(https://a.co/d/iymp3aT), I allude to various Hadrian Wall command centers of a possible sub-Roman Arthur. I then attached an Appendix to that volume detailing why I think Stanwix in Cumbria might be the best place to situate such a chieftain. What follows is the text of that Appendix...
Arthur first appears in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM after mention of the accession of Hengist's son to the Kentish throne. I had once pointed out the possibility that the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE'S "Cendlond" for Kent had been confused with the Cindtire of the Irish Annals, where we are told that Arthur son of Bicoir, a Briton, had killed the Irish king Mongan. I was wondering at the time if this could mean that the Arthur could be Arthur son of Bicoir. Never mind that his date fell well after previous Arthurs.
The idea was not received well - and for good reason. It is overly simplistic.
Hengist and Horsa, "Stallion and Horse", founders of Kent, are believed to be either mythical figures or evidence of a tribal horse totem. I have suggested they might be Germanicized versions of early British rulers of Kent, like the attested Atrebatan king Epillus (a horse name).
But here is where things get, well, strange.
I've stressed time and time again that there must be a very good reason why all the Dark Age Arthurs subsequent to the Arthur of the HB (and of the ANNALES CAMBRIAE) belonged to Irish-founded dynasties in western Britain. Over the years I've tried to explain this mystery in various ways, but I wasn't satisfied with any of my attempts. Other scholars either likewise failed to account for the Irish element in the early Arthurian tradition or they downplayed it or even chose to ignore it completely.
At first the only solution to the "Irish Problem" that seemed to present itself focused on the name Arthur being brought into Dyfed and Dalriada in two different ways.
The Dessi genealogy for the Dyfed kings had an Artchoirp or "bear-body" several generations before Arthur son of Petr. Maybe the Roman Artorius, British Arthur, was adopted as a decknamen by a royal family with a fondness for bear names. Of course, this did not help us determine who an earlier purely British Arthur may have been.
When we go to Dalriada, we know Aedan, either the father or grandfather of an Arthur, had married the niece of a British king and they had a daughter named Maithgemma. This last is a word for bear in Irish, and so it is thought that the British name Arthur entered the Dalriadan royal family through a marriage connection with the Strathclyde Britons, quite possibly via an alliance with a king who resided at Alclud, the Rock of Clyde, called Petra Cloithe in the Life of Adamnan. Again, though, we learn nothing through such a connection about the original Arthur.
Unless, of course, we resort to my abandoned theory on a Strathclyde Dumnonian Arthur, son of Ceredig Wledig, called the the cruel tyrant (= Uther Pendragon?), transferred in legend to the kingdom of the southern Dumnonii. Note that I could not square a Strathclyde Arthur with my identifications for the Arthurian battle sites.
How about we let go of the name Arthur for a moment, and instead concentrate on an overlooked and extremely interesting coincidence concerning Kent, Dyfed and Dalriada?
I've already discussed Kent's association with horses. Well, Kintyre was the home of the Roman period Epidii, the Horse People. At the head of the Dalriadan pedigree is one Eochaid (an Irish horse name) Muinremuir. A clan name in Scottish Kintyre preserves the name Echtigern or Horse-lord.
When it comes to Dyfed, we find an Eochaid Allmuir at the head of the Dessi genealogy. We also have preserved in the Welsh mythology Pryderi of Dyfed, earlier called Gwri Golden-mane, for whom a foal was substituted at birth. And we have Rhiannon, the Divine Queen, a horse goddess identified by scholars of Celtic religion with Epona. Manawydan of Dyfed, if indeed the Welsh counterpart of the Irish sea god Manannan, would also have strong equine associations.
[We should remember that the Arthur birth story was undoubtedly lifted by Geoffrey of Monmouth from the Irish story of Mongan's birth (yes, the same character of that name who was killed by Arthur son of Bicoir!), wherein it is Mannanan mac Lir who transforms into the likeness of a queen's husband in order to beget a princely child upon her.]
In the past, I had noticed what appeared to be the odd concurrence of Arthur son of Bicoir's stone, the rock of Petra Cloithe and the Petr father of the Dyfed Arthur. What may only superficially have seemed like a folk motif became more compelling when I learned that Stanwix ("Stone Town") in Cumbria, the site of the largest cavalry fort in all of Britain, while officially called Uxellodunum, was also known anciently by its nickname Petrianis.
This nickname (thought by some scholars to be a ghost name, although Mark Hassall agrees with me based on comparative evidence that it might have been called thus) is derived from the name of the 1,000-horse strong Ala Petriana unit that garrisoned the fort for centuries, including in the late period. Petriana, in turn, was named for the group's original commander, one of whose names was Petra.
Why is this significant?
Because in the 1700's, Petrianis was known as Arthuriburgum, "Arthur's Fort." * Bear in mind this was a sort of revelation, as Camboglanna was just to the east of Stanwix, while Aballava (Avalon) and Congavata (Grail Castle) were just to the west.
I'd written a great deal on Stanwix, especially in regards to its possible Dark Age reuse. But more important, pethaps, than the archaeological debate swirling around the town** was the description of the fort and its unit given by top Roman military scholars:
To begin, there was this from Shepherd Frere:
“The western sector of the Wall was the most dangerous… both on account of the nature of the ground and because of the hostile population beyond it. It is not surprising to find, then, that at Stanwix near Carlisle was stationed the Ala Petriana… Such regiments are always found on the post of danger; and the prefect of this Ala was the senior officer in the whole of the wall garrison. Here, then, lay Command headquarters, and it has been shown that a signaling system existed along the road from Carlisle to
York, which would enable the prefect at Stanwix to communicate with the legionary legate at York in a matter of minutes.”
Dr. Roger Tomlin commented on Frere:
"I would agree with Frere on anything – and indeed, I often did. I even dug for him once, on an excavation.
Stanwix was certainly the base of the ala Petriana, the only milliary ala in Britain, so its prefect would have been senior to the other prefects and tribunes on the Wall. Its geographical location also is significant, as Frere says."
From Professor Anthony Birley on the Ala Petriana at Stanwix:
"That the praef. alae Petrianae at Stanwix was the "senior officer" of the Wall garrison is simply a statement of fact: he was the only prefect of an ala milliaria in the entire province and thus was in the quarta militia, the elite highest grade for equestrian officers, probably only created in the early 2nd century. For the regiment see e.g. M.G. Jarrett in the journal Britannia for 1994. Whether this officer ex officio "controlled" the Wall is another matter; but he no doubt at least had the authority to give orders in an emergency without having to wait for authorization from the legionary legate at York (from Caracalla = at the same time the governor of Britannia Inferior) or the consular governor of undivided Britain further south."
And from M.G. Jarrett's article, cited by Prof. Birley above:
"It [the unit] was in Britain in the Flavian period, probably arriving with the other reinforcements brought by Cerealis in 71. A tombstone (RIB 1172) which lacks the titles milliaria c.R. presumably relates to the first occupation of Corbridge or that of the earlier site at Beaufront Red House... An inscription from Carlisle which records a single torque (RIB 957) has no intrinsic dating evidence; but by a date late in the reign of Trajan a second torque had been awarded. We have, therefore, evidence that under Trajan at the latest the unit was at Carlisle; by that time it had become milliaria... In the second scheme for Hadrian's Wall the ala Petriana was probably moved to a new fort at Stanwix, across the Eden from Carlisle. It is not attested on any inscription, though there is a lead seal (RIB 2411.84); the size of the fort is appropriate to an ala milliaria and there was no other such unit in Britain. Nothing suggests that the ala ever left Stanwix... The ala Petriana was still at Stanwix when the Notitia was compiled."
From those treatments of Petrianis, we can see that it was the most important fort on Hadrian's Wall. But could it have belonged to the famous Arthur?
Well, if we accept that there might have been a genuine or legitimization-based tradition that Arthur had descended from the Roman period garrison of the fort, a garrison that represented the largest cavalry group in the island, then we could assume that a Petr of horse-loving Dyfed might name his son after this Arthur. And we might likewise allow for an Aedan of horse-loving Kintyre and his British wife from Petra Cloithe naming a son after the same Petrianan hero.
I would go one step farther. Might a sub-Roman version of the Dux Britanniarum have ruled from York? And might that governor of northern Britain have utilized an elite cavalry force at Petrianis for battles against the English? A force commanded by Arthur?
Welsh tradition knows of an Arthur Penuchel of the North (note that W. Uchel derives from the same Brirish word found in the form uxello- in the Uxellodunum fort name). He is made the son of Eliffer of York - granted, only in a corrupt Triad.***
Too far-fetched? Perhaps. But the scenario I have constructed above does have the benefit of unifying some noteworthy traditional themes into a coherent narrative. I myself can live with this proposed historical paradigm, although knowing the Arthurian community as well as I do, I can expect little or no agreement among its members in regard to its potential validity.
I can say, in conclusion, that it is unlikely L. Artorius Castus can be retained in such a context merely because he was of the equestrian class.
*
ETTERBY AS ARTHUR'S BURG
Etterby, in the parish of Stanwix, was called Arthur’s burg, according to Joseph Nicolson and Richard Burn’s _History and Antiquities of the County of Westmorland and Cumberland, Vol. 2, 1977, p. 454 (information courtesy Stephen White of the Carlisle Library):
“Etterby in old writings is called Arthuriburgum, which seems to imply that it had been a considerable village. Some affirm, that it took its name from Arthur king of the Britons, who was in this country about the year 550 pursuing his victories over the Danes and Norwegians. But there are no remains of antiquity at or near this place to justify such a conjecture.”
This passage was discussed by Joseph Ritson in his _The Life of King Arthur: From Ancient Historians to Authentic Documents_, 1825:
“Etterby [a township, in the parish of Stanwix, in Eskdale-ward, Cumberland], in old writings is called Arthuri burgum [Arthurs-borough], which seems to imply that it had been a considerable village. Some affirm, its name from Arthur, king of the Britons, who was in this country, about the year 550, pursuing his victories over the Danes and Norwegians [r. the Saxons, the ‘Danes and Norwegians’ did not arrive in Britain for three centuries after the death of Arthur]”.
Later on, the various Bulmer directories of the 19th century mention this same tradition of Etterby as Arthur’s Fort. I suspect that the tradition is in error only in so much as it identifies Etterby as Arthur’s Fort, which in reality that designation should be applied to the neighboring Roman period milliary cavalry fort of Stanwix.
Nicolson and Burn may have been correct in their assessment of Etterby as wholly lacking ‘remains of antiquity’: according to Humphrey Welfare, Planning and Development Director, North, English Heritage, “the evidence from excavation has been too slender to confirm a tentative suggestion” as to what kind of Roman camp – if any - may once have existed at Etterby. Durham University’s Project Manager of Archaeological Services, Richard Annis, confirms this, saying that “While it has been suggested that there might be a Roman camp at Etterby, no evidence for this has been found.”
Tim Padley, Keeper of Archaeology, Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle, informs me that:
“The English Placename Society Place-names of Cumberland Volume 1, page 43, states that Etterby is first seen in 1246 as Etardeby or Etard's land. The name is French of Germanic origin. Etterby Scaur is Etterby Scar in 1794 and refers to the river cliff or scar at Etterby. There is a suggestion of Stanwix Fort - Uxellodunum - continuing into the post-Roman period…Thus, if there is a connection with 'Arthur' then it should be attached to Stanwix, rather than to Etterby."
**
Robert Collins of the Museum of Antiquities at the University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, was kind enough to provide the following regarding Stanwix and its sub-Roman timber structures:
“Stanwix is a tricky one, to be honest. Most of the excavations there have been unpublished, so when a few of us talk about the timber buildings that may be more examples of the timber hall structures (like those from Birdoswald), we are generally relying on word-of-mouth and the brief accounts provided in a few meager sources."
The references for Stanwix (which will be referred to as both Uxellodunum and Petriana) are:
Mike McCarthy 2002. Roman Carlisle and the Lands of the Solway. published by Tempus
The Stanwix section in Paul Bidwell's (ed.) Hadrian's Wall 1989-1999. published by Titus Wilson and Son
Simpson and Hogg 1935 "Stanwix" in Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Soceity, 2nd series, vol 35, pp 256-258
Simpson and Richmond 1940 "Hadrian's Wall: Stanwix" in Journal of Roman Studies, vol 31, pp 129-130
Britannia section of "Excavations in Roman Britain in ..." for 1994, 1998, 1999, and 2000
David Breeze 2006. The 14th Edition of J Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall, published by the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle on Tyne.
The timber features are fairly recent discoveries, so I would recommend the summaries of annual excavations found in the back of the journal Britiannia; the Mike McCarthy book of 2002; and a brief mention in David Breeze's 2006 book.
There is always a hope that the Stanwix excavations that revealed the late Roman/sub-Roman timber structures will be published, but it may still be some years yet and I wouldn't hold your breath. In the meantime, you may be interested to know that the Carlisle Millenium Project excavation report will be available in a few months time (the Carlisle fort being just a stones throw across the river from Stanwix), and they also found very late timber structures there.”
Tim Padley of the Tullie House Museum, Carlisle, summed up the evidence for 5th-6th century timber structures at Stanwix in similar terms:
“There is a suggestion of Stanwix fort – Uxellodunum– continuing into the post-Roman period. Nothing has been published about this other than a mention of timber buildings in the Hadrian’s Wall Pilgrimage Handbook for 1999. Thus, if there is a connection with Arthur, then it should be attached to Stanwix, rather than to Etterby/’Arthur’s fort’ next to Stanwix.”
While brief mention of the timber structures at Stanwix can be found in some of the publications cited by Robert Collins (and in such sources as Durham University Archaeological Services’ PDF on ‘Stanwix’, English Heritage’s Investigation History of the same site, etc.), the most valuable contribution to a general discussion of re-use of this fort and others along the Wall, as well as several forts in the Brigantian kingdom, is to be found in two papers by Ken Dark of the University of Reading.
In “A Sub-Roman Re-defense of Hadrian’s Wall?” (Britannia, XXIII, 111-20), Dr. Dark begins by saying that:
“… eight fourth-century fort sites on, or close to, the line of Hadrian’s Wall have produced, albeit sometimes slight, evidence of fifth-sixth-century use. Nor is this simply a reflection of a pattern found father north; for no Roman fort site in what is now Scotlandhas any plausible evidence of immediately post-Roman use. Thus the situation to the north of the Wall is similar to that found in Wales.
What is more surprising still is the character of the reuse found on the line of the Wall. Two sites, Housesteads and Corbridge, have evidence not only of internal occupation, but of re-fortification; at Birdoswald there are the well-known ‘halls’, while at Chesterholm a Class-I inscribed stone of the late fifth or early sixth century come from the immediate vicinity of the fort. At South Shields there is also evidence of re-fortification, and there is an external inhumation cemetery. Another Class-I stone was identified by C.A.R. Radford at Castlesteads [I have rendered the inscription of this stone in my book]. At Binchester immediately to the south of the Wall, and at Carvoran, Benwell ,and Housesteads on its line, there are early Anglo-Saxon burials or finds, while at Chesters and Chesterholm (perhaps sixth century) Anglo-Saxon annular brooches come from within the forts, although these may be somewhat later in date than the other material so far mentioned.
At the western terminal of the Wall, a town-site, Carlisle, though not necessarily primarily military in the Late Roman period, has also produced substantial evidence of sub-Roman occupation, with continued use of Roman-period buildings into the fifth, if not sixth, century. Many scholars accept that Carlisle was part of the late fourth-century Wall-system, perhaps even its headquarters, and at Corbridge, the other town-site intimately connected with the Wall, fifth-and sixth century material has also been found, including, perhaps, evidence of continuing British and Anglo-Saxon use. In the North as a whole, fifth- or sixth-century evidence from what had been Late Roman towns is not common. York, Aldborough, Malton, and Catterick are our only other examples. Two of these sites (York and Malton) were part of the same Late Roman military command as Hadrian’s Wall: that of the Dux Britanniarum.
It is interesting that, of the sites at Manchester and Ribchester– between the Mersey and Carlisle the only fort-sites known to have possible fifth- or sixth-century evidence – Ribchester was not only part of the command of the Dux Britanniarum, but also listed as per lineum ualli in the Notitia Dignitatum. It is, therefore, remarkable that out of the twelve fourth-century Roman military sites in northern and western Britain to have produced convincingly datable structural, artefactual, or stratigraphic evidence of fifth- or sixth-century occupation, eleven were, almost certainly, part of the Late Roman military command. Eight of these were probably within the same part of that command, and eight comprise a linear group (the only regional group) which stretches along the whole line of Hadrian’s Wall from east to west. The two more substantial late fourth-century settlements adjacent to the Wall – Carlisle and Corbridge– have also produced fifth- and sixth-century evidence and two of the other towns with such evidence were also late fourth-century strategic centers under the military command of the Dux.”
After setting forth these facts, and discussing them, Dr. Dark offers a rather revolutionary idea:
“Although it is difficult, therefore, to ascertain whether the military project which I have described was the work of an alliance or a north British kingdom or over-kingdom, there does seem to be reason to suppose that it may have represented a post-Roman form of the command of the Dux Britanniarum…
This archaeological pattern, however it is interpreted, is of the greatest interest not only to the study of the fifth- and sixth-century north of Britain, but to that of the end of Roman Britain and the end of the Western Roman Empire as a whole. It may provide evidence for the latest functioning military command of Roman derivation in the West, outside the areas of Eastern Imperial control, and could be testimony to the largest Insular Celtic kingdom known to us.”
In his and S. P. Dark’s paper “New Archaeological and Palynological Evidence for Sub-Roman Reoccupation of Hadrian’s Wall” (Archaeologia Aeliana 5, XXIV), Dr. Dark elegantly rebutts P.J. Casey’s argument for a re-interpretation of the reuse and re-fortification of the Wall and its associated forts. His conclusion for this paper reads as follows:
“If one adopts the interpretation that the Wall forts were reused in the later fifth-early sixth century for a series of sub-Roman secular elite settlements, then the associated problems involved in explaining this new evidence of occupation at that time disappear…
So, the interpretation that the Wall became a series of secular elite settlements, discontinuous from the Late Roman activity at the forts within which they were sited, is compatible with the evidence of pollen analysis, while the alternative interpretations are both rendered unlikely by it. This does not, of course, make the suggestion that this reoccupation represents the sub-Roman reconstruction of the Command of the Dux Britanniarum any more likely, but the pattern on which that interpretation is based has been strengthened, rather than weakened, by the new archaeological data, whilst the evidence also hints at a similar reoccupation with regard to the signal stations of the Yorkshire coast and their headquarters at Malton.
Perhaps, then, at last one is able to see answers to many of the most century evidence from what had been Late Roman towns is not common. York, Aldborough, Malton, and Catterick are our only other examples. Two of these sites (York and Malton) were part of the same Late Roman military command as Hadrian’s Wall: that of the Dux Britanniarum.
It is interesting that, of the sites at Manchester and Ribchester– between the Mersey and Carlisle the only fort-sites known to have possible fifth- or sixth-century evidence – Ribchester was not only part of the command of the Dux Britanniarum, but also listed as per lineum ualli in the Notitia Dignitatum. It is, therefore, remarkable that out of the twelve fourth-century Roman military sites in northern and western Britain to have produced convincingly datable structural, artefactual, or stratigraphic evidence of fifth- or sixth-century occupation, eleven were, almost certainly, part of the Late Roman military command. Eight of these were probably within the same part of that command, and eight comprise a linear group (the only regional group) which stretches along the whole line of Hadrian’s Wallfrom east to west. The two more substantial late fourth-century settlements adjacent to the Wall – Carlisle and Corbridge– have also produced fifth- and sixth-century evidence and two of the other towns with such evidence were also late fourth-century strategic centers under the military command of the Dux.”
After setting forth these facts, and discussing them, Dr. Dark offers a rather revolutionary idea:
“Although it is difficult, therefore, to ascertain whether the military project which I have described was the work of an alliance or a north British kingdom or over-kingdom, there does seem to be reason to suppose that it may have represented a post-Roman form of the command of the Dux Britanniarum…
This archaeological pattern, however it is interpreted, is of the greatest interest not only to the study of the fifth- and sixth-century north of Britain, but to that of the end of Roman Britain and the end of the Western Roman Empire as a whole. It may provide evidence for the latest functioning military command of Roman derivation in the West, outside the areas of Eastern Imperial control, and could be testimony to the largest Insular Celtic kingdom known to us.”
In his and S. P. Dark’s paper “New Archaeological and Palynological Evidence for Sub-Roman Reoccupation of Hadrian’s Wall” (Archaeologia Aeliana 5, XXIV), Dr. Dark elegantly rebutts P.J. Casey’s argument for a re-interpretation of the reuse and re-fortification of the Wall and its associated forts. His conclusion for this paper reads as follows:
“If one adopts the interpretation that the Wall forts were reused in the later fifth-early sixth century for a series of sub-Roman secular elite settlements, then the associated problems involved in explaining this new evidence of occupation at that time disappear…
So, the interpretation that the Wall became a series of secular elite settlements, discontinuous from the Late Roman activity at the forts within which they were sited, is compatible with the evidence of pollen analysis, while the alternative interpretations are both rendered unlikely by it. This does not, of course, make the suggestion that this reoccupation represents the sub-Roman reconstruction of the Command of the Dux Britanniarum any more likely, but the pattern on which that interpretation is based has been strengthened, rather than weakened, by the new archaeological data, whilst the evidence also hints at a similar reoccupation with regard to the signal stations of the Yorkshire coast and their headquarters at Malton.
Perhaps, then, at last one is able to see answers to many of the most pressing questions regarding what happened in north Britain, and more specifically on Hadrian’s Wall, in the fifth and sixth centuries…
The answer to all of these questions may lie in the rise and fall of a reconstructed Late Roman military command, unique in Britain, which was organized in a sub-Roman fashion reliant upon the loyal warbands of warrior aristocrats (and Anglo-Saxon mercenaries) rather than paid regular soldiers. The organizing authority of this system, probably a king of the sub-Roman Brigantes, assigned a politico-military role to the defended homesteads of these elites, and (as in the location of churches at disused forts, through land-grants?) positioned these at what had been Roman fort sites, but which were (at least substantially) deserted by the time when they were reused in this way. Thus, the ‘Late Roman’ Wall communities dispersed during the first half of the fifth century, but the Wall – and perhaps the north generally – was redefended in the later fifth and early-mid sixth century on very different lines, yet not completely without regard for the Late Roman past.”
***
Eliffer’s wife Efrddyl, daughter of Cynfarch son of Merchiaun, is said to have had three children: Gwrgi, Peredur and either Ceindrech or Arddun Benasgell (sometimes called 'Wing-head'; however, as asgell can also mean 'spear' or even 'wing of an army', her epithet may mean instead either 'Spear-head', a reference to her weapon, or 'Spear-chieftain', or even 'Chieftain of the Army Wing'). Arddun is elsewhere said to be the daughter of Pabo Post Prydyn. But in the slightly corrupt Jesus College MS. 20, Arddun’s name is replaced by ARTHUR PENUCHEL.
Pabo Post Pryden is the eponym for the Papcastle Roman fort in Cumbria.
Rachel Bromwich discussed this supposed corruption in her revised edition of ‘The Triads of the Island of Britain”, and I am quoting her here in full:
“Ardun Pen Askell is probably the correct form of the name of the sister of Gwrgi and Peredur… But if is likely that it is this name which has been corrupted to arthur penuchel in Jes. Gens. 20… The manuscript is of the turn of the 14th/15th century, but with indications of having been copied from an earlier exemplar… These points suggest that the triad may be as old as any that have been preserved in the earlier collections… And in fact the context in which the triad is cited in Jes. Gens. 20 points to the probable source which inspired its composition This is the allusion to the progeny of Nefyn daughter of Brychan which is contained in the tract De Situ Brecheniauc, preserved in a thirteenth century manuscript, which has been copied from one of perhaps the eleventh century.”
Cynfarch lies at the head of the Rheged dynasty, a kingdom whose nucleus was in Annandale, but which spread throughout Cumbria and northern England in the time of Urien. In other words, Rheged came to embrace the region in which Stanwix is located.
