Today’s installment about the kingdoms of Dark Age Britain is particularly exciting. Previously, we’ve talked about the Old North Kingdoms of Alt Clut and Nouant, and also about how this region became Scotland. As a setting for The Retreat to Avalon and The Arthurian Age, the Kingdom of the Gododdin holds a special place in Arthurian lore.
Gododdin is the Welsh form of Votadini, the name of an Iron Age Celtic tribe that lived in south-east Scotland from the Firth of Forth to the River Tyne. Like their neighbors, they spoke Brittonic and were distinct from the Picts to the north.
Some of the earliest activity in this region was at Traprain Law and Edinburgh, going back to the stone age. After the invasion, they seem to have been on more or less friendly terms with the Roman Empire, acting as a buffer state after the failed attempts by Rome to hold the lands north of Hadrian’s Wall.
A part of the region, alongside the Firth of Forth and including Edinburgh, was called Manau Gododdin. It’s not clear why, but it is likely due to the decentralized form of kingship at the time. The founder of Gwynedd, Cunedda, is said to have ruled the Manau Gododdin before relocating with his family to northern Wales, early in the 5th century. This may have been at the invitation of Magnus Maximus, in order to defend the region from invading Irish.
At some point, probably after Lot’s death, his kingdom became known as Lothian, and it remains the name of the region of Scotland encompassing the core of his old domain, and his primary fortresses at Edinburgh and Traprain Law.
But let’s get into the really interesting part. This region is more closely linked to King Arthur than the other northern kingdoms for a number of reasons. We’ll start with the historical part.
As mentioned in this post about the existence of Arthur, the earliest known reference to Arthur is from the Welsh poem, Y Gododdin. The poem is about Mynyddog the Wealthy, king of the Gododdin, who recruits 300 of the greatest British warriors, feasting them (and likely preparing) at his fortress of Din Eidyn (Edinburgh) for a year. His goal is to attack the Angles at their fort of Catraeth (Catterick in North Yorkshire). The attack is a disaster. All died but one: Aneirin, the bard who composed the poem.
As you may know from the article mentioned above, one of the warriors is compared to Arthur. Apparently he’s an incredible warrior, but still no Arthur. The oldest surviving copy of this poem was written down around the late 1200’s, but linguistic evidence suggests it was composed in the early to mid 600’s. This is within a few generations of when Arthur likely lived. Aside from providing evidence of Arthur’s existence, Y Gododdin provides early evidence of other Brittonic kingdoms, customs and people.
As if this wasn’t enough, this region is heavily associated with Arthur through Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain, as well as the later medieval romances. As I’ve said before, I think there are seeds of truth in many old stories, particularly in the oldest known versions. In this case, we’re tracking down King Lot of the Host (meaning a large army).
Lot first appears in The Life of Saint Kentigern, the patron saint of Glasgow. This hagiography was written about 1185, supposedly from old Glaswegian legend and Irish documents. In this, Lot is said to be Kentigern’s maternal grandfather. According to the story, Lot learned that his daughter, Teneu, had become pregnant.
Now, there are varying details on this. In The Life, it’s suggested that Kentigern was bestowed by God as a virgin birth on a very devout Teneu whose father was a pagan. This seems… unlikely. For one thing, the rulers of Britain south of Pictland, had been Christians for generations.
Other examples of this story say that she was raped, or that she was seduced. Some stories say this was by Owain ap Urien of Rheged, but Owain lived well after the era of Lot, so this is most likely a later medieval combining of famous people into a single bloodline.
Now, if you have read The Retreat to Avalon, you will recognize what comes next. If not, the next paragraph contains a very minor spoiler.
In any event, Teneu refused to tell her father who had knocked her up, and like any father, Lot was angry. Unlike most fathers, his remedy was to throw her over the walls of his palace at Din Pendyrlaw (Traprain Law).
By Divine grace, Teneu survived and was spirited away, later giving birth to the boy who would become Saint Kentigern, also known by the pet name, Mungo.
The next time we see Lot is from Geoffrey of Monmouth. As you may recall from past articles, Geoffrey is the first person we know of to take the various stories of Arthur in existence in his time and put them down in writing (likely filling in the gaps from his own imagination). Geoffrey said that Lot was a loyal vassal of Uther Pendragon, King of Britain, and that he married Uther’s daughter, Anna. Lot and Anna had two children, Gawain and Modred.
As you can see, the popular recollection of Modred being the bastard child of an incestuous pairing of Arthur with his half-sister, Morgana, was no part of the early legends. We have the French Romance writers to thank for that travesty. If you have read The Retreat to Avalon, you can also see why I structured my story based on the early legends.
Arthur is also linked to this region by other legends. Too many to really list here, but among them, the seventh of his famous twelve battles, the Battle of the Celidon Wood, is thought to have occurred within this region. My guess is southwest of Edinburgh in the Tweed valley along a Roman road. There is also a reference to Arthur and Bedwyr fighting “Dog-Heads” (probably Picts) at the mount of Eidyn (Edinburgh castle, or nearby Arthur’s Seat) in the Welsh poem, Pa Gur.
Over the next few centuries, the Romance versions of Arthur’s story, from Chrétien de Troyes to Thomas Malory and beyond, portray Lot as an early adversary who either becomes a loyal vassal to King Arthur, or who eventually rebels again. He is no longer married to Anna, but to Morgan, Morganna or Morgause, and their children include Gareth, Agravain, and Gaheris (who murders her).
Historically, Gododdin seems to have been under the control of Alt Clut for a time, before breaking free in the late 5th or early 6th centuries. By the 7th century, the Gododdin were defending against the Angles who had taken over the British kingdom of Berneich. This is when the Battle of Catraeth occurred. In 638, the Angles besieged Din Eidyn, and it was the end of Gododdin, which became part of the eventual kingdom of Northumbria. The fame of the Gododdin and the Britons of The Old North remained in the legends of the Welsh, long after the last of the northern British kingdoms had disappeared.
Thanks for stopping by! As always, I’d love to hear from you with questions or comments or new insights. I am steadily working on The Strife of Camlann, Book 2 of The Arthurian Age trilogy. In the meantime, if you haven’t picked up The Retreat to Avalon, please check out the reviews. If you would like to see King Arthur and his knights portrayed as they most likely existed, I think you’ll like it!
Hi Sean,
Thank you for again responding. I was far too long winded and undermining and appologies for that! I have read a great deal of your commentary and you are very well read and I love the interpretation you have given and the shape of the world you have created from the evidence of the time period. I find your work facinating and enlightening and wish to thank you for the hard work that enables otheres, like me, to benefit and gain further insights. I very musch belive that Riothasmus is connected to Arthur and his betrayal in Gauln a trigger for his, or at least the troops, return to Britain. The only difference I belive that he and those troops defending the loire limes where under the overall control of a Dux Bellorum, likely of germanic and potentially Herulian ethnicity. If I where to suggest a prototype I would go for Hrolf Kraki who’s sagas have striking similarities to Arthur tales. Thanks again and keep up the good work!!
No need for apologies! I enjoy the discourse and I am glad you are enjoying my posts. If you like those, you should read one of my books. 😉
You might be intrigued by how it all turns out. If Arthur and Riothamus were the same person, as I think is likely, then the alliance between Anthemius and Arthur, with Syagrius and Comes Paullus, it is not unreasonable to think that Paullus or, less likely, Childeric may have been the ranking general, or Dux Bellorum.
What makes you say that by the time of King Lot the britons had been christian for generations?
Hi Damian,
Well, what I wrote was “the rulers of Britain south of Pictland, had been Christians for generations”. There were still pagan Britons at this time, especially in places that were less influenced by Roman control, but we have records, such as St. Patrick’s ‘Letter to Coroticus’, the ruler of neighboring Alt Clut, Bede’s references to Ninian’s missionary work in the region, and archeological findings, such as burials. Due to Roman influence, ruling houses were likely Christian in this time. Some examples, such as the Latin inscription on the Catstane, and other inscribed stones, and the reference in the likely 6th C poem ‘Y Gododdin’ to the warriors of the Gododdin receiving communion before going to battle, point to Christianity having a foothold in the region at this time. Typically, elite households were first to convert, with the population adopting more slowly.
Great question, thanks for posting!
Hi Sean,
Thank you for your response.
So you follow the orthodox written history, predominately. However, that needs considerred in its context. All sources you refer to are christian. So pagans were in places less influenced by rome. So start with analysing the Roman archaelogical record. In 325 at a Synod the Nicene Cread was accepted as the universal christian religion and was given state validation and protection by Constantine I. Co-encidentially adopting the purple at York in Britain. Over the next 75 years many roman laws where passed culminating in the Theodosian edicts that outlawed all religion other than the newly adopted state religion of catholosism. In particular between 380 to 391AD all pagan property was confidcated and given to the universal church. However, as it was a state religion now you would expect to see the physical evidence of that, as you rightly accept, in Roman military and governmental locations, for example forts and civitaes. However, there is not a single piece of physical evidence of christian inscriptions, altars or churches in the 85 year from 325. On the other hand the same period throws up multitudes of ongoing pagan physical evidence of contemporanious practice. One example being the sacred well of Coventina at Hadrians Wall. It shows continuing votive coin offerrings up to 388AD when it abruptly ends, which is also the date of Magnus Maximus’s defeat and execution. Rather humourously the coins in the well are overwhelmingly, and irronically, those of Constantine I. The Christian emperor paying for pagan good luck. Now Roman Christianinty and prior pagan religion was represented by grand buildings, so if there are no christian ones what does that tell us? Add to this the late roman army troops brought to Britain and there ethnic and religious details. After the Barbarian Conspiracy 367AD both Theodosius theb Elder and Magnus used shock Germanic Troops and in particular the Jiont unit of Heruli and Batvians. Read Procopious on the religion and culture of the Heruli! They were Norse worshippers of Odin and were granted land to settle in north and eastern Britain. So this gets us to circa 410. At this point Britain expells all Roman official and rejects its laws and god. Now these can only be the Theodosian Edicts! Further, they carry that total rejection and rebellion to Amorica and Gaul and start to spread its effect inciting Gallo populations to the same. In 406 the Germanic tribes crossed the Rhine after defeating the Roman pagan Franks. Futher these tribes were nearly all christian, Arian though and not Nicene! The remainder of this decade in Gaul is historically recorded as being heavily Nicene christian. However, the History of the Franks is expressly clear the Nicene clergy had to pretend to be Cetlic Christian until they had the footing and power to do otherwise. Moreover, if that where factually true why would the Nicene Church have to convert the only truly pagan force in Gaul, the Franks, to advance the Catholic cause. It is only from this point do we see the physical establishment of Christian religious sites which strangely correspond, especially in rural settings, with previous pagan ritual sites and landscapes. Have you heard of the roman process of Memoria Damnatio? So hold that in mind when considering the written records, satrting with Gildas. Fisrtly he immediately opens with acceptance of prolific pagan worship ongoing at the time of his writing, late 6th Century! His critisism of christianity in Britain relates to the kings of Wales and one in Strathclyde and whilst he calls them Christian his details of them do not support that. He in particular remonstrates at there use of Bards to sing their praises and as we know bards are the public face of the remenants of druidism! He says nothing of evil saxon pagans other than generic! As to his historical reliance, he also asserts that both Roman walls were built just as the legions departed and his writings were sanction by the collagiate College of Vatican Rome. I believe they would have been aware of the true dates of the construction of each wall! Further he is presented as a Nicene christian yet retires to Cetlic/Brythonic christian Brittany! He makes not a single mention of any Anglo-saxon figure or event except Mons Badonicus and Ambriosus. No Arthur or Christian involvement in that event. That is deleberate and leaves a record of only what he wants to leave to posterity. This is evident by his narrative that the Britons where victims and fled to Brittany under saxon pressure of invasion. However, that is manifestly untrue. The Britons in 407 promoted one of their own to wester roman emperor: Constantine III and until 411 he and his British troopd controlled from the Rhine down to Spain and even Africa. In 411 a Briton, adventurer settled Blois on the Loire Valley and Britons protected this rich and viltal trade route till 470 and remained at Blois till 491. In 451 the Britons were part of the confederate roman army who defeated Attila in Gaul and in 469 at the bequest of help from the western roman emperor Anthemius lead from Britain 12,000 troops to answer the call. He campaigned in Gaul for 2-3 years settling as far as Bourges before the roman prefect of Gaul (Arvandus) betrayed the Britons and they where slaughtered by Euric and the Visagoths. Arvandus was convicted and sentenced to execution but saved by his friend Sidonius Appolinus. Now does that support the hisrtorical account of Gildas and christian historiography. 12,000 men in 470 and a date which is relevant to Arthur in Britain. Anyway next Bede, who never left the monastry in Jarrow but is able to detail specific empire wide events and describe geaographic locations and sights! He also maintains the Gildas framework about the walls etc. However he creates the mythical Saxon Adventus of 449, just as Attilla is campaigning in Gaul we recruit pagan mercenaries. Ask yourself why when there were many christian mercenary bands available? Bede then creates a catholic localised dark age by ignoring the history of his own Anglian people before Ida of Bernicia. His clear propogandist motivations are evident in his writings. For example, but not limited too, his account of Aethelfrith onwards. This king of Bernicia was the last major Pagan king. Yet Bede calls him Saul, accepting his lack of the True Faith! He presents him as the agressor and missleads the religious involvement in all related battles. For example the battle of Daegastan was a pagan victory over the Celtic christian backed Dal Riata attemped coup, they attempted to place anglian Herring on the throne. He then missrepresents the subsequent battles. Simply look at his clever references to Daegastan and the Battle of Heavenfield and the identifying detals to find the location of each. It is clear he wants Heavenfield to be geographically identifyable but not Daegastan. Why: one is a major pagan victory against christianity and the other an aleged christian victory, whithout detailing it was christian versus christian. The importance of his praise of a pagan king is to remove apparent prejudice so that if challenged as to why he has not recorded the details of the Anglian heros who settled the area he could deny it was intentional. It was and created a dark age, the oral germanic history was still available as Alciun proves with his letter to the monks of Lindisfarne chartising them for continuing interest in Ingeld! So now the Yr Goddodin which if you have read it is far more reflective of pagan culture than christian. However, this and the related Welsh poems are clear that the fist religious battle was that of Aferddyd in 573AD. Now this was a battle of briton against briton with no anglian involvement. It is symbolic, as 1 of the 3 futile battles, because it is kin against kin and then end of Merlin (Mervyn Wyllt) and replacement by St Mungo. That is the first evidence of the leaders of North Britain becoming christian and in monothiest tradation they cannot co-exist with none belivers and worshippers. The next major battle was the christian Dal Riata against the pagan Picts in 582, again no Anglian involvement. Then other northern leaders saw the situation, convert or be destroyed. So they did so and together relentlessly attacked the Anglian, forcing them and besieging them on Lindisfarne. Uriens assassination prevented thier distruction. Until this point Bernician was a small strip of land on the northumbrian coast. Land with the LLoegrian had given to the Anglians as allies before the issue was christian. So the Anglians were not on the attack. Now we get to 597 and the Gregorian Mission. This was gods will via Pope Gregory to convert the Anglian Nation. So he wanted to replicate the success of the Frankish conversion, ie offer a pagan warrior king a Catholic validated Nation and endorsed supremacy. Augustine knowing full well the British Christian would not help conversion why because it was their nation the church was giving away and at the same time thier religious independance given over to papal control. Now Rome divide and conquer and that is exactly what this triggerred a reaction. It was clear that if the Britons did not destroy or convert the Angles themselves the Nicenes would use them as a tool of thier destruction. We then have 2 major battles within 6 years of this, nation changing battles: Cattreth (600) and Daegastan (603)! Cattreth is clearly a Briton christian desperate last chance all or nothing effort to destroy the Angles before they convert to Nicene and Daegastan is the same (minus the desire of anglian destruction) from the Celtic Ionan christians, both failed. After this as Bede states the anglian king took more land than any before from the Britons. However, he was not the agressor in any and the land became available due to the total destruction of the christian forces in each battle and what ws the king to do in light of the now religious christian zeal of his destruction or conversion. He destroyed the Monks and property of Bangor during the Battle of Chester killing 1200 peaying monks, an event Bede says was god punishment for the Briton church rejection of Augustine’s mission. It is clear that Bede wrote Nicene works of propaganda, he even asserts the Augustinian mission was successful and converted the Anglian Nation. It did not after Edwin was denied sex from his wife at the express written request directly to her from the pope and converted his christian influence ended at his death and the clergy returned to Kent. The church claim canterbury as the first church in Britain, thereby accepting no earlier christian buildings. As to the north britain tribes being christian for generations, Bede ecpressly confirms that there were no christian altars or churches in Bernicia prior to Oswald in 634. In relation to the odd christian inscribed crosses, gravestones etc please read Pope Gregory’s letter to Melitus of 601AD and its clear and detailed instructions as to what has to happen to pagan religious and ritual sites and monuments. He effectively says to remove the idols and place a cross on thier pagan monuments so that they still gather at those sites and will slowly forget their oral history and beliefs and eventually they can belive they are christian. That is what happenned and these christian repurposed monuments have a distinct geographic footprint in East Anglia and Bernicia, along Hadrians wall and to Galloway. I am a Robson and we come from Falstone in the upper north tyne valley where a runic carved stone was found. It is an ancestor commemoration estate inheritance stone. Eomaer sets up a beacon to his uncle Hroethberct (Robert, hence the surname Robson) and asks for prayers to his soul. This is a clear example of Gregory’s repurposing of an pagan site as is Bewcastle and Ruthwell and others. Now the christian view is this was a ecclasiatic site of christian worship but the evidence suggest otherwise. The locals in all historical records had a distinctly unchristian culture and behaviours. This lead in 1525 to the Atchbithop of Glasgow, Gavin Dunbar, issuing the biggest Catholic curse on the people dwelling in this area, expressly referencing the Robsons. This curse was for the whole people communiry, land and property to suffer the punishment of Lucifer in perpetuity! In the last 10 years the City of Carlisle, by poll, requested the Catholic Church to remove this curse to which they refused! The whole of the post roman Western Empire development of catholic christian nations is a fabrication. Think about it the Romans themselves and the whole western nations were pagan polytheistic for thier whole existance until 391AD when Theodosius Edict outlawing all other religions other than the nicene state religion. Who would ever believe that would go smoothly and that everyone would simply accept this new religion and why would they? It is clear from the use of the Franks and their adoption of fire and sword conversion which took over 400 years to complete that christianity was not welcomed? Now why did they fabricate this period of history, one suggestion is Arthur and the Scyldings, both stragely lengendary in oral history but not key in contemporaneous christian. They are both recorded as creating diverse but equal cultures involving multi ethnic, cultural and religous parties and sustained periods of peace, at a time that the nicene countries has, continual wars of ethics, theology, power, wealth and land all under the Catholic state missions. I could go on and on but if you are christian you will find acceptance of the reality impossible to countenance. Can christianity accept that Charlemagne was a genocidal mass murderrer and that his motivation was Catholic christianity and that its spread was coexistanal with localised dark ages and that only the period of Enlightenment saved us from the church imposed blancket of ignorance! I believe that Catholics are lovely people but not the institution of the church itself. In that regard I agree with Procopius’s Secret History that it is actually a manifestation of the antichrist. If you want proof of christian histiography look no further than his 7 volumes, 6 written for the church and fot public consumption during his life, the last released posthumously and a total contradiction to his previous public volumes! Why would a historical recorder wish to undermine his legacy works and reputation. He could not morally allow himself to be the vehicle of such fabrication!
Wow, that’s a lot to unpack! So we’ve actually got more archeological evidence for Christianity in Briton than written records, and most of this is in the south. There is also evidence of pagan and Christian communities coexisting peacefully enough, such as at North Hertsfordshire. Canterbury is certainly not the earliest church in Britain, but this might have been from the Anglo-Saxon point of view.