The Core Battles of Arthur Dux Bellorum in Flavia Caesariensis

 

The Core Battles of Arthur Dux Bellorum in Flavia Caesariensis
by Dane Pestano

In this essay I will continue the work of Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews and explore the battles of Arthur against the Saxons as detailed in the Historia Brittonum, written in around 829AD and suggest that the author of the original battle list was placing most of the battles in the late Roman province of Flavia Caesariensis. This encompassed an area north of the river Thames to south of the river Humber. The placement of late Roman provinces is debated so differing opinions exist as to the validity of the maps shown, but this does not effect the placement of the battles predominantly in the midlands. The main references for this work will be Jackson's seminal piece Once Again Arthur's Battles (1945) and more fully Keith J Fitzpatrick-Matthews' more up to date summary of the scholarly input over the last 100 years or so – The Arthurian Battle Listof the Historia Brittonum (unpublished) in which he suggests a similar grouping of seven of Arthur's battles.

I will use maps to show the placement of Saxon settlements, rebellions and movement of the battles along the Roman road systems, something that has been lacking in most studies of the battles but was attempted by Matthews who created a basic map of Arthur's battles in the context of Flavia Caesariensi and the north. 

An attempt to place Arthur's battles into a context of fifth and sixth century Britain should be attempted although we must understand that whoever compiled the list in the eighth to ninth centuries would have described the battles in the orthography of the time.

The Saxons had arrived in Britain as federates in around 465 according to Gildas and had broken out of their settlements in the east to pillage the towns along the Roman road systems in the early 470's. We know from Gildas that St Albans (Verulamium) was one of these towns in Flavia Caesariensis and the other Chester at opposite ends of the of the territory (It was thought this may have been Caerleon, Newport, South Wales, in Secunda, but see later below) . Gildas in effect was telling us where the extent of the troubles was. Ambrosius had begun the fightback in the mid 470's and must have managed to pacify south eastern Flavia Caesariensis in his campaigns as none of Arthur's battles are in this part, ie north east of the Thames to the Ouse in East Anglia. Britannia Prima, the whole region south of the Thames may have escaped any major troubles, perhaps only Kent being problematical although this area may in fact have been more Frankish, rather than Saxon in our period as the archaeology indicates. The following map shows the early perceived Saxon cemeteries in Britain reflecting where they lived and you can see from this that they were mainly billeted in Flavia Caesariensis and I have added the probable rebellion routes.

The campaigns of Ambrosius may have taken a few years from the 470's onwards. During this time Britons and Saxons fought many battles, sometimes the Britons winning, sometimes the Saxons, until the decisive British victory at Badon. Arthur's battles then must have taken place between the 490's to around 516-518, when the battle of Badon is said to have taken place in the Weslh annals, although this late a date is contested.

To summarise then, Gildas tells us where the major troubles took place, defining the extent between St Albans and Chester. The majority of Arthur’s battles, as we shall shortly see, also took place between these places and further to this the battles look tactically sound when compared to the Anglo Saxon settlements of the time and their expansion during the rebellion as they followed the Roman roads.

Here is Mathews' reconstruction of the text of the HB which I will follow. His change of Agned to Breguoin and addition of traith being of no consequence to the battle campaigns:

in illo tempore saxones inualescebant in multitudine et crescebant in britannia. mortuo autem hengisto, octha filius eius transiuit de sinistrali parte britanniae ad regnum cantuariorum et de ipso orti sunt reges cantuariorum. tunc arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum. primum bellum fuit in ostium fluminis quod dicitur glein. secundum et tertium et quartum et quintum super aliud flumen quod dicitur dubglas et est in regione linnuis. sextum bellum super flumen quod uocatur bassas. septimum fuit bellum in silua celidonis, id est cat coit celidon. octauum fuit bellum in castello guinnion, in quo arthur portauit imaginem sanctae mariae semper uirginis super humeros suos et pagani uersi sunt in fugam in illo die et caedes magna fuit super illos per uirtutem domini nostri iesu christi et per uirtutem sanctae mariae genetricis eius. nonum bellum gestum est in urbe legionis. decimum gessit bellum in litore fluminis quod uocatur *traith tribruit. undecimum bellum in monte qui dicitur breguoin, *id est cat bregion. duodecimum fuit bellum in monte badonis, in quo corruerunt in uno die dccccxl uiri de uno impetu arthur; et nemo prostrauit eos nisi ipse solus, et in omnibus bellis uictor extitit.

At that time the Saxons grew strong from their increased numbers in Britain. On the death of Hengist, his son Octa travelled from the north of Britain to Kent and from him are the kings of Kent descended. Then Arthur, with the kings of the Britons, fought against them in those days and he was the leader of battles.

* His first battle was at the mouth of the river called Glein.

* The second, third, fourth and fifth battles were on/beside another river called Dubglas and is in the region Linnuis.

* The sixth battle was on/beside the river which is called Bassas.

The seventh battle was in the wood called Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon.

The eighth battle was at the fort called Guinnion and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting Virgin, on his shield, and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was great slaughter upon them, through the power of Jesus Christ and the power of the holy Virgin Mary, his mother.

* The ninth battle was fought in the city of the Legion

The tenth battle was fought on the shore of the river called traith Tribruit

The eleventh battle was at the mount/ain called Breguoin, that is cat Bregion.

* The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one charge by Arthur 940 men and no one laid them low save he alone and he was victorious in all his battles.

* From the above we can see that the first six of the battles could certainly be placed in Flavia Caesariensis according to current consensus. Lets examine them briefly.

His first battle was at the mouth of the river called Glein.

Glein is derivative of Brittonic *glano-, 'pure, clear‘, with a suffix -io- or -iā (Jackson 1945, 46). Names deriving from Old Welsh *glinn, 'valley‘, or its Old Irish cognate *glenn, 'valley‘ cannot be derivatives and so places such as the Great Glen near Leicester can be dismissed. The consensus is that the Northumberland or Lincolnshire river Glen's are indicated. Obviously a choice of the Lincolnshire Glen would appear correct when the placement of the other battles are considered.

The second, third, fourth and fifth battles were on/beside another river called Dubglas and in the region Linnuis.

Dubglas is derived from Brittonic *duboglasso-, 'blue-black‘ (Jackson 1945, 46) and the region Linnuis has been safely identified as Lindsey by Thomas Green and others. Lindsey would have mainly incorporated the area east of Lincoln city and some territory around Lincoln a few miles to the west and southwest. The river Dubglas has not been identified but a possibility may be the river Devon, a southern tributary of the Trent or the river Witham. The idea of Arthur attacking them first at the Glen, pushing remnants of the Saxons northwards and then in Lindsey once the remnants had joined with these would seem to explain the number of battles that took place here.

The sixth battle was on/beside the river which is called Bassas.

The river Bassas has not been identified securely enough but Matthews suggests Baschurch in Shropshire as a good possibility :

“Most writers have found this site to be unlocatable. However, Crawford suggested Baschurch, Shropshire, as the site intended; the place is probably named in Canu Heledd as Eglwysseu Bassa, the site of Cynddylan‘s stafell or hall. It is unclear whether an Old English place name Baschurch was translated into Old Welsh by the poet of Canu Heledd or whether the Old English form is a translation from an Old Welsh original: either way, it is possible to accept either Jackson‘s or Isaac‘s different etymologies......Whilst the name has proved problematical for other writers, the identification with the Eglwysau Bassa of Canu Heledd is attractive; the cultural milieu of the author of the Historia Brittonum was the same as that in which the Canu Heledd were composed or (if a seventh-century origin for the cycle be preferred) modernised and the name would probably have been familiar to the author.”

There is a Bassingham eight miles south of Lincoln but as four of the battles are already said to be in Lindsey Bassingham may not be relevant. Baschurch though is not ideal if Bassas was part of the same campaign as the previous five battles as Arthur would have to traverse most of Flavia Caesariensis to get there and would certainly encounter Saxon foes along the way. Perhaps the order of battle list has been changed for poetic license. We could though envisage a separate western Campaign. This would explain some of the anomalies such as the following battle

The seventh battle was in the wood called Celidon, that is Cat Coit Celidon.

This has always been taken to mean the Caledon wood in the southern Scotland uplands and it's difficult to move away from this consensus. Ptolemy had placed it even further north among the highland Picts. The great wood in the midlands appears to have been called just that 'woods' which could indicate it's British name was of the same degree. So we must either envisage a separate northern campaign or accept that it must have been the wood of the midlands. In a ninth century view we would have to side with the northern Caledonian Forest. We should not forget though that Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester) in the south means inhabitants of the woods, so dismissing the rest of Britain in favour of the northern Caledonia may well be fallacious. In support of a great Midlands forest possibly extending all the way to Shropshire, Frank Reno suggests the `men of Argoed' are the men of the Celidon wood, a forest now called Clun but it could just as well be the forest of Galtres north of York which might make some sense if the Caledonian battle was original to the list, and possibly the same as Geoffrey of Monmouth's forest Calaterium (Ashley 2010).

This battle is also compared to mythical Welsh tales and a battle of the woods and so in effect may have been accrued by Arthur. As we shall see, all the problematical battles outside of Flavia Caesariensis have been culled from Welsh myth. Matthews comments :

“Given the fact that Coed Celyddon is so well known and well located around the headwaters of the Rivers Clyde and Tweed in Welsh literature, it is difficult to see why some commentators have struggled to find locations outside the southern uplands of Scotland; certainly most agree on this identification. Coed Celyddon is particularly associated with Myrddin, the Merlin of legend, and appears in poems such as Yr Afallennau, Ymddiddan, Geoffrey of Monmouth‘s Vita Merlini and Ystorya Trystan. As such, there can be little doubt of its location..”

The eighth battle was at the fort called Guinnion

The location of Guinnion has eluded all researchers to this point with no satisfactory candidate being found to satisfy etymological arguments. In this regard Venonae / Vennonae/Vennonis has been overlooked. Standing at an important strategic Roman crossroads twelve miles south of Ratae (Leicester) it would make sense for the Saxons to hold this fort or small town at the crossroads of Watling street and the Fosse Way. In the context of Arthur's battles so far (other than Caledonian) it would also make sense as Arthur would be heading along the Fosse Way south, passing through Ratae and the forest and then onto Vennonis. Vennonis itself appears to mean the settlement in the woods, having the same root as Venedotia, a name which became Guinet and then Gwynedd. In a similar way Vennonis could become Guinnion negating any need for the name to derive from Brittonic *uindion-, 'white'. Christopher Gwinn on the Facebook king Arthur group has suggsted the etymology might work in this way: 

"Assuming that the name is rendered correctly in the sources, Uenonis would give Old Welsh *Guenon, while Uēnonis (with a long -e-) would give OW *Guoinon or *Guuinon. Whether or not this could be corrupted into Guinnion is a matter of conjecture, but I would lean towards no; however, *Guuinon, with all its minims, would be the most susceptible to corruption into Guinnion (so, it's not impossible).."

Occupation of Vennonae is known all the way up to the beginning of the fifth century due to archaeological coin evidence of the emperor Honorius, suggesting there was continued fifth century occupation. This would add a seventh battle to the region of Flavia Caesariensis. 

 ..and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting Virgin, on his shield, and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was great slaughter upon them, through the power of Jesus Christ and the power of the holy Virgin Mary, his mother..

The addition of the religious aspects of Arthur carrying an image of the virgin Mary in this battle dates these additional words to a period after the beginning of the seventh century as the cult of Mary was not evident in Britain or Ireland before this time. The addition of the word 'Pagani' here also suggests a later date as this word was used of the Vikings, so a late eighth to early ninth century date for this addition may be more applicable. In fact it may have been added therefore when the HB was written. 

The ninth battle was fought in the city of the Legion.

Matthews sums up the evidence :

“The name is pure Latin and means 'city of the legion‘, from which it has been identified with the legionum urbis/ciuitatem legionum and carlegion of Gildas and Bede (de Excidio Britanniae 10; Historia Ecclesiastica II.2), the cair legion of Historia Brittonum §66a and the urbis legion/cair legion of the Annales Cambrię. The possibility that the text originally contained an Old Welsh version, *cair legion, should not be dismissed automatically, although it is found only in the Vatican recension....Once again, a relatively high level of confidence can be expressed in an identification with Chester.”

This place can be no other than Chester and in the context of the eighth to ninth century even more so. This ads then an eighth battle to the region of Flavia Caesariensis and we can now map them as described. From this map you can see the extent of Arthur's core battles. Matthews' asserts that the carlegion of Gildas is indeed Chester and not Caerleon.

Arthurs core battles in Caesariensis. Red areas are the Saxon cemeteries /Settlements

The tenth battle was fought on the shore of the river called traith Tribruit.

The name comes from Middle Welsh, tryfrwyd, meaning 'pierced through', and consists of *tri- 'through, very, excessive‘, compounded with Old Welsh *bruit, 'pierced, broken' (Jackson 1945,51). Unfortunately the location of this battle has eluded everyone but a northern location was favoured until Koch's input. Matthews comments:

“John Koch (1997, 178) has identified the vanawyt of Y Gododdin line 35 with the manawid of Pa Gur, yv y Porthaur? who brought back the broken spear from Traith Tribruit, and suggests that his kingdom lay in the east, in what is now England. If this be accepted, there is no longer any reason to insist that traith tribruit lay in Y Gogledd. This leaves the identification of the battle site completely open, although it is clear that the name was well known in early Welsh saga..”

So interestingly Tribruit may lie in Eastern England and again this battle is associated with Welsh myth. Placing it in Flavia Caesariensis though has proven to be difficult. Perhaps the Trent is indicated but there is not enough evidence to locate this battle. It may be another battle that Arthur acquired when the poem or battle list was being formed.

The eleventh battle was at the mount/ain called Breguoin, that is cat Bregion.

The usual place of this battle is said to be Agned and Agned would be a good suggestion for the rhyming scheme. Agned is usally placed in the north but Matthews suggests a corruption from 'breguoin, id' to Agned which has some merit. Whether this holds up is not as yet known but either way the battle is said to be in the north at Bremenium. Matthews comments :

“the name is clearly the same as that of the Roman auxiliary fort of Bremenium at High Rochester, Northumberland (Jackson 1959, 4). This was also the scene of a battle, known as kat gellawr brewyn, 'the battle of the cells of *Bremenio-‘, attributed to Urien of Rheged by the poet of Ardwyre Reget, ryssed rieu”

This battle then by consensus must be outside of Flavia Caesariensis and in the north and again may have been accrued by Arthur. It's clear then that the three battles that cannot be placed within Flavia Caesariensis all have associations with battles not originally attributed to Arthur in Welsh myth – Caledonia with Merlin, Tribruit with Manawid and Agned/Bregion with Urien. Bassas might also be added to this list with its previous association with Cynddylan  This leaves the final Battle which can also be placed within Flavia Caesariensis.

The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one charge by Arthur 940 men and no one laid them low save he alone and he was victorious in all his battles.

Where Badon took place has eluded all comers but placing it into the context of Flavia Caesariensis would appear sensible and Green, favouring a Lincolnshire basis for the battles, places Badon at Baumber but I think this is untenable as four of the battles are already placed around Lincolnshire if not five. The Saxons of the upper Thames valley (later known as the Gewisse) rebelling and taking Cirencester would tactically be a sound acquisition, giving access as it does to Wales and the south west. There were many hill forts in this region. It was originally part of the territory of the Dobunni otherwise known as the Bodunni. One hillfort was in the area of Baunton near Cirencester, deriving from 'Baudintune' mentioned in the Doomsday book. 'tune' is the Anglo Saxon termination, later 'ton' for town. 'Baun' then derives from 'Baudin'. Some suggest this may derive from an Anglo Saxon person called Badd or even Bald for some obscure reasoning that eludes me but an original possibility from Britonnic 'Baud-din' , 'victorius hill' may be acceptable. This location may agree with the general medieval beliefs that the battle took place towards Bath, which is only a fairly short distance southwards. This then would be the ninth battle placed in the region of Flavia Caesariensis.

Conclusions.

Matthews is correct in placing the context of Arthur's battles in Flavia Caesariensis. When looked at with the placement of Anglo Saxon settlements and the Roman road system it all becomes evident that whosoever wrote the battle list was certainly locating the battles in the region that Gildas defined. Only half that region though, the rest appears to have already been secured by Ambrosius if we naturally follow the data the battle list is telling us. Gildas though wasn't thinking in terms of Roman Provinces, probably long forgotten by his time. 

When the Superbus Tyrannus was appointed in the 460's there was still a council in place to decide his appointment and Britain was Roman enough to send an army under Riothamus to help the Romans against Euric in around 469. Does this suggest that Britain still had some provincial system in place at that time? It is not essential to this thesis that they did as the rebellion region appears defined by Gildas and they just happen to fall into the old province of Flavia Caesariensis as defined in these maps.

So where was Arthur based? If the first battle at the Glen in southern Lincolnshire is correct then Arthur's base may have been in Camulodunum, Colchester. Some have suggested Wroxeter at the opposite end of Flavia Caesariensis , a possibility as well if the battles are not in the correct order. Wroxeter and Chester were in the tribal territory of the Cornovi. If the association of Arthur with Cornwall is a dim remembering of this association with the Cornovi of Shropshire we may have his area of origin. All of the battles then that can be located are in Flavia Caesariensis apart from the three or four that appear to be battles acquired by Arthur from Welsh myth and were added to the core of the battle list to give it a rhyming scheme. 

If we follow the order of the battle list with the core battles we can see that Arthur first attacked the Saxons on the Glein as he moved north up Ermine Street towards Lincoln. Saxons fleeing this advance would have approached Lindsey and joined with their compatriots there, necessitating another four battles around Lindsey to finally defeat the combined Saxon forces and push them back beyond Lincoln. As indicated above there may have been separate campaigns over a number of years. One easterly around Lincolnshire. Then the following one towards the midlands and westerly.

Arthur then headed down the Foss way passing through Ratae and the great midlands forest, a possible location for the battle of the Caledonian wood, and then onto the battle at Guinnion Fort at Vennonis. From here he took the north west Watling Street towards Wroxeter and probably picking up reinforcements then attacked the Saxons who guarded the approaches to Chester at Bassas and then onto Chester itself to dislodge the Saxons there. Wintering in the west and in third campaign Arthur heads South.  

With Chester defeated most of what was Flavia Caesariensis was now in British hands and so finally Arthur headed back down the Watling street and onto the Fosse way south to approach the final battle at the Badonic mount near Cirencester. According to Gildas this brought a lasting peace to southern and central Britain until the second half of the sixth century when the plague reduced the Britons to such a state that the Saxons were once more able to expand their influence. These campaigns must have taken place over a few years with other minor battles not mentioned.

In the context of late fifth and early sixth century Britain Arthur's eight or nine core battles look surprisingly authentic, tactically well placed and logically viable. Are we then looking at a genuine core battle list remembered from the sixth to seventh centuries and ultimately derived from battles in the fifth to early sixth century?  My work on Mac Erca has shown that battles were easily accrued and their number even doubled when legend and pseudo-history takes over. That Arthur may have therefore acquired battles from Welsh legend should not be surprising. If four of the battles were obtained from Welsh legend to help the rhyming and increase the list of battles then Bassas was brought in to rhyme with Dubglas/Linnuis, Celidon with Guinnion, Agned with Tribruit?. The rhyming scheme then should like this this...

1.......Glein
2-4....Dubglas
6.......Bassas
7.......Celidon
8.......Guinnion
10.....Tribruit
11.....Agned
9.......Legionis
12.....Badonis

Only Agned and Tribruit appear to be a difficult rhyme showing perhaps that they were both added to the battle list with the others to bring the number to twelve. If Agned were originally Bregion it would spoil the rhyming even more (although Bregion would rhyme well with Guinnion). It's not unusual for the first line of a Welsh poem not to rhyme. This may also indicate that Linnuis may have been an additional gloss as such on the battles of the river Dubglas. Legionis is now in its correct place before Badonis, suggesting again that both Agned and Tribruit were not original to the scheme. 

The original Latin rhyming Scheme

Having at least 4-7 of the battle names ending in 'is' could though lead us onto the original Latin rhyming scheme. These are Linnuis, Celedonis, Legionis and Badonis. We could suggest an earlier Glenis for Glein. Bassas stands out then as a sore thumb and certain addition. Guinnion could originally be Guinonis from Venonis. For 'Tribruit' we might be able to suggest Tribrutis and for 'Bregion' Bremenis but these are problematical so again were probably 'Nennian' additions. The battle of Silva Celidonis though does fit the rhyming scheme and so may have been an original early accrued battle or it was in the midlands. We are again then left with a core of nine original battles. In an earlier Latinised orthography the names and rhyming scheme could be thus : 

1..... fluminis quod dicitur glenis

2-5..... et est in regione linnuis. 
6...... fuit bellum in silua celidonis, 
7......fuit bellum in castello guinnonis,

8......est in urbe legionis. 

9......fuit bellum in monte badonis,

Brief references and reading

Dark K. R. A Sub-Roman Re-Defence of Hadrian's Wall? Britannia, Vol. 23 (1992), pp. 111-120

Dumville, David. Histories and Pseudo Histories of the Insular Middle Ages (Variorum Collected Studies), 1990

Fitzpatrick-Matthews, Keith . The ‘Arthurian battle list’ of the Historia Brittonum, 2014?

Green, T. Concepts of Arthur. Stroud: Tempus, 2013.

                Britons and the Anglo-Saxons Lincolnshire AD 400-600, The History of Lincolnshire  Committee 2012.

Halsall, Guy. Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, OUP Oxford, 2013.

Jackson, K H. Once again Arthur‘s battles. Modern Philology 93, 44-57, 1945

Lane, Alan. Wroxeter and the end of Roman Britain, Antiquity Publications, 2103.

Ashley, Mike, A Brief History of King Arthur. Constable and Robinson 2010.

Mommsen, T Historia Brittonum cum additamentis Nennii. In: Mommsen, T ed.
Monumenta Germaniae Historia Auctorum Antiquissimum XIII Chronicorum Minorum III. Berlin:
Weidmann, 111-222 1898

Wiseman, H M The derivation of the date of the Badon entry in the Annales Cambriae
from Bede and Gildas. Parergon 17, 1-10, 2000

  

Copyright Dane Pestano 2014.

King Arthur in Irish Pseudo-Historical Tradition -Full book

.and the power and strength of Britain was destroyed after him

I have made my book available to all now as a downloadable PDF. Enjoy the story of the Irish Arthur in all his glory, at the correct time in history and in all the right places!

Download the full book here.

Here is the Preface, without the References.

The story of Arthur

The great King Arthur, defeater of Saxons, Picts and Scots, conqueror of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, Gaul and the Orkneys needs no introduction being probably the most famous ancient Briton of all time, but as we will be comparing his life with that of certain Irish legends a brief summary of what is known of his life and their sources would be useful.

     Arthur first appears through the mists of time in the early ninth century work the Historia Brittonum (HB) – the History of the Britons - composed around 829AD. This work was an accumulation of various sources bundled together and rewritten to form a whole narrative history. The work incorporates material concerning a chronology of ancient British events; material on Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelianus, St.Germanus and St.Patrick, Arthur’s battles, Northern British events, the mirablilia and Saxon genealogies.

      In this work then, Arthur’s twelve battles are mentioned for the first time, where he is said to have defeated the Anglo Saxons and won every battle including the famous battle of Badon hill. We also get a glimpse of the mythology that has begun to surround him as he became associated with the landscape due to the similarity of his name to various rock formations. Therefore, he is associated with a Neolithic tomb in Ercing in Wales and to another stone associated with a giant mythical dog of his called Cabal.

     In the HB Arthur is merely called in Latin a dux bellorum or miles, the former meaning a ‘general or leader of battle’ and the latter a ‘soldier’ or ‘mounted warrior’. From this, it has been deduced that he may have been of lower rank than the kings of the Britons he fought for, but this may not be the case. Medieval scribes in copying ancient manuscripts often changed the title of Rex (king) to that of Dux (General) or Comes (Count) as they didn’t recognise the status of the petty king. This was due to the time in which they wrote, not understanding that in the fifth and sixth centuries the whole country would have been full of petty kings and their kingdoms, with several kings occupying small areas that were later amalgamated under one sovereignty. The poetic epithet of dux bellorum (leader of battles) itself was a common enough one in Welsh poetry, suggesting, as many scholars have done, that the Arthur battle list derived from a Welsh poem of the seventh or eighth centuries. The HB was appended to over many years, with some more information on Arthur included, such as glosses to the main work. These made more of his Christian links and offered some puzzling comments concerning his wayward youth. The Irish then wrote their own vernacular version of the HB in the mid eleventh century.

      The next we hear of Arthur is in the tenth century poem The Gododdin[. This poem concerning events of Britons living in what is now southern Scotland around Edinburgh compared one of their heroes Gwawrddur to Arthur, implying that he was not as great as Arthur even though he could kill 300 men. This comparison is based on the battle list in the HB as Arthur was said to be able to kill 960 men in one assault. The poem also shows many more borrowings from the HB so can be dated in its Arthurian form sometime after the HB became widely read. Therefore, for this part a tenth century date seems appropriate even though the manuscript we have now only dates from the thirteenth century. The poem refers to a battle that took place in Scotland in the late sixth century called Catraeth, which is mentioned in the Irish annals as having taken place in 596AD against Saxons incursions into far northern Britain.  Also in the tenth century, we find Arthur mentioned in the Welsh Annals as having fought at Badon in the year 516 and having died in 537 in battle, at the same time as one Medraut (Mordred) but it is possible these are later interpolations to the annals.

       Arthur then reappears next in possibly an early eleventh century text called Vita Goeznovius (circa 1016 but could be later) which has taken material from a continental version of the HB, which detailed his twelve battles against the Saxons and then mentions for the first time his conquest of Gaul and his kingship.

     In around 1120 a Flemish cleric called Lambert of St Omer, in a work entitled Liber Floridus mentions a palace of Arthur situated in Pictland, “built with marvelous art and variety, in which the history of all his exploits and wars are to be seen in sculpture”. These sculptures are most likely those at the Pictish capital Forteviot as opposed to the medieval belief that Arthurs Oven near the river Carron is meant. Soon after this in 1125, William of Malmesbury in the Gesta Regum Anglorum mentions Arthur where he says that Arthur was the subject of “fantastic tales told by the Bretons”. This is then followed by the most famous or infamous work to mention Arthur, the History of the Kings of Britain written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in about 1139. This expands on the legends of Arthur and Geoffrey uses him as a figurehead to appease the British and English who had recently been conquered by the Normans with Breton help. He does this by linking Arthur to Breton descent and envisages the Bretons playing a major role in the conquest of the Saxons as they did in helping the Normans of William the Conqueror defeat Harold.

     Also in this century are other works from the Welsh such as Culhwch and Olwen and other fairy tales that mention Arthur from a group of works now called the Mabinogian.  It was Geoffrey’s work though which was to inspire the later romance tales of Arthur, including as it does mention of Merlin and Mordred and others that became linked with Arthurian legend. It is in this work that Arthur was given a father ‘Uther’, whose deeds are merely a mirror of Arthur’s. It is here we find his wife for the first time, Guinevere, his famous sword Caliburnus, later Excalibur, his extended battles against the Saxons ( in various places Geoffrey assumes they took place) an expanded version of Arthur’s conquest of Gaul, southern Scotland and Ireland, his non death as he sails away to Avalon to heal his wounds and much more.

     From here on in Geoffrey’s work found its way to the continent and the French Romance writers picked up the story and incorporated their own localised legends of Arthur mixed with Greek mythology to create a chivalric Arthur and his knights, born to uphold late medieval moral values and take part in the search for the Holy Grail. Other later writers then incorporated the Round Table to accommodate Arthurs many knights in equal sitting and the legend of Arthur was complete.

     Arthur then, after the death of Uther , as a lad of fifteen, was chosen to lead the Britons after pulling a sword from a stone, signifying his right to rule. He moved against the Saxons, Irish and Picts fighting twelve battles with the help of his Breton allies culminating in the great battle of Badon where the Saxons were finally defeated and peace brought to Britain. He is given Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake to help in his wars. He was then threatened by the king of Gaul who called for the Britons to give tribute to the Romans as they had done in the past. This Arthur refused and set out to conquer Gaul instead, as many Romano British emperors had done in the past. He was successful in this and then married Guinevere and thought all was well but in a second campaign to Gaul he left his foster son Mordred in control of Britain. Mordred wanted the crown for himself so traitorously enrolled the help of the Saxons to usurp power. At this Arthur returned from his campaigns and fought against Mordred, which culminated in the great battle of Camlann in 537 where Arthur killed Mordred; but Arthur, mortally wounded, was carried off to the isle of Avalon. Arthur was now said to sleep in a cave waiting to return to save the Britons once more in their hour of need. Unfortunately, to stop this idea that the Britons had for salvation from the Norman conquest, the Norman King of England decided to orchestrate the finding of ‘Arthurs’ bones buried under Glastonbury Tor, complete with fake inscription. Arthur was now never to return but this did not stop his legends growing to even greater heights over the centuries.

     The biggest question for those seeking Arthur now is did he actually exist? From a scholarly viewpoint the evidence is scant to say the least, his name a puzzle to etymologists and contemporary evidence for his very existence is missing. Many have sought to find the original Arthur on whom these legends have grown but no one has been able to place their person in the right time frame. Instead we have the Roman - Lucius Artorius Castus from the second century AD who actually fought against the Britons as a suggestion; or Riothamus a fifth century British leader who fought in 470AD against the Goths in Gaul and lost ; or Artuir Mac Aedan an insignificant Arthur of Irish descent who died in the late sixth or early seventh century, as well as others such as Arthur Ap Pedr, again of the seventh century.

     What no one has been able to do is find legends concerning an Arthur like person that fits him into his correct time frame of the late fifth to the mid sixth century; that has him fight the Saxons, Irish and Picts and assume power over them all including the Danes and the Orkneys. That has him conquer the Gauls twice, has a wife Guinevere, has him raised by a druid, has special weapons and is not initially a king of the Britons. Not only this, but no one has been able to link such a person to an historical king living in the sixth century whose name could represent the name Arthur. What this current work sets out to do is present exactly those requirements in the form of annals and legends hidden for hundreds of years, some still awaiting translation. This material is brand new to the subject of Arthuriana and has never been presented before. This work therefore is an introduction to Arthuriana of this fascinating and rather brutal character of Irish history, pseudo-history and mythology. I will start first with an introduction to the character and to the sources in which he appears. I will then discuss his name, family and background and then move onto his battles. After this the main story of his life and deeds will then be presented as a narrative work.

 

Download the full book here.

Vennicni, Feni and Donegal

Vennicni, Feni and Donegal

In this article I will be exploring the terms Vennicni, Feni and Gwynedd in relation to the early medieval tribes of Donegal, particularly the Cenel Conaill and examine the legend of the Ui Neills. I will endeavour to show that the Vennicni were the forerunners of the Feni who were in turn the Cenel Conaill of Donegal. In doing so I hope to confirm the work of Brian Lacey who has suggested that the Northern Ui Neill were a fabrication and that the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eoghan were always resident in the area from pre-history as recent DNA findings may confirm. I invite comment to help me improve this article and increase my understanding of the etymology and DNA behind it.

Introduction

The people of Donegal gave us our earliest medieval records of Ireland and Britain in the form of the Iona Chronicle which concentrated its material on the tribes of the Cenel Conaill, Cenel Eoghan, the Dal Riata and Picts of Scotland. Extra material was added anachronistically to the chronicle using sources such as Adamnan's seventh century vita of St. Columcille who lived in the sixth century and king lists such as in Baille Chuin of the seventh century. Adamnan himself was of the Cenel Conaill as was Columcille. 

The chronicle found it's way to Ulster and other places by the mid eighth century where it was continued and became various annals such as the Annals of Ulster, Clonmacnoise, Tigernach and Innisfallon, the first of which became an eventual source of the Welsh Annales Cambrai. Donegal in the early medieval period would not have been called this, but had names such as Fochla (the north), probably saint Patrick's woods of Foclut where he became a slave for 7 years. Leth Cuin (Conns half) was another term for the tribes of Fochla, supposed ancestors of the great Niall of the Nine Hostages. Still later, by the ninth century the area was called Ailech after the Cenel Eohgan had taken control and made the Grianan of Ailech their base. The north of course would also have encompassed much of Ulster.

The tribes of Donegal then went onto conquer much of Ulster (Derry and Tyrone) and pushed into Connaught and Meath claiming the over kingship of Ireland at Tara. These tribes became known as the 'northern Ui Neill', a fabrication born of their merging with the real Ui Neill of the South. Charles Thomas Edwards and Brian Lacey have started the process of unraveling this pseudo-history with Lacey suggesting that the 'Ui Neill of the north' were possibly related to the other Cruithin (Pictish) tribes of Ulster:

"However, it is almost a certainty....that most of the so-called northern UiNeill did not come into Donegal from outside at all, at least as recently as the fifth century as is normally suggested. Rather, they probably emerged instead from within the existing native people of that territory. It's also very unlikely, despite the later widespread use of the name UiNeill, that these people had any connection whatever with the eponymous Niall Noigiallach. Instead it now seems clear that at least most of them were later attached to the UiNeill by fictional genealogical links - as it were, re-invented with fresh (false) identities, as part of a newly constructed 'national' ruling elite........could the Cenel Conaill and the Cenel Eoghan,therefore, or either of these groups individually, have belonged to the Cruithin themselves? “

Donegal in the early medieval period would have been a country of woods, forests, mountains and clearings, with most settlements being in the rich soil of the river valleys and coastal lowland areas. The earliest mention of the area comes from Ptolemy, writing in around 150CE who designates this area as belonging to the Vennicni. Loch Foyle was noted as the Vidoua. Next to them along the coast north eastwards were the Robogdi and south-west of the Vennicni were the Nagnate and Erdini or Erpedani.

The early tribes of Ireland mentioned by Ptolemy must have been there a fair while for their names to have been noted by cartographers and travelers of these times. We do not really know where Ptolemy acquired his information but the eastern tribes of Ireland appear to have been Celtic tribes from Gaul and Britain which included the Menapi and Brigantes. The western seaboard tribes appear to be predominantly indigenous as their names and recent DNA studies show. At what point these Gallic and British tribes made their migrations to Eastern Ireland is a debatable question.

When Caesar arrived in Britain in around 54BC there were many Gallic tribes already settled in the coastal regions such as the Belgae and Parisi and Gallic kings were said to have ruled both sides of the Channel. From this we could then push back the arrival of Gallic tribes to Britain and Ireland to 100BC + and possibly 200BC with the spread of La Tene culture into Britain and Ireland. I think all we can say is that there would have been much coming and going between Gaul, Britain, Spain and Ireland during the Iron Age of Northern Europe.

Did the Irish of the eighth century CE have access to Ptolemy's map of Britain and Ireland? There's a good chance they did as some of the names in the Lebhor Gabala Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland) are just too close to the names of Ptolemy's given tribes. If they didn't then the power of their druids to relate stories over hundreds of years must have been incredible.

DNA

I have mentioned the recent DNA studies that have been undertaken in Ireland. Although these studies are still in their infancy we can come to some general conclusions but I would like to add that this area is still fraught with difficulties so I can only give generalities. Scientists are able to identify a particular genetic pattern in the Y chromosome of the Irish - a genetic marker known as haplogroup R1b. This was found not only in a high percentage of Irish men but also in most of the population of Western Europe who have carried this gene for over 3000 years. Over time Haplogroup R1b was diluted by intermixing with other populations and is now found in relatively fewer people throughout Europe. In Ireland 85% of men have this marker and in western Ireland, especially Connaught 98% of the population carry this gene, which is a subgroup of R1b called R1b-M269.

This means the peoples of western Ireland have remained genetically isolated from the intermixing of populations that occurred throughout the rest of Europe. In effect these peoples have been in Ireland since the late bronze age, when they first crossed over from Britain, without any significant dilution. So the ancient tribes of Ireland were of the same stock as the Bronze age peoples of Britain. They were all 'Pretani' in the eyes of Diodorus Siculus who wrote in around 50BC... “those of the Pretani who inhabit the country called Iris”. Caesar also knew of Britain and Ireland as the 'Prettanic Isles'. It was his innovation to call us Britanni. 

In the UK about 70% carry the R1b marker and within this are subgroups that indicate origins for various peoples. R1b-S145 appears to be the DNA of the ancient Britons themselves, the Pretani making up about 25%. R1b-S21 are the Germanics making up another 15%. Hunter Gatherer's - R1b-S116 make up 9%, Picts come in at 5% - R1b-S530 and Irish at around 8% with R1b-M222.
 

The above subgroup R1b-M222 (a subclade of M269, R-P312) is prevalent in Ireland and Britain. This was at first thought to represent the Ui Neills of Ireland and hence all the descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages. However DNA testing has shown that although it is fairly common among those with some Ui Neill surnames, such as O'Doherty, it is not common amongst most of the Ui Neills themselves with only 20% of men in Donegal having this gene. It is in fact more prevalent in Ulster, Mayo, northern Britain and Scotland (excluding Argyll). This suggests that these peoples had common ancestors thousands of years ago before Niall was even a twinkle in his mothers eye and that the Ui Neills of the North were nothing of the sort! The Ui Neill gene might be R1b-S668 but it's still too early to tell as these may be Cenel Conaill.

 

Feni and Vennicni

Now let us return to the Feni and Vennicni of Donegal. The etymology of Feni is now established since Eric Hamp's study in 1992 entitled Goídil, Féni, Gŵynedd in the Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 12. Koch agreed with his findings in his paper Celts, Britons, and Gaels—Names, Peoples, and Identities (2000) and Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia of 2006. Hamp proposed that Feni reflects the absorption of *d before *n in early Celtic which allows the construction of Feni as *wēniῑ: *ueid(h)-n-ioi (wednioi). He came to the conclusion that the name Gwynedd was related as the earlier forms were Gwinet and Venedotia from *Ueneda. Gwynedd meaning a 'collectivity of trees/forest'. He also linked the Welsh 'Goidel' (*ueid(h)eloi) as a related term meaning 'the feni who lived in the forests'. Also the Fiana (*ueidh-n-a) a 'group belonging to the woods and forests'. Feni then means 'the tribe that inhabit the woods and forests', this becoming the 'hunters of the woods and forests' and hence those hunters, skilled with spear and bow became the warrior class of the Feni and Fiana, the old Irish word 'feinnid' 'hunter, warrior' summing it up nicely.

Both Hamp and Koch ignore some other tribes apart from Gwynedd that carry the same root. The Veneti of Armorica and Venedi and Feni of the Baltic regions mentioned by Tacitus. The first two of these appear to be directly linked, with the last, the Feni of the northern Baltic doubtful. Also ignored are the Vennicni of Donegal and Venicones of Fife. Ptolemy's version 'Ouennicni' – Vennicni reflects a perfectly natural early spelling of the name in the orthography of the time which continued for hundreds of years. Our task is to tie in the Vennicni with the Feni, why? Because the Feni are directly linked with the Cenel Conaill and if Lacey is correct this people have lived in the region for thousands of years.

The Feni or Fir Feni – were, according to Irish texts of the eighth century onwards, quite distinct from those of the Ulaid (Ulster -the Cruithne/Picts) and those who were Laighin (Leinster – Britons and Gallic tribes):

“Batur tri primcinela in Eri.: Feini ocus Ulaidh ocus Laighin (Gaileoin)” -the three principle peoples of Ireland – the Feni, Ulaid and Laighin.

In this sense Feni may here represent all of the Irish tribes apart from those of Ulster and Leinster, ie the tribes of Connaught, Donegal, Meath and possibly Munster. Indeed in some cases Feni did later come to mean 'the men of Ireland'. However other writings do link the Connachta with the Feni and in two quatrains on the battle of Ballyshannon between the Ui Neill and the Leinstermen, 'the men of Leth Cuinn' mustered by Aed, king of Ailech are referred to as 'Fir Feni'. 'Leth Cuinn'- 'Conns half', was another name for the tribes of Cenel Conail and Donegal. Koch put's it like this :

"In this formulation it seems that Feni means the peoples, whose rulers were reckoned in the genealogies as Sil Cuin (descendants of the legendary Conn Cetchathach). The rulers of Connaught and the pre-eminent Ui Neill dynasties were thus included."

This attempt to separate the peoples of Ireland may contain a kernel of truth.

To tie in the Vennicni, who in the second century CE were living in exactly the same place that the Feni Cenel Conaill were in sixth century we need some evidence. That evidence comes in the form of the name of the river where the Cenel Conail lived, the river Finn. The river Finn empties into the Foyle on its way to the sea and it's valleys were home to the Cenel Conaill. It's seventh century form reported by Adamnan in his Vita of Saint Columcille was 'Fenda' which betrays it's earlier form 'Veneda' which is the same root as Feni/Gwyned (Oueneda) as described above, essentially 'the river of the forest'. So we now know that the initial 'Venni' of Ptolemy's Vennicni represents *wēniῑ. The termination 'ni' appears to derive from the collective ending '-inion', later as 'ni/ne'. The 'c/g' becoming silent. With this we can do away with any semantic relationship with the Pictish 'Venicones' of Scotland although the first part may be another form of Feni or it may represent, or was represented as  'cenn' or 'pen' – 'head' as these Picts were later remembered in Arthurian myth as 'Dog Heads; 'cones' being interpreted as 'cun' - dog. Interestingly Irish myth also has the Irish Arthur - Mac Erca fight 'dog heads' as well.

We need not posit that any of these Veneti tribes were related (except perhaps on an ancient DNA level), merely that they used a common language that spanned the aboriginal areas of Britain, Ireland and Europe. Those of Gwynedd though do appear to have been Irish interlopers. The Ordovices had been the tribe of that area in Roman times and Welsh myth relates that Cunedda and his sons came from the north to remove the Irish (Feni) of Gwynedd.

Loch Foyle and the river Foyle named by Ptolemy as 'Vidoua' provides the final piece of evidence. Hamp stated at the end of his work that it was 'gratifying to find a noun *Uidh-u – 'Woods'' which of course is directly 'Vidu'. So Ptolemy's 'Vidoua' (Ouidoua) is the river Finn and may be evidence of Hamp's noun. Vidoua then appears to represent the Q Celtic? 'vidh' with a termination 'oua' possibly meaning 'river' via Celtic 'abona' (abhainn, abhann, aibhneacha /aunʲ, aun̪ˠ, ˈavʲnʲəxə/ "river"). So the River was originally called the Vidoua at its mouth, inland the Veneda, then it gave its name to the people living alongside it (the Feni), then the river name changed in time to Fenda, Finne, Finny and eventually Finn. The modern rendering of 'Loch Febhail' appears to be related to Proto-Celtic *WEWLO-, 'lips, mouth', which gives gwefl in Welsh (Pat McKay, A Dictionary of Ulster Place-Names, pp. 99-100).

So we are left with a fascinating proposition - the Vennicni were the Feni – 'the hunter tribe of the forest'. Lacey and the DNA studies are correct, the Cenel Conaill have always lived there. There was no 'Ui Neill' movement north into Donegal except in later times by the Cenel Cairpre briefly. The aggression was always southwards by the Cenel Conaill and the Cenel Eoghan their cousins. The Cenel Eoghan however may have been of the Airthir of the Airghialla and it may be their movement against the Cenel Conaill which is remembered (see below).

The UI' Neill 

So were the Cenel Conaill and Cenel Eoghan Ui Neill? One of the earliest mentions (apart from the annals at 621) of the Ui Neills is in Ambra Coluimb Cille, a poem possibly of the early seventh century which describes some of Columcille's ancestors. In this he is described as a "purebred descendant of Conall" which must indicate Columncilles fathers side and if Niall was involved he would surely have linked to him instead. The Conall here is Conall Gulban, supposed son of Niall.

Columcille is also described as a 'son of Conns offspring' presumably relating to Conn Cetcathach an ancestor of Niall.  If as suggested, Conall Gulban was a fabricated addition to Niall's ancestors, the descendent of Niall must have been on Columcille's mothers side. His mother was Eithne who is said to be a descendent of the Cenel Cairpre and this may be where the Niall ancestor lies as Cairpre was a son of Niall. Lacey has pointed out that some of these references in Ambra to Niall were actually missing in the 17th century manuscript and that it was later glosses that filled in the missing parts, making this document suspect for proof of connections to Niall in the early seventh century. Lacey (2004):

"However, Fergus Kelly pointed out that 'the only complete version [of the poem] is found at pp. 107-114 of G50, a 17th century manuscript in the National Library of Ireland'. Kelly advocated a seventh century 'date of composition' but adds that the glosses, on which some of the significant reconstructions of the missing sections depend, 'are in Middle Irish'. Crucially in the manuscript, all of line 9d is missing except for the word 'Neill'. The phrase, 'molfas colum ua neil, comes from the later glosses..."

Also in the seventh century was Tirechans Collectanea. He is most interested in the southern Ui Neills as indicated by Catherine Swift (1991)

" Unlike the branches of the Ui Neill so far discussed, however, the Cenel Conaill of Donegal appear to stand outside Tirechan's immediate concerns.They are neither blessed, as in the case of Conall Cremthainne, nor acknowledged as supreme ruler, as in the case of Loiguire, nor condemned, as in the cases of Coirpre and Fiachu's descendants."

For Tirechan writing in the mid seventh century, the four sons of Niall were "Conallum filium Neill, Coirpriticus filius Neill, Loiguire filius Neill and Fechach filii Neill". (Conall, Coirpre, Loagaire and Fiacha), There is no mention of Conal Gulban or Eoghan. Lacey has suggested that Conal Gulban was a later fabricated genealogical link to Niall. The Conall above of course is Conall Cremthainne, who in Terechan's eyes was the only ruler of a regnum (kingdom) in that time other than Benignus.

In the same work Tirechan however does mention the Cenel Conaill of Donegal. He mentions two kings (reges) of Donegal called Fergus and Fothad who granted the site of Raith Chungi in Mag Sereth to St Assicus of Ail Find. These two in later genealogy appear to have been conflated into the one figure of Fergus Cennfota son of Conal Gulban. Unfortunately Tirechan does not link any of these "filiorum Conill" as decendents of Niall. It's as though the 'sons of Conill' are a separate group to the 'sons of Niall'.

In Muirchu's seventh century life of Saint Patrick the Ui Neills are also mentioned, with Niall being described as "the one from whom was descended the royal stock of almost the whole Island" with Loagaire again being paramount and described as 'emperor of the barbarians'.

The next person to mention the Cenel Conaill is of course Adamnan, writing slightly later in around the late seventh century. Adamnan himself, as well as Columcille were of the Cenel Conaill and so if he was linked in any way with the Ui Neill we would expect him to mention it. He puts words into Columcille's mouth that states he is a descendent of Niall where he mentions Abbot Comgall (founder and first abbot of Bangor in the Ards of Ulster), - "Nellis Nepotes et Cruthini populi" - " a descendent of Niall and the people of the Cruithni" in relation to Columcilles ancestors and Comgall's who were going to war with each other. As we have seen, Conall Gulban was most likely a fabricated addition to Niall's ancestors, so the descendent of Niall must have been on his mothers side as mentioned above.

The inescapable truth is as Lacey suggests, the sons of Conall, who had always lived in Donegal since ancient times were later linked to Niall with the Cenel Eoghan to legitimise their anachronistic claims to the kingship of Tara. The reason for engineering this legitimacy was that the southern Ui Neill dynasties had ruled Tara in the fifth and sixth centuries with interlopers probably from the Ulster and British tribes (Coroticus being an example). That meant making Conall Gulban, another son of Niall.

Lawrence Maney is also unraveling this pseudo-history of the early Ui Neills and sums up the early legends at the end of his work  - Rethinking the Political Narrative of medieval Ireland  - The Hagiographer as Witness (1995), - like this:

"Indeed, the generic 'Ui Neill' which we have adopted as the basis for our narrative of the sixth, seventh, and eighth-centuries did not exist as we have come to envision them at that early stage in their development, no matter how clamorous the cry of the historical sources they have left for us, sources often as fabulous as the most far fetched miracle story to be found in the Hiberno-Latin hagiography of the same period."

You may have noticed that I have ignored the Cenel Eoghan in most of this debate; the reason being that they were not at all linked with Niall until they came to prominence in the second half of the eighth century having defeated the Cenel Conaill at which point they made Eoghan a son of Niall.

Were the Cenel Conaill Cruithne? That's a difficult one to answer. The Cruithne, according to Lacey had inhabited some areas of Donegal north of the river Finn in ancient times but the DNA and the evidence above suggests that the Cenel Conaill were an indigenous people. That's not to say that some mixing with the Cruithne populations did not eventually occur which would be normal in dynastic development.

More likely is that the Cenel Eoghan were of the Airthir of Ulster (or merged with them) who appear to have been descendents of Romano Britons from fourth century Wales. Their genealogies are very similar with a Muiredach, mac Eoghan, mac Niallain (mac Fiecc) being easily transposed to Niall by making Eoghan a son of Niall when the Southern Ui Neill merged with tribes of the north. Mac Erca then, the Irish Arthur of the early sixth century, may have been of the 'Airthir', a name conveniently rendered as 'Arthur' in Brythonic / Welsh. The Airthir were a tribe or sept of the Airghialla. David Dumville comes to a similar conclusion himself in Saint Patrick AD 493-1993 (p.151) stating :

" ..Before the end of the seventh century we can see one of them, the Airthir, explicitly associated with the Ui Neill*: Armagh and Navan lay in the territory of the Airthir, and it is significant that we can see the church of Armagh adjusting it's stance towards the Ui Neill kings of Ulster in the second half of seventh century"

* Dumville quotes Muirchu : " bellum...inter nepotes Neill et Orientales ex una parte " We can see here the Airthir are called 'Easterners'. Dumville suggests the Arghialla had always been Ulster tribes and the story of the Three Collas should be treated with great suspicion, but modern DNA finding may indicate that the Arghialla did indeed come from the east, namely Britain at some early stage, possibly fourth century and integrate northwards conquering Ulster. I think they may have been three columns of Christian (hence Colla Chri) Romano British soldiers from the Roman garrisons in Wales who fled the Christian persecutions of the early fourth century. Hiring themselves out to kings in Ireland. By the sixth century, Dumville would be correct, they would in effect be Ultonians after interbreeding with the local populations. The late post Ptolemy arrival of the Airghialla may also be indicated by the fact that their name is not of the old order as indicated by Eoin MacNiell who comments "The name seems to be of comparatively late formation, and cannot be classed with the old order of plural people-names..." The fourth century arrival of the Arghialla may also be supported by the fact that Latin loan words for the first time enter the Irish language as noted by E.A Thompson in Gildas and The History of Britain (1979): 

"A study of the Latin loan-words in Irish has suggested that they fall into two groups. The second of these groups began to be borrowed about the middle of the fifth century, so that the first group dates at latest from the middle of the fourth century.."

What about Niall himself, did he exist? Probably yes, but on  a much smaller scale than the later myth indicates. His nine hostages were probably those of the Airghialla as that was the exact number of hostages they were said to have to provide. This could mean that the 'Niallain' mentioned above could have represented Niall as the demander of the hostages. In effect this ancestor of the Airthir could have been Niall but not genetically or tribally linked in any way, just adopted!

The name Niall - Nelli, Neill.

What of his name? Meaning 'cloud' from Goidelic 'nel' or 'champion' from Goidelic 'nual' as usually said? Unlikely. It appears to be related to a more indo-European meaning which would be natural as the DNA indicates a degree of isolation so we should expect a degree of ancient indo-European to survive. In Sanskrit 'nili / nila' means 'dark blue' and is pronounced 'nella' much the same as the name of descendents of Niall were known (Nellan). In support of this is an inscription on a standing stone in county Wicklow reading 'Maqi Nili', translated loosely to "Of the son of Neill/Niall". He was the 'blue man'  - a warrior, decorated in blue woad, just like the ancient Britons and Picts. There may be some circumstantial evdience for this from the Lebhor Bretnach in a poem called Duan Eureannach regarding a mythical Nel:

"Nel was carried southwards to Egypt,
Hero of dark blue weapons,

The daughter of Forann was given
Unto him afterwards."

Niall was killed, according to tradition, on the shores of the English Channel in around 455 during the campaigns of the Roman general (and future emperor) Avitus to bring peace to the area.

References

Cenél Conaill and the Donegal Kingdoms, AD 500-800, Brian Lacey Four Courts Press 2006

Celtic Culture: An Historical Encyclopedia, John Koch, ABC-CLIO Ltd (15 Mar 2006)

Tribes and Tribalism in Early Ireland, Francis John Byrne, Ériu, Vol. 22 (1971), pp. 128-166

The Féni, David O'Brien, Ériu, Vol. 11 (1932), pp. 182-183

Goídil, Féni, Gŵynedd, Eric P. Hamp, Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 12 (1992), pp. 43-50

 

Celtic Ireland, R. A. S. Macaliste, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 47, No. 549 (Mar., 1919), pp. 134-141 

Early Irish History and Mythology, T. F. O'Rahilly, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1946.

 

The Pretanic Background in Britain and Ireland, Eoin MacNeil, The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Seventh Series, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Jun. 30, 1933), pp. 1-28 Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.

Excavations at Knowth, Co. Meath, 1962-1965,G. Eogan and F. J. Byrne, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, Vol. 66 (1967/1968), pp. 299-400.

 The "Amrae Coluimb Cille" and the Uí Néill, Brian Lacey, The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 134 (2004), pp. 169-172

  

Attacotti, Déisi and Magnus Maximus: The Case for Irish Federates in Late Roman Britain, Philip Rance, Britannia, Vol. 32 (2001), pp. 243-270

The Irish Settlements in South-West Wales: A Topographical Approach, Melville Richards,The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Vol. 90, No. 2 (1960), pp. 133-162

Ptolemy's Map of Ireland,  Goddard H., The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Fifth Series, Vol. 4, No. 2(Jun., 1894), pp. 115-128, Published by: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland.

Rethinking the Political Narrative of medieval Ireland  - The Hagiographer as Witness,  Laurence Maney,  Proceedings of the Harvard Celtic Colloquium, Vol. 15 (1995), pp. 89-105.

TIRECHAN'S MOTIVES IN COMPILING THE COLLECTANEA: AN ALTERNATIVE
INTERPRETATION,  CATHERINE SWIFT,  Departments of Medieval and Early Irish History,
University College, Dublin 1992.

The Earliest Irish Annals: Their First Contemporary Entries, and the Earliest Centres of
Recording, A. P. SmythSource: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 72 (1972), pp. 1-48.

 Temoria: Caput Scotorum?, Edel Bhreathnac, Ériu, Vol. 47, (1996), pp. 67-88

Published by: Royal Irish Academy.