Ken Dark's Brigantian High-Kingship and the Coeling

In his book, ‘Britain and the Fall of the Roman Empire’ Ken Dark notes that while the Roman Forts in Wales show little to no occupation in the 5th and 6th centuries, there is a peculiarity about the area from the Mersey to Hadrian’s wall when compared to these sites in Wales, and that most of the archaeological context from the sub-roman period in this area actually comes from these old Roman Forts, specifically in the area that was formerly under the control of the Roman Dux Britanniarum. Hadrian’s wall seems to have been a hotspot for reoccupation/continued use by the Brythonic Elites of the 5th and 6th centuries, with Vindolanda, Birdoswald, Housesteads, and Chesters. Birdoswald and Housesteads in fact show refortification via earthen banks sealing the old walls. The fortress in South Shields shows abandonment and reoccupation, including refortification and new construction within the fortress.

The majority of these sites fall within the territory of the pre-Roman tribe called the Brigantes. This tribe was initially allied with the Romans and had been quite cooperative, until a “disaffection” as Tacitus calls it, arose amongst them, and many Brigantes took up arms against Rome. The Tribal leaders of the Brigantes were still quite cooperative, and aided Rome during this uprising. Shortly after Caratacus the king of the Catuvellauni after being defeated by the Romans sought out the Brigantian queen Cartimandua looking for shelter. Cartimandua quickly turned him over to the Romans, further demonstrating the Brigantian tendancy towards cooperation with Rome. After a divorce Cartimandua’s former husband Venutius then raised in rebellion against his former wife and Roman authority around 52 AD. The Romans quashed this rebellion. Cartimandua remarried then, to Venutius’ Armour Bearer Vellocatus. Venutius survived, causing trouble once again, only to be swept under the rug, before finally in 69 AD he succeeded, when Rome was unable to fully assist to quell the rebellion. Cartimandua disappears from the record after this.

Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the famous Agricola of Tacitus’ work De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae seems to have encountered resistance and fought a battle on Brigantian soil. The Brigantian territory would continue to be hostile to Rome, possibly being one of the reasons for Hadrian’s wall being built, cutting off access between the Brigantes and possible northern allies. After an open rebellion against Rome, Emperor Antoninus Pius supposedly defeated them, records go quiet shortly after this. This gives the portrait of the Brigantes as a fierce and independent, militaristic people. Their very name Brigantes, means something akin to "high ones” possibly referring to their hill-fortress strongholds, or their Nobility. Their name at least shares a root with the later Welsh word for king ‘brenin’ and may in fact be the direct inspiration for it’s use (though there is not much basis for this assumption). Many writers including Dark have suggested that this powerful identity may have survived through the later Roman period in Britain.

Dark suggests that the aforementioned evidence of a strong military network post-Rome could lead to two differing conclusions. Either, continuity between the Roman period and the later Brythonic period involving continued occupation by the families of the former garrison, or systematic reoccupation at a later date. Dark finds that a military reoccupation of these sites is most likely, and that this organized reoccupation was centered around York, or Caer Ebrauc, based sites clustered along the road to York. Whoever this organizing authority was, held far more power than the former Roman Civitas. This seems to indicate a Brigantian Over-Kingship in the north, or a continued existence of the Roman provincial structure. He notes that within Gildas’ work De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae Gildas speaks that Maglocunus (Maelgwn Gwynedd) is ‘Almost’ the most powerful king in Britain, indicating a more powerful kingdom. This Brigantian High-Kingship certainly would apply.

This is where I will go farther than Dark. There happens to be a dynasty established in the Welsh Genealogies¹ and through much of the early Brythonic Poetry of the Hen Ogledd that seems to fit the bill. I believe this Brigantian High-Kingship was a First-Among-Equals arrangement between the descendants of Coel Hen. Coel Hen has been suggested to have been the last Dux Britanniarum, but as Dark notes, systematic Reoccupation seems the most likely, and while Coel may not have been the last Dux Britanniarum, I think this reoccupation was done by Coel and his progeny. The generally accepted floruit for Coel has always been placed in the late 4th and early 5th century, straddling the turn of the century there, but I believe this is too early, and is problematic for his later descendants.

We know from the Annales Cambriae that Coel’s 6th generation descendants Peredur and Gwrgi were active from 573-580, and that Peredur was old enough to have a grown son, likely placing his birth ~540. Peredur is remembered in the Welsh romance Peredur as ‘Peredur fab Efrawc’ Peredur son of Efrawc. Efrawc is a corruption of the place he ruled being misconstrued as his Father. As seen with Maelgwn Gwynedd, and Urien Rheged the kingdom ruled is often placed as an epithet, this easily could be misconstrued from oral transmission or from a speculative copyist to instead refer to his father. So we can place Peredur in the kingdom centered around Ebrauc or York, as well as establishing his Floruit from 560-590 (even though he died in 580). Assuming a roughly 30 year generational gap this would place the end of Coel’s floruit (roughly at 50 years old) to be 440.

In this instance Coel would likely be too young to have been the last Dux Britanniarum, instead more believable as the son of a high-ranking Romano-British official, or Roman who ‘went native’. Coel’s epithet of ‘Hen’ meaning Old is often used for Progenitors of dynasties in Brythonic sources, and as such could mean fairly little when it comes to actually determining if Coel was ‘Old’ at the time of his death, thus giving us the possibility of extending his floruit back further. One generation with a late-father can fill in many potential issues, and can rectify some inconsistencies, such as reconciling the floruits for other descendants of Coel’s. As it stands though, I think we can generally glean here that Coel seems like he may fit the idea of reoccupation, possibly solidifying local power, centered around York and then slowly absorbing the rest of the former Dux’s territory, establishing Dark’s theoretical Brigantian Over-Kingship along the way.

Interestingly enough, as the number of descendants of Coel Hen increase, so too does the instability of the North. I would suggest that this Brigantian High-Kingship was either held by the eldest Coeling of their particular generation, or possibly one elected amongst their kin. The initial path was probably not all that convoluted, with Coel likely holding the title, and his son Ceneu after. Coel’s other son Garbanian may have in fact been half Germanic and may have been passed over for a time. As I have noted before, Geoffrey of Monmouth presents us with a garbled representation of the Kings of Ebrauc, starting with Morvidus, which is Mar ap Ceneu, then passing to a Gorbanianus, which is obviously Garbanian, then Arthgallo (Arthwys ap Mar), Elidurus (Eliffer ap Arthwys), etc. This indicates that there may have been an interpolation after Mar ruled Ebrauc, leading me to believe that Garbanian, Mar’s uncle may have ruled Ebrauc after him. This is further corroborated by a later genealogy for Peren ferch Griedal calling Griedal the son of Arthwys, and Arthwys the son of Garmon (a version of the name Garbanian). This would show that somewhere a lost kings list or chronicle detailed the kings of Ebrauc was misconstrued as a genealogy.

I have written at length about most of this, and especially about the case to be made for Arthwys ap Mar to be the beginning of the ‘Arthurian’ Canon. You can read about that here.

I think that we can trace this High-Kingship from Coel all the way to it’s demise, when the Brythonic kingdoms of the Hen Ogledd crumbled.

We see two distinct periods here, the earlier period stretching from roughly 420AD to 550AD where power was centered in Ebrauc. This begins with Coel initially solidifying power and reoccupying most of the former territory of the Dux. After this is a relative era of stability. Coel’s rule seems to have had a lasting impression. Ceneu of course is the most likely next to rule as ‘first among equals’ eventually being replaced by his son Mar. Mar may have fought campaigns against seaborne Picts in the east, incorrectly remembered as Morini (a continental Gallic tribe), followed by a campaign against Irish raiders in the west, where he fell in battle, possibly against Fergus Mor of Dal Riata. There are a number of sub-Roman inscriptions featuring what can be construed as monuments to ‘Marius’ and even one to a ‘Moriregus’ or ‘Morirex’ which may even corroborate some of these battles, though these inscriptions are difficult to date, and are barely relevant without more solid connections. Mar was certainly a preeminent king of his day, remembered in multiple sources. The only other possibilities being his brother Gwrwst, a much younger brother Pabo, and his uncle Garbanian. Mar’s death leads to Garbanian ruling Ebrauc, and likely as High-King for a time, likely to go unchallenged.²

This is where the article on Arthwys heavily comes into play. When we consider the early sources for Arthur, and the most likely figure for many of these attributions to overlap upon Arthwys sits in the right place at the right time, and in a roundabout way, the correct name as well. I have laid out that Arthwys, unlike most Brythonic kings of his time, seems to have annexed more territory for his kingdom, expanding it’s borders beyond Coel’s initial ‘Kingdom of Northern Britain’, carving out new kingdoms in the north for his sons, Calchfynydd in the north east bordering Gododdin, and Caer Wenddoleu bordering Gododdin and Alt Clut, setting up an effective buffer against the non-Coeling kingdoms of the Hen Ogledd. Arthwys dying at Camlann in 537, is succeded then as high king by his son Eliffer.

Eliffer himself was known by the epithet Gosgorddfawr, or ‘Of the great army’ or ‘Great Host’ and as such would seem to have been extremely powerful in his own right, logically making him the next Over-King. Eliffer falls out of the picture around the same time that Ida of Berncia comes to power, and it may be that Eliffer himself fell in battle against Ida. His untimely death relative to the ages of his children causes a swift transition of power to the west. This is the second period of the Coeling Over-Kingship where Eliffer’s second-cousin Urien takes power. Urien’s kingdom of Rheged fares well in the near post-apocalyptic events of the late 530s and 540s, with a livestock based economy sustaining them, and cattle raiding their neighbors leading to a flourishing kingdom. Urien, much like Arthur before him expands his borders, and is even called the ‘Lord of Catraeth’ most likely modern Catterick, which was likely earlier part of Ebrauc’s borders.

Urien certainly held a preeminent position amongst his peers. It would seem that this did not sit well with the sons of Eliffer however. As I have written before the famous battle of Catraeth immortalized in the collection of poetic elegies known as Y Gododdin is not the cut and dry Brythonic vs Germanic battle most have surmised. There seems to have been a very real rift between two factions of Coeling in the late 6th century. The key players of the Coeling Dynasty during this time are Urien and his son Owain, Guallauc ap Lleanneac King of Elmet and a grandson of Mar ap Ceneu, the aforementioned Peredur and Gwrgi of Ebrauc, an unnamed son of Ceidio ap Arthwys, and a lesser known figure (who may or may not be a Coeling) Madog of Elmet. A civil war ensues amongst the Coeling, with one group comprised of Rheged, Elmet, and their Germanic allies at Deira, the other Ebrauc, a splinter faction from Elmet, the Gododdin, their Germanic allies in Bernicia, and possibly Alt Clut³.

The ensuing battle leads to the deaths of most of the Nobles fighting against Urien, Peredur and Gwrgi included. Ebrauc is shortly after absorbed by Deira. This leads to a campaign that drives the Angles of Bernicia to Lindisfarne. Urien is assassinated before the final battle against the Bernicians. What follows is more conflict among the Coeling. Guallauc likely viewing himself as the senior claimant to High-Kingship of what is left comes into conflict with the sons of Urien, dying in battle some time in the 590s. Their distant cousin Dunod ap Pabo (or possibly a similarly named son of Dunods) also attacks Rheged, but is otherwise unsuccessful in annexing territory, eventually falling to the Angles. Owain falls in battle shortly after this. My friend

p5ych0p0mp

speaks of Rheged’s fall heavily in this article.

The heavy influence of the Coeling wanes after this, with only Ceredig of Elmet, Guallauc’s son, holding out until 616, when he is driven from his lands (likely by Edwin of Northumbria).

If Dark’s proposed ‘Brigantian’ High-Kingship truly corresponds with the Coeling dynasty it lasted a respectable 170 years until it tore itself apart with infighting. Coeling Hegemony stood as the most powerful in Britain until Northumbrian supremacy arose from it’s ashes. I think it stands that there is significant evidence that the Dynasty of Coel Hen was this theoretical ‘Brigantian Over-Kingship’.

1. There has been significant doubt cast upon the validity of the genealogies and the names encountered therein in the past century or so, with later scholars ascribing ‘political motives’ to link these figures together. But what political machinations would require falsifying a genealogy for a group of men who lived and ruled territories where no Brythonic claims were ever entertained again? It stretches credulity to believe that many of these genealogies are fabricated, especially when they are corroborated time and time again by poetry, triads, and later legends that link them in the same ways as the genealogies. No academic would ever stake their reputation on the genealogies, however I think their veracity is heavily understated, and using them as a tool to unveil some of the Dark Ages is key in my opinion. Otherwise we are relegated to these theoretical broad strokes ideas that lead to stagnation IMO.

2.

More can be read here.

3. There is reason to believe that in Gododdin’s later days it was ruled by a cadet branch of the Dynasty of Ceredig of Alt Clut, and that Rhydderch Hael’s cousin Clydno Eidyn may have ruled Gododdin at the time.