Faces of Arthur Index

Vortigen Studies Index

The twelfth battle: Mount Badon

Mount Badon is a difficult place-name for an unexpected reason: it is first encountered in a 6th century source by the monk Gildas, where it is written "Badonici montis". There the British leader at the battle, fought c. 500 AD, is not named. Several etymologies have been attempted, the two currently favored being the Baddan- of one of the several Baddanbyrig sites in southern Britain, now modern Badburys, or Bath in Avon, from an earlier OE Badanceaster or Badan. Kenneth Jackson said of Gildas’s Badon, "No such British name is known, nor any such stem."

Gildas alludes to Badon having been fought in this year of his birth, i.e. 44 years prior to the date he wrote De Excidio. The date given in the Annales Cambriae, c. 516, is believed to be a bit late. The date for Badon is usually placed c. 500 AD. When we go to the Badon account in the Historia Brittonum, it is mentioned just prior to Ida’s building of Bamburgh, the founding of Bernicia. This same reference to Ida is found in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 547.

There is one possible clue to identifying Badon. It lies in a comparison of the Welsh Annals entry for the Second Battle of Badon and the narrative of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  The actual year entry for this Second Battle of Badon reads as follows:

665 The first celebration of Easter among the Saxons.  The second battle of Badon. Morgan dies.

The "first celebration of Easter among the Saxons" is a reference to the Synod of Whitby of c. 664.  While not directly mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, nor the Anglo-Saxon version of Bede, there is an indirect reference to this event:

664 … Colman with his companions went to his native land…

This is, of course, a reference to Colman 's resigning of his see and leaving Lindisfarne with his monks for Iona.  He did so because the Roman date for Easter had been accepted at the synod over the Celtic date. 

While there is nothing in the ASC year entry 664 that helps with identifying Badon, if we go to the year entry 661, which is the entry found immediate prior to 664, an interesting passage occurs:

661 In this year, at Easter, Cenwalh fought at Posentesburh [Posbury?], and Wulfhere, son of Penda, ravaged as far as [or "in", or "from"] Ashdown…

Ashdown is here the place of that name in Berkshire. It is only a half dozen miles to the east of Badbury and Liddington Castle.  A vague reference to ravaging in the neighborhood of Ashdown may well have been taken by someone who knew Badon was in the vicinity of Ashdown as a second battle at Badon.

Alas, an identification of the Second Battle of Badon with the Badbury by the Chronicle’s Ashdown does not resolve the “Badon problem” so easily. A Welsh chronicler or his source may have identified the Badon of Gildas with the Badbury at Liddington simply because of the two place-names resembled each other. Furthermore, even if he was right in identifying Badon with a Badbury fort, we have no way of knowing whether the Liddington Badbury was the right Badbury. It may have been the only one the chronicler or his source knew about and became, by default, Badon. If he were correct in identifying Badon with a Badbury, then the real site of the Second Battle of Badon could just have easily have been Badbury Rings in Dorset, etc.

Even worse is our inability solely on the basis of an apparent identification of the Second Badon with Liddington’s Badbury to extrapolate from this that the First Badon should also be placed at Liddington – or even that the First Badon was, in fact, a Badbury.

Needless to say, a Badon location in south England does not bode well for Arthur having fought there. Instead, his presence at a southern Badon would seem to be a later legendary accretion. This assessment is based, of course, on my placement of all the prior Arthurian battles north of the Humber. Is there any way we can satisfy the requirements for a Northern Badon, something that would accord better with our Northern Arthur?

The only way we can do so is to rely upon the Welsh insistence on identifying Badon with a “Bath” place-name.

Welsh tradition weighs in heavily for Bath in Somerset as Badon. This seems a highly unlikely location for a decisive battle against the Saxons fought c. 500 A.D. and, again, is in the south, where a Northern Arthur would not have fought. Some scholars believe the Welsh insistence on Bath as Badon stems from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s identification of the two sites. There is no evidence independent of Geoffrey which explicitly identifies Badon with the Somerset Bath.

The name Bath is indisputably English, so the notion that Gildas, a Welsh writer of the 6^th century, would be using an English hill-fort name to designate the greatest of British victories of the period, is not one worth considering. However, to this observation we must add that our earliest extant copy of Gildas is centuries older than the writer of the original work. It is conceivable that at some stage in the copying of the text an English name for the place, which had become part of customary usage, was substituted.

Dr. G. I. Isaac of The University of Wales, Aberystwyth, has the following to say on the nature of the word Badon, which I take to be authoritative.  His explanation of why Gildas's Badon cannot be derived from one of the Badburys is critical in an eventual identification of a Badon site: 

"Remember in all that follows that both the -d- in Badon and the -th- in OE Bathum are pronounced like th in 'bathe' and Modern Welsh -dd-. Remember also that in Old English spelling, the letters thorn and the crossed d are interchangeable in many positions: that is variation in spelling, not in sound, and has no significance for linguistic arguments.

It is curious that a number of commentators have been happy to posit a 'British' or 'Celtic' form Badon. The reason seems to be summed up succinctly by Tolstoy in the 1961 article (p. 145): 'It is obviously impossible that Gildas should have given a Saxon name for a British locality'. Why? I see no reason at all in the world why he should not do so (begging the question as to what, exactly, is the meaning of 'British locality' here; Gildas is just talking about a hill). This then becomes the chief crutch of the argument, as shown on p. 147 of Tolstoy's article: 'But that there was a Celtic name "Badon" we know from the very passage in Gildas under discussion'.

But that is just circular: ' "Badon" must be "Celtic" because Gildas only uses "Celtic" names'. This is no argument. What would have to be shown is that 'Badon' is a regular reflex of a securely attested 'Celtic' word. This is a matter of empirical detail and is easily tested; we have vast resources to tell us what was and was not a 'Celtic' word. And there is nothing like 'Badon'. So what do we do? Do we just say that 'Badon' must be Celtic because Gildas uses it? That gets us nowhere.

(This is all on the linguistics; on the history, of course, Tolstoy also agrees that Badon was Bath not Badbury. I just want to emphasise that the linguistic arguments Tolstoy attempts have the typical vagaries and technical defects of the linguistically untrained.)

So what of the relationships between aet Bathum - Badon - Baddanbyrig? The crucial point is just that OE Bathum and the Late British / very early Welsh Badon we are talking about both have the soft -th- sound of 'bathe' and Mod.Welsh 'Baddon'. But, as I said before, Baddanbyrig has a long
d-sound like -d d- in 'bad day'. Both languages, early OE and Late British, had both the d-sound and the soft th-sound. So:

1) If the English had taken over British (hypothetical and actually non-existent) *Badon (*Din Badon or something), they would have made it *Bathanbyrig or the like, and the modern names of these places would be something like *Bathbury.

2) If the British had taken over OE Baddanbyrig, they would have kept the d-sound, and Gildas would have written 'Batonicus mons', and Annales Cambriae would have 'bellum Batonis', etc. (where the -t- is the regular early SPELLING of the sound -d-; always keep your conceptions of spellings and your conceptions of sounds separate; one of the classic errors of the untrained is to fail to distinguish these). I imagine if that were the case we would have no hesitation is identifying 'Baton' with a Badbury place.

But the d-sound and the soft th-sound are not interchangeable. It is either the one or the other, and in fact it is the soft th-sound that is in 'Badon', and that makes it equivalent to Bathum, not Baddanbyrig.

(That applies to the sounds. On the other hand there is nothing strange about the British making Bad-ON out of OE Bath-UM. There was nothing in the Late British/early Welsh language which corresponded to the dative plural ending -UM of OE, so it was natural for the Britons to substitute the common British suffix -ON for the very un-British OE suffix -UM: this is not a substitution of SOUNDS, but of ENDINGS, which is quite a different matter. That Gildas then makes an unproblematic Latin adjective with -icus out of this does not require comment.)

To conclude:

1) There is no reason in the world why a 6th-century British author should not refer to a place in southern Britain by its OE name.
2) There was no 'British' or 'Celtic' *Badon.
3) 'Badon' does not correspond linguistically with OE Baddanbyrig.
4) 'Badon' is the predictably regular Late British / early Welsh borrowing of OE Bathum.

(Final note: the fact that later OE sources occasionally call Bath 'Badon' is just a symptom of the book-learning of the authors using the form. Gildas was a widely read and highly respected author, and Badon(-is) (from Gildas's adjective Badon-icus) will quickly and unproblematically have become the standard book-form (i.e. primarily Latin form) for the name of Bath. Again, all attempts to gain some sort of linguistic mileage from the apparent, but illusory, OE variation between Bathum and Badon are vacuous.)"

It is thus safe to say that 'Badon' must derive from a Bath name. However, we must not restrict ourselves to the Southern Bath. For as it happens, there are a couple of Northern "Bath" sites that have previously gone unnoticed in an Arthurian context.

The first Northern candidate for Badon is on the eastern side of the Pennines, on a slight shelf of the hillside with good views down towards the Greta River to the south and up onto the moors beyond. This is the Roman fort of Lavatris at Bowes. This place-name has as its base the British word *lauatro-, "water-trough, tub, bath" (plural *lauatri,), “possibly referring to a Roman bath-house.” Gaulish had lautro, which is glossed ‘balneo’ (bath) in the Vienna Glossary. The word is cognate with Latin luo, lavo, lavatorium, lavacrum, etc.

While the original form of the place-name, prior to its being Latinized, may have meant "’river-bed’ with plural implications" (Rivet and Smith), there is no doubt that later generations would have interpreted Lavatris as the Romans did:

lavatio , onis, f. [id.] , a washing, bathing, bath.

I. In abstr.: quid ea messis attinet ad meam lavationem? Plaut. Most. 1, 3, 4 ; Cic. ap. Col. 12, 3, 2: lavatio calida et pueris et senibus apta est, Cels. 1, 3, § 71 ; 79; cf.: boves lavatione calidae aquae traduntur pinguescere, Plin. 8, 45, 70, § 178 .--
II. Transf.
A. Bathing apparatus: ut lavatio parata sit, Cic. Fam. 9, 5, 3 : argentea, Phaedr. 4, 5, 22 ; Dig. 34, 2, 25, § 10. --
B. A bathing-place, bathing-room, bath: in versura porticus frigida lavatio, quam Graeci loutron vocitant, Vitr. 5, 11; Dig. 19, 2, 30, § 1; Inscr. Grut. 444, 8; 473, 1 al. (Lewis and Short Dictionary, Perseus Project)

Lavatris was of tremendous strategic importance, as it guarded the Stainmore Gap or Pass, the way through the Pennines into Cumbria. The Roman road that passed through the hills via the Stainmore Pass connected York with Carlisle. A major Saxon offensive may have been launched against the Stainmore Gap. If the Saxons had taken Lavatris, they would have effectively cut the British territories corresponding to the later Northumbria in half. Communications between York and Carlisle would have been at an end, as would any other commercial or military traffic along this segment of the Roman road system.

On the other hand, a major defeat of such an offensive may have bought the Northern Britons considerable respite from their Germanic enemy. This is just such a victory as Badon is claimed to be in our early sources.

However, there is no extant OE Bathum name at Bowes which could have yielded the Badon of Gildas. Nor is there any local tradition which records that the place was ever called "the Baths".  Indeed, while there was a typical Roman bathhouse or balneum attached to the fort, there is no indication whatsoever that Lavatris was different from other forts in regards to its baths. To this may be added a Levy or Layer pool, some two miles distant from the fort, which supplied Lavatris with water. The name Lavatris may actually be preserved in Levy/Layer. Had the English retained the name Lavatris, they surely would have made use of a form of their own cognate words, lye (OE leah or leag) and lather (OE leathor), from the Indo-European root.

leu()
DEFINITION:
-To wash. Oldest form *leu(₃)-. 1. Suffixed form *lou-k-. lye, from Old English lag, lye, from Germanic *laug. 2. Suffixed form *lou-tro-. a. lather, from Old English lthran, lthran, to lather; b. lutefisk, from Old Norse laudhr, soap, foam. 3. Variant form *law-. a. loment, lotion; ablution, alluvion, colluvium, deluge, dilute, eluent, elute, eluvium, from Latin lavere, to wash (in compounds, -luere); b. form *law--. launder, lavabo, lavage, lavatory, lave, lavish, from Latin lavre, to wash; c. latrine, from Latin lavtrna, ltrna, a bath, privy. 4. O-grade form *lou-. pyrolusite, from Greek louein, to wash. (Pokorny lou- 692.)

The above are fatal flaws in any attempted identification of Lavatris with Badon. A second Northern “Bath” site is the High Peak District town of Buxton, Derbyshire, in what had once been the southermost part of Brigantian tribal territory. In the Roman period, Buxton was the site of Aquae Arnemetiae, “the waters in front of (the goddess) Nemetia”. To the best of our knowledge, Bath in Somerset and Buxton in Derbyshire were the only two "Aquae" towns in Britain.

But even better, there is a Bathum name extant at Buxton.  The Roman road which leads to Buxton from the northeast, through the Peak hills, is called Bathamgate.  Batham is "baths", the exact dative plural we need to match the name Bathum/Badon.  -gate is "road, street", which comes from ME gate, itself a derivative of OScand gata.  Bathamgate is thus "Baths Road". 

Neil Bettridge, Archivist, Derbyshire County Council's Record Office, cites (via personal correspondence ) Kenneth Cameron's "The Place-Names of Derbyshire", volume I, Cambridge University Press, 1959, regarding Bathamgate:
"On page 21, in the Roads and Ways section, Cameron records that Bathamgate is very probably 'the Bathum road', the first element Bathum being the dative plural baðum of bæd, 'bath or bathing place' in Old English. He cites his sources, with dates, as follows:

Bathinegate (for Bathmegate), 1400, from W. Dugdale's Monasticon Anghcanum, 6 vols, London 1817-1830.

Bathom gate, 1538, from Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office

Batham Gate, 1599, from records of the Duchy of Lancaster Special Commissions in the Public Record Office."

Buxton is also actually atop a hill, something that cannot be said for the Somerset Bath.  Indeed, Buxton is the highest town in all of England, being at an elevation of over 1,000 ft. above sea level.  Those who opt for the southern Bath are forced to resort to a neighboring hill, such as Bathampton Down or Little Solsbury.

If the grove of the goddess Nemetia continued as an important shrine well into Arthur’s time (and the presence of St. Anne’s Well at the site of the town’s ancient baths shows that the efficacy of the sacred waters was appreciated well into Christian times), there is the possibility the Saxons targeted Buxton for exactly this reason. Taking the Britons’ shrine would have struck them a demoralizing blow. If the goddess or saint or goddess-become-saint is herself not safe from the depredations of the barbarians, who is?

A threat to such a shrine may well have galvanized British resistence. Arthur himself may have been called upon to lead the British in the defense of Nemetia's waters and her temple-grove.

The three days and three nights Arthur bore the cross (or shield bearing an image of a cross; see Leslie Alcock, etc.) at Badon in the Welsh Annals are markedly similar to the three days and three nights Urien is said to have blockaded the Saxons in the island of Lindsfarne (British Metcaud) in Chapter 63 of Nennius.  In Gildas, immediately before mention of Badon, we have the following phrase:  "From then on victory went now to our countrymen, now to their enemies…"  Similarly, just prior to mention of Urien at Lindisfarne, we have this: "During that time, sometimes the enemy, sometimes the Cymry were victorious…"  It would seem, therefore, that either the motif of the three days and three nights was taken from the Urien story and inserted into that of Arthur or vice-versa. 

What is fascinating about this parallel is that Lindisfarne or "Holy Island", as it came to be known, was an important spiritual center of Northern Britain.  The inclusion of the three days and three nights (an echo of the period Christ spent in the tomb) in the Badon story suggests that we can no longer accept the view that Arthur's portage of Christian symbols at Badon was borrowed solely from the Castle Guinnion battle account in the HB.  Aquae Arnemetiae, like Lindisfarne, was a holy place.  Arthur's fighting there was a holy act. 

The 960 Saxons slain by Arthur at Badon: in the past, most authorities have seen in the number 960 no more than a fanciful embellishment on the Annals' entry, i.e. more evidence of Arthur as a "legend in the making". But 960 could be a very significant number, militarily speaking. The first cohort of a Roman legion was composed of six doubled centuries or 960 men. As the most important unit, the first cohort guarded the Roman Imperial eagle standard. Now, while the Roman army in the late period no longer possessed a first cohort composed of this number of soldiers, it is possible Nennius's 960 betrays an antiquarian knowledge of earlier Roman military structure. However, why the Saxons are said to have lost such a number cannot be explained in terms of such an anachronistic description of a Roman unit.

The simplest explanation for Nennius's 960 is that it represents 8 Saxon long hundreds, each long hundred being composed of 120 warriors.  To quote from Tacitus on the Germanic long hundred:

"On general survey, their [the German's] strength is seen to lie rather in their infantry, and that is why they combine the two arms in battle. The men who they select from the whole force and station in the van are fleet of foot and fit admirably into cavalry action. The number of these chosen men is exactly fixed. A hundred are drawn from each district, and 'the hundred' is the name they bear at home. What began as a mere number ends as a title of distinction" [_Germania_ 6]

Curiously, in the Norse poem "Grimnismal", 8 hundreds of warriors (probably 960) pass through each of the doors of Valhall, the Hall of the Slain, at the time of Ragnarok or the Doom of the Powers. 

The thirteenth battle: Camlann

After these many victories, Arthur is said to have perished with Medraut at a place called Camlann. Camlann has long been linked with Camboglanna, the "Crooked Bank", a fort towards the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. The only other candidates for Camlann are in NW Wales (the Afon Gamlan and two other Camlanns near Dolgellau), and these do not have anything to do with the Northern Arthur. Those who point to Camelon on the Antonine Wall are ignorant of the fact that this place was originally called Carmuirs. It was renamed Camelodunum in 1526 by the antiquarian Hector Boece (information courtesy Henry Gough-Cooper of The Scottish Place-Name Society). However, an inscription found at the Camelon fort (RIB 2210) reads:

CAMELON VEX LEG XX V V F

The problem with interpreting the Camelon in this inscription as the name of the Camelon fort is the presence in the same inscription of Legio XX Valeria Victrix. The Twentieth Legion is well known to have had its first British base at Colchester, whose Roman name was Camulodunum. Doubtless, this inscription merely calls attention to this fact. Rivet and Smith identify the Camelon fort with the Colania of Ptolemy and the Ravenna Cosmography.

I have elsewhere shown (and authorities such as Richard Coates and Professor Oliver Padel of Cambridge have concurred) that Medraut or Modred preserves the earlier Roman name of Moderatus. This may be significant for a Medraut at Cambloglanna on Hadrian’s Wall, for we know of a Trajanic period prefect named C. Rufius Moderatus, who left inscriptions at Greatchesters on the Wall and Brough-under-Stainmore in Cumbria (CIL iii. 5202, RIB 1737, 166-9, 2411, 147-51). The name of this prefect could have become popular in the region and might even have still been in use in the 5th-6th centuries AD.

It is only later tradition, which makes Arthur and Medraut enemies at Camlann. In the Welsh Annal entry, we are only told that both chieftains fell at this site. Given the location of Camboglanna, it can hardly be a coincidence that a little farther west, on an extension of Hadrian’s Wall near the coast (in an area once covered by the extensive Burgh Marsh, much of which has since been drained), we find a Roman fort called Aballava (or in a variant Avallana), the "Apple-place". An Arthur who fell at Camboglanna could have been brought down the river system in this region or carted along the Roman road to this "Avalon".

The inscriptions found at Avallana may be significant in this regard, as two, perhaps three Urs- or "bear" names are present (Urseius, Matusius, from Celtic *matu-, "bear", and possibly Ursinianus). The Welsh associated Arthur’s name with their own word arth, "bear". In one remarkable inscription a man by the name of Lucius Urseius or Lucius "the Bear" makes a dedication to Dea Latis, the "Goddess of the Lake". This sounds suspiciously like the Lady of the Lake of Arthurian romance, who is in some versions of the story a denizen of Avalon. King Arthur’s sword was supposed to have been forged in Avalon and was returned to the Lady of the Lake upon his death.

What we appear to have with Arthur at Avalon with the Lady of the Lake is Arthur at Avallana with Dea Latis. The very late misidentification of Glastonbury as Avalon was only made with, in Rivet and Smith’s words, "the discovery of the pretended tomb of Arthur at the abbey in 1191."

I would add that it may be possible to identify the Niviane/Viviane given as the name of the Lady of the Lake in Arthurian romances. 

In Welsh tradition, Nyfain (variants Nyuein, Nyven, Nevyn) daughter of Brychan is the name given to the mother of Urien.  As is well known, the Welsh kingdom of Brycheiniog was of Irish foundation.

Nyfain cannot, as some might thing, be an eponym for the ancient Novantae tribe, whose territory (roughly Dumfries and Galloway) was ruled over by Urien.  The identification is etymologically impossible.  But the name could very early easily represent the Irish goddess Nemhain.  Nemhain was one of the premiere battle-goddesses of Ireland, and was often paired with Macha, Morrigan and Badb.    According to a tract called "Mothers of Irish Saints", Brychan had a wife Dina.  This wife's name adequetely explains the intrusion of the goddess Diana and Dyonas into the story of Niviane (see the Vulgate "Merlin" 28).   

Urien himself was married to Modron, i.e. Matrona, the Mother Goddess, daughter of Aballach, a personification of the Irish Ablach, from Emhain Ablach, the apple tree otherworld.  In this case, Aballach is to be visualized as the king of Avalon, i.e. of the Aballava fort at the west end of Hadrian's Wall, just across the Solway from the homeland of Urien.   

I would mention the Locus Maponi (which in Rivet and Smith's _The Place-Names of Roman Britain_ is rendered the Loch or LAKE of Mabon), identifiable with Lochmaben in Dumfries.  As is well known, Mabon was the son of Modron.  This is the same Modron who is presented as the wife of Urien, son of Nyfain/Nemhain.   

While it is tempting to give Modron the 'Divine Mother' the name Nemhain, we are not justified in making this assumption.  And, indeed, given the proximity of Lochmaben to the Annan River, and the presence of a St. Ann's on a tributary of the Annan which has its confluence with the latter river at Lochmaben, it makes more sense to associate Modron/Matrona "the Divine Mother" with a British version of the Irish goddess Anu.  According to Rivet and Smith, Annan is "the genitive of anau, cognate with Welsh anaw 'riches' and Gaelic anu... Anu was an Irish goddess of prosperity."   It is interesting that Anu's Christian counterpart, St. Ann, present near the Annan and Lochmaben, also replaced the goddess Arnemetia at Buxton, the site of Arthur's Mount Badon battle. I would add that the only name we have for the mother of Medrawt is "Anna", supposedly the sister of Arthur. 

This Anna's husband is said to be Llew (Geoffrey of Monmouth's Loth of Lodonesia), i.e. the god Lleu.  In Welsh tradition, the youthful god Lleu and Mabon the divine son were both placed in death at the same place (Nantle in Gwynedd).  Nikolai Tolstoy (in his _The Quest for Merlin_) thought this implied an identification of the two gods.  Of course, we have the god Lleu's name at Carlisle/Luguvalium, the fort and town of someone called Luguvalos, "Lugus-strong".  There is no reason, therefore, to look for Llew in Lothian, nor at Loudoun in Strathclyde (which according to Watson is from a Lugudunum, "Lugus's fort"), nor at Dinlleu ("Fort of Lleu") in Gwynedd.  Probably it is not necessary to search for the unlocated Lugudunum somewhere near Wearmouth and Chester-le-Street (see Rivet and Smith's _The Place-Names of Roman Britain_).  Medrawt may have been from the Annandale of Anu/Anna and Lleu in the person of Mabon.   Nyfain would then be Niviane, Lady of the Lake, i.e. she of the Lake of Mabon, the youthful Sun God.  However, clearly the marshes around Aballava were also sacred to Nyfain and it is to this lake goddess of the Novantae that the dedication was made at the Burgh-By-Sands fort.   One further piece of evidence should be presented in support of the notion that Nyfain is the Arthurian Niviane. 

In the Vulgate _Merlin_, the forest name of the Lady of the Lake is first given as the Forest of Briosque and only later as Broceliande, the name used by Chretien de Troyes.  While Broceliande has been sought in various places (including Brittany), I would derive the Old French 'Briosque' from the -fries component of Dumfries, the town situated just WSW of Lochmaben in Dumfriesshire.  While once thought to be the "Fort of the Frisians", authorities beginning with Chalmers (see Watson) correctly identified -fries with Gaelic preas, Angl. pres(s), gen. phris, Angl. -fries, gen. pl. preas, (b)p(h)reasach, "bush, copse, thicket".   

To quote from _History of the Burgh of Dumfries_, Chapter 1:  

"In the earliest charter to the town, still extant – that of Robert III., dated 28^th April, 1395 – the appellation given is “Burgi de Dumfreiss,” a form of spelling which, with one “s” omitted, continued in vogue till about 1780. During the reign of Alexander III. and the long interregnum which followed, the form nearly resembled that of the present day – the prefix being generally Dun or Dum, rather than Drum: thus, in a contemporary representation made to the English Government respecting the slaughter of John Comyn in 1305, the locality is described as “en l’eglise de Freres meneours de la ville de Dunfres;” [Sir Francis Palgrave’s Documents and Records Illustrative of the History of Scotland, p. 335.] and, thirty years afterwards, we read of the appointment of an official as “Vice Comitatus de Dumfres.” [Rotuli Scotiæ, vol. i., p. 271.]

Such uncouth spellings of the name of Dunfreisch, Droonfreisch, and Drumfriesche, occasionally occur in old documents; but the variations are never so great as to leave any doubt as to the town that is meant; and nearly all more or less embody the idea of a “castle in the shrubbery,” [The only exception we have net with occurs in a Papal Bull issued against Bruce in 1320 for the homicide of Comyn, which is stated to have been perpetrated in the Minorite Church of “Dynifes.”] according to the etymology of Chalmers, which we accept as preferable to any other that has been suggested. [Chalmers’s words are: “This celebrated prefix Dun must necessarily have been appropriated to some fortlet, or strength, according to the secondary signification of that ancient work. The phrys of the British speech, and the kindred phreas of the Scoto, signify shrubs:  and the Dun-fres must consequently mean the castle among the shrubberies, or copsewood.” – Caledonia, vol. iii., p. 45."  

It makes a great deal of sense to envisage Merlin and Viviane in the Dumfries region, as this was the home stomping grounds of Myrddin, the prototype for Geoffrey of Monmouth's Merlin.  In all likelihood, Broceliande is simply Briosque + land.   On cannot help wonder if we should associate the Lochmaben Stone of Nyfain's lake with the Arthurian sword-in-the-stone motif.  The following is the CANMORE report on the Lochmabenstane from the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland:  

Lochmaben or Clochmaben Stone is an erratic, 7' high and 18' in girth, which Feachem says may have been incorporated into a megalithic monument, though there is no clear evidence of this. It was published on the OS 1st edition 6" as Druidical Circle (Remains of), which the Ordnance Name Book [ONB] states formerly consisted of nine upright stones placed in an oval, two of which remain, one being locally called Lochmaben Stone.
R W Feachem 1963; Name Book 1858

Richmond and Ross identify it with Locus (or meeting place) Maponi of the Ravenna Cosmography, Ross adding that possibly a shrine to the Celtic god Maponus existed here.
I A Richmond 1958; A Ross 1967; K A Steer 1958

In the 16th century, it was frequently used as the meeting place between the Scots and English wardens for the administration of justice, and in comparatively recent times local gatherings took place at this stone.
T I Rae 1966.

As stated by the Ordnance Name Book (ONB) two stones survive which may represent the remains of a stone circle. The larger of the two is still known as the Lochmaben Stone and is as described. The other stone at NY 3123 6600 stands c 1.0m high by 1.2m in diameter in a less conspicuous position in a fence.
Revised at 25".
Visited by OS (RD) 18 June 1970

No change to previous field report.
Visited by OS (JP) 20 February 1973.

Lochmaben Stone
Stone Circle [NR]
(remains of) [NAT]
OS 1:10,000 map, 1980.

This standing stone, also known as the Clochmaben Stone, is situated 490m S of Old Graitney farmhouse, and measures 2.3m in height. About 23m to the NNE there is a second, smaller, stone now incorporated in a modern fence-line, and it may be all that remains of an enclosure of 'about half an acre' noted in the 18th century.
It has been suggested that the name Lochmaben is derived from the Celtic god Maponus, and that this was a cult centre.
RCAHMS 1981, visited October 1980.
Statistical Account (OSA) 1793; W Macfarlane 1906-8; RCAHMS 1920; A Ross 1967; A L F Rivet and C Smith 1979.

In 1982 the stone fell over. Excavation prior to re-erection revealed that it had been set into a shallow pit. The stratigraphy was complex and the relationship between the fill of the pit and the original position of the stone itself could not be unequivocally determined. No artifacts were recovered but a sample of mixed quercus, salix and corylus charcoal from the lower fill of the stone-pit yielded a radiocarbon determination of 2525 +/- 85 bc (GU-1591).
A Crone 1983.

Listed as 'Clochmaben Stone, standing stone, stone circle (possible)'.
RCAHMS 1997.   I would add that Mabon in Welsh tradition is sometimes called Mabon son of Mellt, mellt being a Welsh word for "lightning".  Arthur's sword Caledfwlch was patterned after the Irish sword Caladbolg, "Hard-lightning".  There may, then, have been a tradition in which a new chieftain or king symbolically received his sword from Mabon or his mother at the Lochmaben Stone.

More Arthurian battles...

From Glein to Camlann is Copyright © 2006, August Hunt. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Comments to: August Hunt

VortigernStudies is copyright © Robert Vermaat 1999-2007. All rights reserved