Latin ōra can have the meaning coast or shore. Ann Cole suggests the term was adopted by the early Anglo-Saxons as can be seen in placenames mentioned under the years 477 and 514 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
Her cuom Ęlle on Bretenlond 7 his .iii. suna, Cymen 7 Wlencing 7 Cissa, mid .iii. scipum on þa stowe þe is nemned Cymenesora, 7 þær ofslogon monige Wealas 7 sume on fleame bedrifon on þone wudu þe is genemned Andredesleage.
Here Ælle and his 3 sons, Cymen and Wlencing and Cissa, came to the land of Britain with 3 ships at the place which is named Cymen’s Shore, and there killed many Welsh and drove some to flight into the wood which is named the Weald.
Jebson T., 2007. Swanton M., 2000, 14. ASC A.
Her cuomon Westseaxe in Bretene mid .iii. scipum in þa stowe þe is gecueden Cerdicesora, Stuf 7 Wihtgar, 7 fuhton wiþ Brettas 7 hie gefliemdon.
Here the West Saxons Stuf and Wihtgar came to Britain with 3 ships in the place which is called Cerdic’s Shore and fought against the Britons and put them to flight.
Jebson T., 2007. Swanton M., 2000, 14 (adapted). ASC A.
The midland and northern version was ofer. Less often it took the form yfre. The term became a reference to a hill with a flat top and rounded shoulder that was being used as a signpost. This could be the first landform seen when approaching a port. Inland use of this landform term marked road junctions, river crossings and ways to mineral rich sources. She notes, for example, the many ōras on lowland between Portsmouth and Bognor are backed by Portsdown or the South Downs which are visible offshore. The coastal oras in S.E England show a strong correlation with havens which are usually seawards of the ports. Most of them were known during Roman times and would have been known to Saxon invaders.
The Britons would not have wanted invading Saxons to form a bridgehead at one of these landing places indicated by the terms port and ōra. They would have used the road and trackway system to arrive at and defend these vulnerable locations. One may, therefore, speculate that some of these are close to Arthur’s battle sites. For example, his tenth battle may have been att Chesil beach near Portland, see Arthur’s tenth battle, and Camlan at the Cams near the Hampshire Wicor, see The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Arthur’s death.
Ann Cole’s 2010 thesis The place-name evidence for a routeway network in early medieval England uses placenames to identify routes in use in the early medieval period. She states four terms, port, hȳth, stæth and stǫth, refer to landing places, see figs. 1 and 2.
It was proposed that one of Arthur’s battles was at Chesil beach, see Arthur’s tenth battle, and another, that of Camlan, occurred at the Cams in Hampshire, see The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Arthur’s death, both coastal locations. The former location is near Portland while the latter in close to Portchester. Could these have been locations of early landing sites for the Saxons?
Cole informs us port has three possible meanings:
From Latin portus, a ‘harbour’.
OE meaning ‘town, market town, market’, ultimately from Latin portus.
From OFr porte ‘a gate’
Its use in the first sense was infrequent in early medieval sources for important havens along the south coast and Bristol channel. She states probable examples, going from east to west, are Portslade, Portsmouth, Portland, Portlemouth, Porlock and Portishead. All six examples have expanse of sheltered coastal water with links into the road system of which four are Roman. The ASC makes reference to Portsmouth, Portland, Porlock and Avonmouth near Portishead. They were known to seafarers and experienced raids. Cole asserts the term portus was adopted by Saxon pirates before the end of Roman rule. It is, therefore, likely that although Bieda and Mægla were historical figures Port, there supposed father, was not.
Under the year 501, the Anglo-Saxon chronicle states:
Her cuom Port on Bretene 7 his .ii. suna Bieda 7 Mægla mid .ii. scipum on þære stowe þe is gecueden Portesmuþa 7 ofslogon anne giongne brettiscmonnan, swiþe ęþelne monnan.
Here Port and his 2 sons, Bieda and Mægla, came with 2 ships to Britain at the place which is called Portsmouth, and killed a certain young British man – a very noble man.
jebson t., 2007, asc a. swanton, m., 2000,14.
As explained in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Arthur’s death, this event would have taken place in the year 539 and refers to the battle of Camlan. It is proposed that the Briton referred to was Arthur.
Bieda
The Germanic name Bieda survives in the Portsmouth area in the placename Bedhampton.
Norden J., 1595.
It is mentioned in the Domesday Book with the name Betametone:
It was originally a village but is now a suburb of the Borough of Havant. The name appears in the placename Biedanheafde (Bieda’s Head) in the ASC under the year 675 when the West Saxon king Æscwine defeated the Mercian invasion by Wulfhere.
Mægla
Swanton maintains Mægla is probably a British name citing the names Coinmægl and Farinmægl that appear in the ASC entry for year 577. Mægla may be identified with Gildas’s tyrant Maglocunus, that is Maelgwn of Gwynedd, whose death is recorded in the Annales Cambriae under the year 547:
AC A text
AC B text
[a103] annus . Mortalitas magna inqua pausat mailcun rex genedotœ .
[b575] Anus mortalitas magna fuit ín brítannia mailguin · guíneth · obiit· vnde dicitur hir hun wailgun en llís Ros · tunc fuít lallwelen
Gough-Cooper, H.W., 2015, Annales Cambriae.
Gildas’s refers to Maelgwn’s aggression:
Quid tu enim, insularis draco, multorum tyrannorum depulsor tam regno quam etiam vita supra dictorum, …
And thou, the island dragon, who hast driven many of the tyrants mentioned previously, as well from life as from kingdom, …
WILLIAMS H., 1899, 76,77.
The first poem in the Llyfr Du Caerfyrddin (Black Book of Carmarthen), entitled Ymddiddan Myrtin a Talyessin (The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin), informs us that Maelgwn made an attack on Dyfed:
Skene W.F., 1868, Ymddiddan Myrtin a Talyessin.
Triad 1a indicates the Demetian Arthur was a contemporary of Maelgwn:
Arthur in Pen Teyrned ym Mynyw, a Dewi yn Pen Esgyb, a Maelgwn Gwyned yn Pen Hyneif;
Arthur as Chief of Princes in Mynyw (St David’s), and Dewi as Chief of Bishops, and Maelgwn Gwynedd as Chief of Elders.
Bromwich R., 2006, 1.
Culhwch, on meeting Arthur, addresses him as Pen Teyrned yr Ynys hon (Chief of Princes of this Island). However, according to the V. Cadoci:
In diebus itaque illius rex quidam, nomine Mailgunus, in tota Brittannia regnabat, …
In his (St Cadog’s) days a certain king, Maelgwn by name, was reigning over all Britannia (Wales), …
wade-evans a.w., Lloyd s. (ed.), 2013,72, 73.
Perhaps, Maelgwn’s attack on Arthur’s Dyfed was not entirely successful and that later, with Saxon help, he achieved Arthur’s demise in Dumnonia at Camlan, thus achieving supremacy over the whole of Wales. Perhaps as a celebration of this victory, three places in Gwynedd bear the name Camlan as indicated by the red markers in the map below.
Wihtgar. Cambridge, CCC MS 173: The Parker Chronicle, (ASC A), f. 5v. Click image to enlarge.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle makes a number of references to a Wihtgar under the years 514, 534 and 544:
Her cuomon Westseaxe in Bretene mid .iii. scipum in þa stowe þe is gecueden Cerdicesora, Stuf 7 Wihtgar, 7 fuhton wiþ Brettas 7 hie gefliemdon.
Her Cerdic forþferde, 7 Cynric his sunu ricsode forþ .xxvi. wintra; 7 hie saldon hiera tuæm nefum Stufe 7 Wihtgare eall Wiehte ealond.
Her Uuihtgar forþferde, 7 hiene mon bebyrgde on Wihtgarabyrg.
Here the West Saxons Stuf and Wihtgar came to Britain with 3 ships in the place which is called Cerdic’s Shore and fought against the Britons and put them to flight.
Here Cerdic passed away, and his son Cynric continued to rule 26 years. And they gave all Wight to their two nephews Stuf and Wihtgar.
Here Wihtgar passed away and they buried him at Wihtgar’s stronghold.
jebson t., 2007. swanton m., 2000, 14, 16 (adapted). asc A.
There is a further reference to Wihtgar’s stronghold under the year 530:
Her Cerdic 7 Cynric genamon Wihte ealond 7 ofslogon feala men on Wihtgarabyrg.
Here Cerdic and Cynric took the Isle of Wight and killed a few men at Wihtgar’s stronghold.
jebson t., 2007. swanton m., 2000, 16 (adapted). asc A.
Swanton says that the most obvious location for the stronghold is Carisbrooke Castle where a cemetery of this period contained a high status male grave. It is proposed his name appears in various forms, namely Wicgr, Wicker and Wicor on old maps, one of which is shown below:
The Cams and Wicgr Marsh. Surveyed: 1856, Published: 1870. CC-BY NLS. Click image to enlarge.
The letter ⟨t⟩ can become a ⟨c⟩, as seen in the name Wihtgar to Wicgr. The map shows Wicgr Marsh to the east of Cams Bay and several places named Wicor along the northern bank of Portsmouth Harbour, including Wicor Path that leads towards Portchester castle.
Speculations
Was Wicor Path the route the Saxons took from their stronghold of Portchester castle to do battle with Arthur? Could they have sealed off the Cams, the proposed location of Camlan, where Arthur was encamped? It is an area enclosed on three sides by the river Wallington. Its name derives from that of the village where the river enters Portsmouth Harbour and means ‘settlement of the Welsh’.
Mailcunus magnus rex apud Brittones regnabat, id est in regione Guenedotae, quia atavus illius, id est Cunedag, cum filiis suis, quorum numerus octo erat, venerat prius de parte sinistrali, id est de regione quae vocatur Manau Guotodin, centum quadraginta sex annis antequam Mailcun regnaret, et Scottos cum ingentissima clade expulerunt ab istis regionibus et nusquam reversi sunt iterum ad habitandum.
Maelgwn, the great king among the Britons, ruled, that is in the land of the men of Gwynedd, whose ancestor, that is Cunedag, with his sons, to the number of eight, had come first from northern parts, that is the region that is called Manau Gododdin, 146 years before Maelgwn reigned, and expelled the Gaels from those lands with immense slaughter so that they never returned to inhabit them.
Mommsen T., 1898, 205-206. Woolf A., 13 Nisan AM 5775, 62.
A solution to reconciling the time gap of 146 years will be proposed. Maelgwn’s reign was probably dated by his obit. The start of reigns were rarely recorded. Far more common were the dates of rulers’ deaths.
At the start of the O Oes Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in the Red Book of Hergest (Llyfr Coch Hergest) we have the following time intervals:
O* oes gỽrtheyrn gỽrtheneu hyt weith badỽn yd ymladaỽd arthur a|e|hyneif a|r saesson ac y|goruv arthur a|e hyneif wyth mlyned ar|hu+ geint a chant. O|weith badỽn hyt gamlan; dỽy vlyned ar|hugeint. O|gamlan hyt varỽ maelgỽn; deng|mlyned …
From the age of Vortigern to the Battle of Badon, which Arthur and his nobles fought with the Saxons, when Arthur and his nobles were victorious, 128 years. From the Battle of Badon to that of Camlan, 22 years. From the Battle of Camlan to the death of Maelgwn, 10 years …
Welsh prose jc 111 P254r:1020. Cambro-Briton vol. II, 1821, 218.
The time intervals for the last two events are broadly similar to the ones in the Annales Cambriae: Badon to Camlan 21/20 years, Camlan to death of Maelgwn 10/9 years.
AC A
AC B
[a72] anus Bellum badonis inquo arthur portauit crucem domini nostri ihu xp’i . tribus diebus & tribus noctibus inhumeros suos & brittones uictores fuerunt .
[b546] Anus Bellum Badonis in quo rex arturus crucem domini nostri ihesu christi tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in humeris suis portauit. In illo prelio cec(i)derunt colgrinus et Radulphus anglorum duces.
[a93] anus Gueith cam lann inqua arthur et medraut corruerunt . et mortalitas inbrittannia et in hibernia fuit.
[b566] Anus Bellum camlam in quo inclitus arthurus rex britonum et modredus proditor suus. mutuis wlneribus corruerunt.
[a103] anus Mortalitas magna inqua pausat mailcun rex genedotae .
[b575] Anus mortalitas magna fuit in britannia. mailgun. guineth obiit. vnde dicitur hir hun wailgun en llis Ros. tunc fuit lallwelen.
Gough-Cooper, H.W., 2016, A, B and C in Parallel.
Bartrum correctly states:
… it seems from the genealogies that Cunedda could not have been born before about A.D.370. Since his son Tybion died before the migration and already left a son Meirion, we can hardly put the migration before about A.D.430 …
Bartrum, P.C, MPS (ed.), 2009, 173.
It is proposed that Cunedda’s arrival down south occurred around 436 AD. The reasoning behind this claim is as the following. It was shown in the article Vortigern and the Adventus in the Historia Brittonum that the 128 years between the start of Vortigern’s reign and Badon, in the Llyfr Coch Hergest, was as a result of incorrectly identifying the date for the former event, 390 AP, as 390 AD. There then followed this sequence of events:
A later writer adopted the correct year for Vortigern’s reign, resulting in this date for Badon: 425 AD + 128 years = 553 AD
This would give the date for Camlan as: 553 AD + 20 years = 573 AD
Maelgwn’s obit would then be: 573 AD + 9 years = 582 AD.
If the date for Cunedda’s migration was known the following time gap would result: 582 AD – 436 AD = 146 years.
Sir Bedivere (Bedwyr Bedrydant) throwing Excalibur into the lake, Walter Crane.
The Lady of the Lake of Arthurian mythology is known for having given to Arthur and later recieved back from him the sword Excalibur.
She was based on a historical figure who appears in the genealogies as Nynian, the wife of Cawrdaf, see Cawrnur and the dendogram below. [Click image to enlarge]
Her name takes a number of forms including Elen and a late triad, Three Elens who went from Ynys Prydain, tells us she was Arthur’s sister. This relationship is supported by the 15th c. La Tavola Ritonda which tells us she was a daughter of Uthr Bendragon. This may explain why the Lady of the Lake is also identified with Morgan le Fay, who is also said to be Arthur’s sister.
Camlan may be seen as a power struggle over succession as Arthur had no surviving heir. This would also explain the Medrod’s antagonism towards Arthur. He may have felt he had a greater right to the crown of Dumnonia, being a nephew through Arthur’s sister whereas Custennin ap Cadwr bore that relationship through Arthur’s half-brother. The latter claimant may have been Arthur’s choice as the was of the patrilineal descent from Gwrlais.
Two further references are made concerning Nynian. JC 12 lists a ‘Nennue’ immediately after the name ‘Arthur’ and V. Paterni 13 tells of ‘Nimannauc’ leaving Letavia in order to follow Paternus.
The HB is correct in claiming Ochta was the son of Hengest. This is supported by Bede. Although the ASC names Aesc as the son, if it is accepted that the 488 date is correct for Hengest’s obit then it would seem that Ochta was the name of Arthur’s opponent in some of the 12 battles.
As far as Esla of the Gewisse is concerned, as Sisam pointed out, Esla/Elesa formed an alliterative pair as did Wig/Giwis. Chronology would, therefore, suggest he was a contemporary of Arthur and identification with Osla Gyllellfawr is reasonable. The Culhwch ac Olwen, where we are told his dagger, Bronllafn Ferllydan, is used as a bridge and also that he was involved in the chase of the Twrch Trwyth, describes him as an ally of Arthur. However, in the Breuddwyd Rhonabwy he is an opponent at Badon, but asked Arthur for a truce. Perhaps, he defected to Arthur. If Esla was, indeed, an ally it may explain why DEB 26 states:
“tam desperati insulae excidii insperatique mentio auxilii”
“… ‘so desperate a destruction of the island’ – the Saxon revolt – ‘and unhoped-for mention of assistance’ …”[1]
This unforseen help referred to may have been Saxons fighting with the Britons against Kentish forces. That may also explain the reason why the West Saxons claimed their dynasty started with Cerdic, rather than with the arrival of Giwis, possibly in 475. Although the ASC claims Cerdic’s obit in 534, Dumville dates it to 554. It is, therefore, likely that Cerdic was one of Arthur’s opponents at Camlan.
It is proposed that the ASC entry for this year is significant and supports one in the Annales Cambriae. For that year these ASC versions state:
ASC A
Her cuom Port on Bretene 7 his .ii. suna Bieda 7 Mægla mid .ii. scipum on þære stowe þe is gecueden Portesmuþa 7 ofslogon anne giongne brettiscmonnan, swiþe ęþelne monnan.
Here Port and his 2 sons, Bieda and Mægla, came with 2 ships to Britain at the place which is called Portsmouth, and killed a certain young British man – a very noble man.
Jebson T., 2007. Swanton M., 2000, 14.
ASC B
Her com Port on Brytene 7 his twegen suna, Bieda 7 Mægla, mid twæm scipum on ðære stowe þe is nemned Portesmuða 7 þær ofslogan anne Bryttiscne man swyþe æþelne.
Jebson T., 2007.
ASC C
Her com Port on Brytene 7 his twegen sunu, Bieda 7 Mægla, mid twam scipum on þære stowe þe is nemned Portesmuþa 7 þær ofslogan anne Brittiscne man swiþe æþelne.
Jebson T., 2007.
ASC D
No entry.
ASC E
Her com Port on Brytene 7 his twegan sunan Bieda 7 Mægla mid .ii. scipum in þære stowe þe is gecweden Portesmuða, 7 sona land namon 7 ofslogon ænne gungne Brytiscne man swiðe æðelne.
Jebson T., 2007.
Dating the event
There are reasons to doubt the correctness of the dating for the 501 event.
Swanton M., 2000, Winchester Manuscript (A), 14, 16 (excerpts).
The previous entry to that of 501, namely for the year 495, is similar to the 514 entry in that they refer to a Saxon landing at a place called Cerdicesora. Moreover, the following entry to the 501 one, that for the year 508, is similar to the 527 entry by referring to battles at locations with similar names, Cerdicesford and Cerdicesleaga (Certices ford in ASC E). The two dates in both these instances of similarities are seperated by one Metonic cycle, that is 19 years.
The above reasoning would suggest there should have been an entry for the year 500,19 years prior to the 519 entry. If Sims-Williams is correct, this appears to be the case in Æthelweard’s Chronicle:
Sexto etiam anno aduentus eorum occidentalem circumierunt Brittanniæ partem, quae nunc Vuestsexe nuncupatur.
In the sixth year from their arrival they encircled that western area of Britain now known as Wessex.
Campbell A., 1962, 11.
That Æthelweard meant A.D. 500 is confirmed by his comment on Ecgberht’s accession in A.D. 800: ‘From the reign of Cerdic, who was King Ecgberht’s tenth ancestor, 300 years elapsed (reckoned from when he conquered the western area of Britain).’
Sims-Williams P. (ed.), 2007. Clemeos P. et al., Anglo-Saxon England vol. 12, 38.
Curiously, the 501 entry has no parallel under the year 520. It is proposed that it refers to an event two Metonic cycles later, that is in the year 539, the very year that Camlan occurred according to the Annales Cambriae:
[b566] Anus Bellum camlam in quo inclitus arthurus rex britonum et modredus prodítor suus · mutuís wlneribus corruerunt
Gough-Cooper H.W., 2015, the A text, the B text.
Misdatings
Dates for the Wessex rulers.
The entries in the ASC from 514 to 544 are one Metonic cycle too early (coloured black in the table) while the repetitions from 495 to 508 have been pre-dated by two cycles (coloured red). So, for example, Cerdic’s arrival supposedly in 495 occurred in 533. His coronation said to have been in 519 actually happened in 538, a date also suggested by Dumville for the event in his 1985 paper. This date can be arrived at by subtracting the total for the regnal years given in the 9th c. West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List from Alfred’s accession in the year 871. That the eclipses of 538 and 540 were correctly dated suggests these misdatings were not the result of accidental Metonic cycle misplacement but done in order to remove from the record a period of military defeats.
Eclipses of 538 and 540. Espenak and Meeus.
The Adventus Saxonum
Although Wessex maintained that its founder was Cerdic it is likely his was a second Wessex dynasty. The ASC would in a much later entry indicate they arrived in the year 475, see The Adventus Saxonum. This first dynasty, founded by Giwis, came to an end during the battles with Arthur.
A very noble British man
It was not usual for the ASC to name the enemy combatants they killed if such a listing was not excessively large for the document. Instances of this included:
465. Wipped 508. Natanleod 577. Coinmail, Condidan and Farinmail
However, the individual who was slain, supposedly in 501, went unnamed, despite his acknowledged nobility, which might indicate that he was an individual whose name the Saxons wished to obliterate from history. The only individual we know who could just possibly have been a taboo person for the Saxons is Arthur. The fact that the 501 event actually occurred in the year 539 reinforces this possibility.
The 501 description of the murdered Briton as young, which Arthur was not at the time of Camlan, although present in mss. A and E, is absent from mss. B and C. It, therefore, may have been an insertion into the A text. If it was common knowledge that the victim was Arthur, this word could have been inserted to justify the early date, 501, being given for his death.
Camlan
August Hunt independently in his blog came to the same conclusion that Camlan may have occurred in the Portsmouth area as he noticed the presence of the name Cam located nearby. If the above redating of the ASC events is correct and the 501 entry happened in the year 539 then there is a high probability that Camaln did occur in the Portchester area which archaeology tells us was occupied by Saxons at the time. The name Camlan may have derived from Camboglanna. This could mean crooked shore, an apt term for the coastline at the Cam. The map below identifies the former village of Bedhampton, possibly named in honour of Bieda.
The resequencing of the ASC entries would suggest the following chronological order:
Historical date
Chronicle entries
533
495 Here two chieftains; Cerdic and Cynric his son, came to Britain with 5 ships at the place which is called Cerdic’s Shore and the same day fought against the Welsh. 514 Here the West Saxons (Stuf and Wihtgar) came to Britain with 3 ships in the place which is called Cerdic’s Shore, and fought against the Britons and put them to flight.
538
500 In the sixth year from their arrival they encircled that western area of Britain now known as Wessex. 519 Here Cedric and Cynric suceeded to the kingdom of the West Saxons; and the same year they fought against the Britons at the place they now name Cerdic’s Ford. And the royal family of the West Saxons ruled from that day on.
539
501 Here Port and his 2 sons, Bieda and Mægla, came with 2 ships to Britain at the place which is called Portsmouth, and killed a certain young British man – a very noble man.
546
508 Here Cerdic and Cynric killed a certain British king, whose name was Natanleod, and 5 thousand men with him – after whom the land as far as Charford was named Netley. 527 Here Cerdic and Cynric fought against the Britons at the place which is called Cerdic’s Wood.
549
530 Here Cerdic and Cynric took the Isle of Wight and killed a few men at Wihtgar’s stronghold.
553
534 Here Cerdic passed away, and his son Cynric continued to rule 26 years. And they gave all Wight to their two nephews Stuf and Wihtgar.
563
544 Here Wihtgar passed away and they buried him at Wihtgar’s stronghold.
Items in red were moved 2 Metonic cycles back in time, whereas those in black 1 Metonic cycle.
The name Cawrnur occurs in the Kadeir Teyrnon, The Chair of the Prince, which speaks of pale horses under saddle being led from him. In the Marwnat vthyr pen, Uthr Pen[dragon]’s Elegy, there is a reference to an attack on the sons of someone named Cawrnur. Sims-Williams wrote:
“Presumably the fact that Cawrnur and Arthur rhyme partly explains their collocation, but both poems may allude to some lost Arthurian story. The name Cawrnur is perhaps that of a giant (Welsh cawr)”[1]
If we speculate that for the sake of rhyming Cawrnur is a variant of the individuals actual name than a reasonable candidate would be Cawrdaf ap Caradog Freichfras who was of gen 0, see St. Collen. According to triad 13 he was one of the Chief Officers of the Island of Britain. He appears as one of Arthur’s counselors in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy when Osla Gyllellfawr asked for a limited truce.
Gen.
ByS 51
ByS J 51
ByS Y(S) 88
ByS Y(S) 89
-2
Llyr merini
Llyr merini
-1
Caradawc ureichuras
Kriadoc vreichvras
Kriadoc vreichvras
Kriadoc vreichvras
0
Cawrdaf
Cawrdaf ?
Ogvran gawr
Kowrda
Kowrda
1
Medrawt
Medrod
Gwenhvawc
IIddew Korn Brydain
Kathan
2
Dyunawc sant
Dyfnoc
Gwenhwyach was the wife of Medrod. TYP 53 indicates a dispute between her and Gwenhwyfar led to Camlan. Iddog Cordd Prydain, the Embroiler of Britain, appears in Rhonabwy‘s Dream as one of the messengers between Arthur and Medrod. However, he twisted Arthur’s words when reporting them as he was keen for the battle to occur. These hostilities may be what is alluded to in the references to Cawrnur. The Pen. 51 version of triad 51 tells us that Idawc ap Nyniaw was called Idawc Korn Prydyn from which we can conclude Iddog Cordd Prydain is the same person as Iddew Corn Brydain. We may conclude Nyniaw was the name of his mother.
Medrod ap Llew, the supposed husband of Gwenhwyach, has been conflated with Medrod ap Cawrdaf. The existence of two Medrods would explain why different personalities have been ascribed to the name Medrod.
[1] Bromwich, R., Jarman, A.O.H., Roberts, B. F., 1991, 53.
The Preface in the Winchester manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles states:
Then their brother Alfred succeeded to the kingdom; and he was then 23 years old; and it was 300 and 96 years since his ancestors had first conquered the West Saxons’ land from the Britons.
Swanton M.J., 2000, 4.
396 years prior to the start of Alfred’s reign, in the year 871, suggests an Adventus Saxonum in the year 475. This, of course, was not the first arrival of Germanic peoples to Britain. However, there was an influx of Saxon invaders around this time as indicated by the chronicle entry for the year 477:
Here Ælle and his 3 sons, Cymen and Wlencing and Cissa, came to the land of Britain with 3 ships at the place which is named Cymen’s Shore, …
Swanton M.J., 2000, 14.
It would thus seem that the West Saxons and the South Saxons arrived at around the same time. They also appear to have landed in areas that are in close proximity, namely Cerdicesora (Southampton area) and Cymenesora (Selsey area). Perhaps, the two dates refer to the same invasion, a discrepancy of two years in the Chronicles would be nothing unusual. However, more likely, as Ælle does not appear in the W. Saxon pedigrees, there were indeed two events and the West and South Saxons went on to expand their kingdoms westwards and eastwards respectively.
Bede and Gildas
When Bede wrote:
Et ex eo tempore nunc ciues nunc hostes uincebant usque ad annum obsessionis Badonici montis, quando non minimas eisdem hostibus strages dabant, quadragesimo circiter et quarto anno aduentus eorum in Brittaniam.
From that time on, first the Britons won and then the enemy were victorious until the year of the siege of Mount Badon, when the Britons slaughtered no small number of their foes about forty-four years after their arrival in Britain.
Colgrave, B., Mynors, R.A.B., 1969, 54-55.
his source for this information, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, was referring to this later Adventus, not the one traditionally dated to the year 449. Bede’s version of the DEB is likely to have been closer to Gildas’s original text than any of our later surviving copies. Gildas was a little more precise than Bede with regards to the time interval between the Adventus and Badon when he stated:
And this commences, a fact I know, as the forty-fourth year,42 with one month now elapsed; it is also the year of my birth.
Williams H., 1899, ch. 26.
The first year being 475 implies the forty-fourth year is 518, the traditional date for Badon. The battle occurred one month into that year. He states that year is when he was born. The Annales Cambriae tells us that Gildas died in the year 572, giving a plausible life-span of 54 years.
Gildas may have started formulating his ideas concerning the DEB around the age of 20, that is c. 538. Camlan occurred in 539 and could well have been as a result of an internecine feud amongst the Britons, since triad 84 tells us it was one of the Futile Battles of the Island of Britain1. Indeed, it may have been one of the triggers that set Gildas on the path to writing the DEB 10 years later, around the year 548.
Chronicon Britannicum
Note, this document states:
CCCCXLVII. Angli in majorem Britanniam venerunt, & Britones inde ejecerunt CCCCXC. Natus est S. Gildas. Hiis diebus fuit Arturus fortis.
It gives an incorrect date for Gildas’s birthdate which is 43 years later than the erroneous date for the Adventus that was also used by Bede.
ArthurianWeb 