the first invasion of the Alemanni confederation.

The invasions of the third century, according to tradition, began with the first incursion conducted by the Germanic confederation of the Alemanni in 212 under Emperor Caracalla...

Having studied the L. Artorius Castus stone now since at least 2019, and having only recently proposed a new reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-new-reading-for-arms-lacuna-of-l.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/why-armatas-gentes-is-not-too-vague-or.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/might-armgentes-for-arms-lacuna-be.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/arthur-and-miathi-artorius-and-maeatae.html), I've come to the conclusion that opting for a Castus fighting in Britain over one fighting in Armenia is the most reasonable choice.  

My problem when looking into the possibility that Castus had taken part in Severus' massive invasion of the British North was what to do with his following procuratorship in the province of Liburnia.  The more research I did on the nature of this procuratorship the more I became convinced - as were the Roman epigraphers and Roman military historians I'd consulted - that for an equestrian to be granted ius gladii in what appeared to be a new province carved out of Dalmatia (or, at the very least, was an administrative district that was a subdivision of Dalmatia) called for extraordinary circumstances surrounding its formation.  Most likely this involved some kind of emergency preparedness.  

ARMENIOS for Armenia of the early 160s has remained a favorite for ARM[...]S.  We can also look to a reorganization of Illyricum and Dalmatia under Marcus and Verus at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars c. 168-170.  The Roman governor of Britain, Statius Priscus, had been sent to command the army in Armenia.  So, really, this argument appears to be very strong.

But Armenia is very far from Britain.  My analysis of British vexillations on the Continent and beyond (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/12/vexillations-sent-from-britain-to-fight.html) revealed that other than a proposed Armenia expedition, the two other most distant postings for British vexillations were Carnuntum in Austria and Sirmium in Serbia.  

Furthermore, my gut kept telling me that a prefect of the Sixth Legion at York (a legion whose purpose was always guardianship of the North), commanding British legionary troops, is much more likely to have been fighting in Britain and, indeed, in northern Britain.  But this was merely applying probability to the problem, as well as personal bias.  

An ARM.GENTES allowed me to find the idea that Castus had fought in Britain to be more acceptable. But, again, if I couldn't find a good reason to have Castus as procurator of Liburnia soon after he led troops in a major military action, I would have to dispense with the proposed reading.

It didn't take me long to find it.  I've posted at the top of this page a selection from Wikipedia.  That passage describes how a very similar situation arose of the Continent under Caracalla as had existed under Marcus and Verus, viz. the Germanic invasions started again in earnest.  For details on how severe these were, both in terms of real damage or threat level, I refer my readers to "Caracalla: A Military Biography" by Ilkka Syvänne.  

Caracalla had been in Britain with his father, Severus, during the invasion of the North.  Dr. Simon Elliott, author of "Septimius Severus in Scotland: The Northern Campaigns of the First Hammer of the Scots" (p. 152) attempts a hypothetical reconstruction of Caracalla's role in the invasion:

While we can never know what really happened, this is a sound approach by Elliott.  Even more interesting for our purposes is his reference to the three British legions being under Caracalla.  I have long argued - vociferously at times (because I was predicating my argument on Castus' having left Britain!) - that vexillations were implied on the Castus stone.  I even pointed to works like that of Robert Saxer, who had found dozens of instances of what he assumed were implied vexillations in inscriptions.  However, if we accept the huge force assembled by Severus and allow for all three legions to have been involved, then we can accept the reading of the Castus stone literally: he was put in charge of the three British legions under Caracalla.

We might then simply say this: after his successful stint as dux under Severus, Castus was placed over the province of Liburnia.  Now, we need not insist on the foundation of Liburnia at this time.  It is quite possible the province was created c. 170.  And that it continued in existence for some three decades.  Still, I cannot help but think that once the Marcomannic threat was gone, the new province's distinctiveness would have lapsed quite naturally and it would have again become simply a region within Dalmatia.  For this reason we should prefer that Liburnia was formed c. 212 as a response to the Alemannic invasion under Caracalla.

The rather exciting thing about this scenario is that Caracalla would have known Castus.  And it remains true that the ius gladii could only be given to an equestrian governor by the Emperor himself. 

I asked Dr. Benet Salway (the same scholar who had accepted my proposed  ARM.GENTES for the Castus stone as a valid reading, and who thought the Castus stone was Severan in date*) the following question:

"So far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with having Castus fight armed tribes in Britain under Severus and Caracalla, then be made Liburnian procurator under Caracalla.

Right?"

Dr. Salway responded:

"Yes, it is a hypothesis that is consistent with the evidence."

Now, before I close here, it is important that I state that there are other top scholars (like Professor Roger Tomlin) who continue to favor ARMENIOS.  And they may well be right.  Basically, what it comes down to in this particular instance is which do you want to believe?  We have two choices, really:

1) Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion at York in northern England, fights with British legionaries in Armenia and then is made procurator of the newly formed Liburnian province in the face of Germanic invasions

or

2) Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion at York in northern England, fights with British legionaries against the Maeatae and Caledonii confederations and is then made procurator of the newly formed Liburnian province in the face of Germanic invasions (and in the face of a Sarmatian one, incidentally).

Not included in this short list is the Marcellus victory in northern Britain c. 184 and the aftermath of the Deserters' War and the Perennis affair under Commodus (185-187). There was no causative event that would account for the formation of Liburnia at these times - which, at it happens, serves as another argument against reading ARMORICOS for the ARM[...]S lacuna.  Commodus had ended the Marconmannic Wars c. 180. And as for ARMATOS of Malcor, Trinchesse and Faggiani (they have Castus's dux command fall unto the period 187-191, a gap in the known British governors), it can also be discounted, as no emergency was happening in or adjacent to Dalmatia towards the end of Commodus' reign or in 192 when that emperor was assassinated. Needless to say, no record exists for counter-offensive action in northern Britain in 187-191.

Some might cling to the "neatness" of ARMENIOS.  ARM(ATAS) GENTES is not as aesthetically pleasing and would be a "one-off" in inscriptions.  However, there are a great many "one-off" words and phrases in Roman inscriptions.  In fact, even the 'PROC CENT PROVINCIAE LIB' of the Castus stone is a "one-off" example.  Our record is woefully incomplete and what is extant is painfully small. To be honest, then, to insist on ARMENIOS because it is prettier or less clunky does not seem to me to be an especially effective defense of that reading for the lacuna. 

* 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/people/academic-staff/dr-benet-salway

Dear Daniel,

Coming to the stone cold without any presuppositions and basing my opinion purely on the script, I would favour a date in the Severan period (AD 193-235) or up to a decade or so later. I base this on the high degree of ligaturing in the design.

Yours sincerely,

Benet Salway

Dear Daniel,

Leaving aside the Virgil, which as verse is not probative, you have now assembled a convincing body of parallels to argue for your restoration of this lacuna on the epitaph for Artorius Castus.

Well done.

Yours sincerely,

Benet Salway

ARTHUR AND THE MIATHI, ARTORIUS AND THE MAEATAE?

In the Irish sources on Dark Age Dalriada, Arthur son (or grandson) of Aedan mac Gabran is said to die in two different places. Various attempts to explain this difficulty have been attempted. Probably the best is by John Bannerman in his STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF DALRIADA:

loo

https://archive.org/details/studiesinhistory00john/page/n11/mode/1up?q=Miathi

What I found the most interesting about an Arthur fighting the Miathi is that my best identification of the HB's Arthur's Bassas put the battle site at Dunipace. My identification was based on place-name expert John Reid's etymology for Dunipace as hill or fort of the bas/"shallow" and the presence nearby of Arthur's Oven. The oven was probably a Roman building which took on Arthur's name in folklore.

Dunipace itself is in the territory of the Miathi, the Classical period Maeatae. In fact, it is very close to Myot Hill, one of the forts of the Miathi.

Thus in my earlier Arthurian writings I tentatively suggested a link between Arthur of Dalriada in the Miathi lands and the HB Arthur at Dunipace. My thinking then was that Bassas in the HB might represent an intrusion into the battle list from Arthur of Dalriada's martial exploits. Such conflation of the various Arthur's has long been suspected.

But the other day, as I continued working on my newly proposed ARM(ATAS) GENTES reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna in the L. Artorius Castus inscription, something else occurred to me. 

If we adopt (here for the sake of argument) the "armed tribes" reading, these can only be northern tribes in Britain, as Castus is prefect of the Sixth Legion at York leading legionary detachments would have been fighting such. Otherwise, he would have described the foe as being outside Britain. The Sixth was always northern-focused and, indeed, its primary task was to guard the boundary with the North. This probable means all of his own Sixth Legion plus generous vexillations drawn from the other two were utilized.

Given the consensus dating of the stone by all the experts I have consulted with, we are looking at the very tail-end of the Antonine period or, more probably, the Severan. I'm most impressed by Dr. Benet Salway's analysis based on the large number of ligatures in the inscription, which he says is a hallmark of Severan epigraphy.

Two major northern campaigns were fought under Commodus and Severus. The first was spear-headed by Commodus' governor Ulpius Marcellus after a general (probably legate of the Sixth - not the governor, according to Anthony Birley) was killed on the Wall by the tribes. This action was claimed a victory by Commodus on his coins. Yet immediately following there occurred a serious mutiny and Ulpius was recalled. The mutiny was not supposedly quelled until Pertinax's governorship, although he himself barely escaped with his life in the process.

The second, and much larger campaign took place under Severus. The emperor's governor, Virius Lupus, had tried unsuccessfully to tame the Maeatae. Instead, he ended up buying them off. But they did not remain peaceful for long. They attacked to the South again, this time in league with another tribal confederation, the Caledonii. Severus was forced to go to Britain himself and gave orders for the northern tribes to be utterly destroyed. Although his desire for genocide was not accomplished, it is likely a great deal of damage was inflicted upon the tribes. 

What I thought to myself was simply this: wouldn't it be an astonishing coincidence had Artorius fought the Maeatae, the same Maeatae (Miathi) Arthur of Dalriada and/or Arthur of the HB were said to have fought? [Never mind the HB's Caledonian Wood battle and the Caledonii.]

And then I dared go one step further: what if it weren't a coincidence?

What if the folk memory of the genocidal war Artorius engaged in against armed tribes had so impressed itself upon the traditions of the Northern British that later Arthurs were mistakenly, through easily garbled oral history and heroic songs, given a battle against the Maeatae/Miathi that had originally belonged to Artorius?

While this notion is impossible to prove, of course, it is not so hard to believe. It seems, at the very least, somewhat credible.

Now, it is time for me to make an important confession.  I've been working in the Castus inscription pretty steadily since 2019. It has become more than a bit of an obsession. But while I concentrated on the two generally accepted readings - ARMORICOS (since I showed it would fit on the memorial stone) and ARMENIOS - I have always harbored a secret bias for a designation that would allow us to put Castus in northern Britain. 

I feel this way for this reason: if we accept the premise that the Artorius name was preserved in the North only to resurface in the 5th-6th centuries as British Arthur, then it follows that the original bearer of that name must have done something in the North that gave his name currency among the populace. It would have had to be something truly noteworthy. Had Castus been just another Roman officer who had his glory days elsewhere, and who retired in Dalmatia (where there are several Artorii), the idea that his name was preserved in Britain is pretty unsustainable.

Granted, everything rides on that stated premise. And that premise will be rejected by many. It may make others squirm. Both parties would doubtless prefer that the name Arthur is just a name and that its cropping up in Dark Age Britain is no more special than Tom, Dick or Harry popping up at a much later date. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Still, I would add another premise to the first one. Is it unreasonable to assume that had an Artorius been instrumental in the first Hammer of the Scots' (Simon Elliot's term for Severus) exceptionally brutal campaign against the Northern tribes that he might have been remembered in the North well enough for his name to have been preserved among the ruling elite south of the Wall?

I, personally, do not find this unreasonable at all.

Brian Dobson's Chapter on the praefectus castrorum (link to free download)

I'm having to offer this source as follows because Facebook is, apparently, beginning to hunt down and remove anything from my blog site that has quoted material - whether I have permission to quote said material or not.

Dobson's work is fundamental to our understanding of the evolution of the rank and role of the praefectus castrorum in the Roman army.  I highly recommend this source.  The download is free. The relevant discussion starts on p. 413.

https://pdfcoffee.com/dobson-the-significance-of-the-centurion-and-primipilaris-in-the-roman-1974-pdf-free.html

To supplement this book, see Davenport's treatment of the subject here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/l-artorius-castus-praefectus-castrorum.html

I have the permission of Davenport for providing some of his study.  Extensive correspondence will prove this to be so, should Facebook have a problem with this post as well.  

MIGHT ARM.GENTES FOR THE ARM[...]S LACUNA BE A VALID READING AFTER ALL?

[NOTE: For my readers who would like to access a good account of Severus' invasion of Scotland, please see https://history-hub.chalkefestival.com/history-hub/the-scottish-campaigns-of-septimius-severus/.  This article is by the author of the book SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND: THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS OF THE FIRST HAMMER OF THE SCOTS, Dr. Simon Elliott.]

There is one curious thing that makes me lean towards ARM.GENTES: the strange reference in the Dark Age Irish sources to Arthur of Dalriada fighting the Miathi (= the Maeatae). 

The Miathi territory was way too far east for a battle with the Dalriadans. The latter was well beyond the British kingdom of Strathclyde and on the border with Manau of the Gododdin. This battle account reads like a dim folk memory of another Arthur's campaign in the North. Even stranger, the Bassas battle in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM is possibly Dunipace (new work on the name by John Reid and Alan James), etymologized recently as Hill of Fort of the bas, 'shallow'. This site IS DIRECTLY BETWEEN THE TWO FORTS OF THE MIATHI, Myot Hill and Dumyat. In my opinion, this is way too far North for the more famous Dark Age Arthur to have fought.  It is an outlier (along with the Tribruit at North Queensferry) that does not seem to belong with the other battles of the HB list.  Arthur's Oven, a Roman building associated with Arthur in folk belief, is close to Dunipace.

But no one I've talked with about the Maeatae seems all that disposed to making something out of it. They think it is merely coincidence that an Artorius prefect of the Sixth leading legionary forces in the late second or early third century could well have been fighting the Maeatae in the time of Virius Lupus and/or Severus. 

Yet, the Severus campaign was the first "hammer of the North" sort of event (see Simon Elliot's book SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS IN SCOTLAND). The emperor was attempting genocide, if the sources are correct. Something like that would have been remembered for some time, I imagine. A dux in charge of legionary forces in that war of extermination may also have long lingered in the cultural memory.  In the North, he would be a supreme villain.  In the Romanized south, a remarkable hero. 

But is it possible that Castus was that dux?

I put this question to both Prof. Roger Tomlin and Dr. Benet Salway:

In keeping with a possible Severan date for the Castus stone, a question please...

Had Castus participated in the war against the Maeatae during the reign of Severus, might he have been designated dux of legionary forces for the enterprise? If not under Severus himself, then under governor Virius Lupus?

Or would he not have been given such a title if the emperor or governor were in charge or even had one of them been leading the forces against the northern tribes?

I note that no one seems to have a problem with the dux role if we opt for Castus having left for Armenia with the Roman governor of Britain, Statius Priscus. 

It seems Severus brought many soldiers to Britain to supplement what was already there.

Their responses, beginning with Tomlin:

"Birley over-interpreted RIB III, 3509, an altar dedicated by a centurion about to leave for the lower Danube as evidence of Severus bringing troops to Britain – which he undoubtedly did. And a dux would have commanded troops drawn from one legion or more to go on campaign, irrespective of who commanded-in-chief that campaign."

"Yes, a dux might be quite properly used in those circumstances. The term originates to designate the leader of an ad hoc force."

Given that I've been able to support a decent argument in favor of armatas gentes (see

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/12/a-new-reading-for-arms-lacuna-of-l.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/why-armatas-gentes-is-not-too-vague-or.html), and given that Benet Salway prefers a Severan date for the stone, and given that both scholars have no problem with Castus having been dux at this time, have we stumbled on the real reason the Artorius name came to be preserved in the North?

As a reminder, here is Benet Salway's opinion on the age of the Castus memorial stone:

"Coming to the stone cold without any presuppositions and basing my opinion purely on the script, I would favour a date in the Severan period (AD 193-235) or up to a decade or so later. I base this on the high degree of ligaturing in the design."