Saint Patrick & Names along the Antonine wall

[Nathan Ross]

Bede was an Anglo Saxon from the Roman church. Why would he have any concern whatsoever to manufacture BRITISH martyrs for the BIRITISH church... That's a frankly ridiculous argument.

Because at the time he was writing about (the early 4th century) there was no distinction between the Roman church and the British church. They were just Christian martyrs.

What does seem a little 'frankly ridiculous' is the idea that a Saxon monk in the 8th century knew more about what was going on in the 4th century than the inhabitants of the 4th century!

why wouldn't they refer to this well known landmark - which we still recognise today - and not to a little known settlement?

I have no idea. But if you are claiming that they both have different names - Subdobiadon and Nemeton - then they must be distinct places. Saying that the scholiast meant to refer to Nemeton rather than Subdobiadon when he was explaining where 'nemthur' was seems a bit vague to me.

[MonsGraupius]

Bede was an Anglo Saxon from the Roman church. Why would he have any concern whatsoever to manufacture BRITISH martyrs for the BIRITISH church... That's a frankly ridiculous argument.

Because at the time he was writing about (the early 4th century) there was no distinction between the Roman church and the British church. They were just Christian martyrs.

What does seem a little 'frankly ridiculous' is the idea that a Saxon monk in the 8th century knew more about what was going on in the 4th century than the inhabitants of the 4th century!

why wouldn't they refer to this well known landmark - which we still recognise today - and not to a little known settlement?

I have no idea. But if you are claiming that they both have different names - Subdobiadon and Nemeton - then they must be distinct places. Saying that the scholiast meant to refer to Nemeton rather than Subdobiadon when he was explaining where 'nemthur' was seems a bit vague to me.

Can we please stop this nonsense about there being no persecutions. It is there in the most unequivocal terms in Gildas (500 – c570AD)

Ch.9 The Diocletian persecution.

Though these precepts had a lukewarm reception from the inhabitants, nevertheless they continued unimpaired with some, with others less so, until the nine years' persecution of the tyrant Diocletian. In this persecution churches were ruined throughout the whole world, all copies of the Holy Scriptures that could be found were burnt in the open streets, and the chosen priests of the Lord's flock butchered with the innocent sheep, so that if it could be brought to pass, not even a trace of the Christian religion would be visible in some of the provinces.

10. He of His own free gift, in the above mentioned time of persecution, as we conclude, lest Britain should be completely enveloped in the thick darkness of black night, kindled for us bright lamps of holy martyrs. ... I speak of Saint Alban of Verulam, Aaron and Iulius, citizens of Caerlleon, and the rest of both sexes in different places, who stood firm with lofty nobleness of mind in Christ's battle.

You cannot possibly claim that Gildas is too late. The persecutions happened - there is a perfectly good reason for Potitus, Patrick's grandfather to want to flee at the time of these persecutions. In light of the fact the persecutions are proven to be real, it is perfectly plausible that there would be Christians in Strathclyde.

[Nathan Ross]

Can we please stop this nonsense about there being no persecutions.

No we can't.

Gildas was writing 250 years after the event, Bede 400 years after the event. Neither of them are trustworthy sources for the persecution of AD303 when they are directly and explicitly contradicted by contemporary evidence.

There is considerable historical literature on the Great Persecutions, both primary and secondary sources and a wealth of scholarly discussion too. No historian of late antiquity worth the name would suggest that the testimony of Gildas and Bede should be given greater weight that that of Eusebius and Lactantius.

I am afraid we have reached a point of ineluctable difference here. You either follow historical methodology or you do not. I prefer to do so, but if you'd rather follow a different path then I can only wish you all the best with it!

[MonsGraupius]

Can we please stop this nonsense about there being no persecutions.

No we can't.

Gildas was writing 250 years after the event, Bede 400 years after the event. Neither of them are trustworthy sources for the persecution of AD303 when they are directly and explicitly contradicted by contemporary evidence.

There is considerable historical literature on the Great Persecutions, both primary and secondary sources and a wealth of scholarly discussion too. No historian of late antiquity worth the name would suggest that the testimony of Gildas and Bede should be given greater weight that that of Eusebius and Lactantius.

I am afraid we have reached a point of ineluctable difference here. You either follow historical methodology or you do not. I prefer to do so, but if you'd rather follow a different path then I can only wish you all the best with it!

Your argument to reject Bede was that he was 400 years after. I showed that Gildas writing much early gave much the same information.  Both of these are British. Your argument is that people writing a long way from Britain within the influence of the Church in Rome didn't mention martyrs in the Church in Britain, which even at the time of Bede was distinct and different. Therefore there is every reason why the Church in Rome might not be interested in martyrs in Britain.

You're now claiming that you, more than a millennium later, you are in a better position to judge what happened in Britain that Bede or Gildas.

On the one side, we have clear unequivocal statements that persecutions took place from respected historians. On the other there is you saying you once read a book by someone writing more than a millennia later who makes money by denying historical fact ...

AND ... even if we had not a shred of evidence of persecutions in Britain ... we know right to the modern day that inter-faith rivalries do occur and that often times people have to flee.

AND ... even if you totally dismiss ANY chance that Christians were persecuted in any way ... We know that Christians went on missionary work right from the earliest period

So, I'm sorry your idea that Christians had no reason at all to be in Strathclyde is just a load of hogwash.

Summary

1. It is perfectly easy to see why Christians would be in Strathclyde either through persecutions or missionary work
   
2. We know from the Roman coins that there was contact between Strathclyde and the Roman world throughout the Roman occupation
   
3. We are told that St.Patrick was born in Strathclyde in Nemthur
   
4. If we assumed the slightest copy error - that two names were combined into one ...
   
5. Nemthur fits Nemeton on the Ravenna Cosmography as the 7th name on the list
   
6. We are told there are seven forts ... so the 7th name is Old Kilpatrick
   
7. Old Kilpatrick is clearly associated with St. Patrick and being just 4miles from Dumbarton rock is also close enough to be "at" the rock.
   
8. The previous entry (Medio) matches the previous big fort with late occupation at Bal-muildy
   
9. The next entry (Sub-dobiadon) matches Dumbarton (a fort + port)
   
10. We thus have three name matches in a row which is almost inconceivable to get by mere chance.
    

There is no doubt at all that Old Kilpatrick is Nemeton & thus I have not the slightest problem amending the names on my website to reflect this.

[Renatus]

I am not taking sides in this argument. Generally, I prefer the testimony of those closest to the events in question. I think that we often underestimate the difficulties faced by ancient historians: at the mercy of meagre written records and often reliant upon legend, oral tradition and received wisdom, with distortions magnified over the centuries. In my own researches, I have found mistakes in the writings of even modern authors, following the errors and misconceptions of their predecessors. On the other hand, as I understand it, both Eusebius and Lactantius were closely connected with Constantine and, accordingly, might have been tempted to play down the actions of his father.

[MonsGraupius]

I am not taking sides in this argument. Generally, I prefer the testimony of those closest to the events in question. I think that we often underestimate the difficulties faced by ancient historians: at the mercy of meagre written records and often reliant upon legend, oral tradition and received wisdom, with distortions magnified over the centuries. In my own researches, I have found mistakes in the writings of even modern authors, following the errors and misconceptions of their predecessors. On the other hand, as I understand it, both Eusebius and Lactantius were closely connected with Constantine and, accordingly, might have been tempted to play down the actions of his father.

I agree about preferring the testimony of those closest and I also accept that they are not always reliable. That is why they need corroborating. The only reason it is necessary to cite "persecutions" is to dismiss the argument of those who assert that Roman Christians wouldn't be in Strathclyde. But as I said above, it is also quite feasible they were in Strathclyde on missionary work, or indeed, they might be part time Christians in Strathclyde of numerous other reasons. And we know people went beyond the Roman empire - because we do have accounts of the people beyond the borders.

But the other trend I have come across repeatedly is people putting forward contrary ideas that just seem to be presented for the sake of having something to say. So, they start by cherry picking the information, picking the one bit they like (e.g. there is a Saint Patrick born in "Bannavem Taberniae') ... and then they go off search for it ... not where the texts say it should be located in Strathclyde (which is where I started) , but instead they trawl the 500 Roman place names looking for one that vaguely fits (which statistically is likely to happen with 500 names). But, they don't find a name that fits, so they change it all around to get Bannaventa Berniae" to try to make it fit a place no where near the sea and totally unfit to be a place where Bannaventa

Let's just look at that change:

1. First remove a space
   
2. Change the m to n
   
3. Add a new space
   
4. Ignore the evidence that St.Patrick born in Strathclyde**
   
5. Ignore the evidence that he was captured by pirates.**
   
6. Ignore he was actually born at Nemthur**
   

** Big changes/derivations = 3

Then we have others like Glannoventa

Let's just look at that:

1. Change the B to G**
   
2. Remove a space
   
3. Change the m to n
   
4. Change the a to o
   
5. Add a new space
   
6. Ignore the evidence that St.Patrick born in Strathclyde**
   
7. Ignore he was actually born at Nemthur**
   

**Big changes/deviations = 3

Now compare that to Old Kilpatrick, located where we told Saint Patrick was born and clearly with historical links to him.

1. Add a space to MedioNemeton to get medio and Nemeton on the Ravenna Cosmography
   
2. Remove e
   
3. Change t ->th
   
4. Change ending (or two small changes: u->o, n->r)
   

= No big changes
Note there is also a place on the Ptolemy map not far from Strathclude called "bannatia" which is a candidate for "Bannavem"

Then ... not only does Old Kilpatrick match ... which is good in itself, but we get independent confirmation because the two neighbouring entries of Medio (Bal-Muildy) and Dumbarton (Sub-dobiadon) also match.

So, not only is it the easiest name match, not only does it fit all the historical evidence, but we also get independent confirmation.

And yet this still isn't enough for some people - what do you want? For me to get a time machine, go back in time and interview the Roman commander of the fort and ask for him to tell me under his solemn oath what he calls the fort? Because that does seem to be the kind of crazy threshold for acceptance which some people seem to be demanding.

[Renatus]

Ignore the evidence that St.Patrick born in Strathclyde

I have probably missed something along the way but what is this evidence? Obviously, the name would not have been in use in Patrick's day, so what is being interpreted as referring to Strathclyde and what name (if any) is being translated as 'Strathclyde'?

[MonsGraupius]

Ignore the evidence that St.Patrick born in Strathclyde

I have probably missed something along the way but what is this evidence? Obviously, the name would not have been in use in Patrick's day, so what is being interpreted as referring to Strathclyde and what name (if any) is being translated as 'Strathclyde'?

Yes, it's been a bit rambling. The best thing (rather than me reposting) is to read the summary I produced at the start of the article at:

http://roman-britain.co.uk/nemthur.htm

Let's start at the beginning. Around a decade ago I did an archaeology course run by a Romanist at Glasgow University. For obvious reasons, living only a mile from the wall (east of Glasgow), and being interested in the Roman archaeology I had a special interest in the Antonine wall. And like most people, I will have read about the Ravenna Cosmography and the difficulties with fitting the names (I was also generally interested in Roman names). I had also read the note to Nennius about there being 7 forts on the wall (which seemed to be ignored).

And ... it just happened that as part of the course we had to write an essay on early Christianity in Scotland. As part of the research for that essay I happened to read up on St.Patrick where I read that "3 out of 5 lives" said he was born in Strathclyde. And then I read that in the Gaelic Hymn of Fiacc it says that he was born in Nemthur.

So, being curious, and knowing that the Ptolemy & Ravenna Cosmography lists were online  I had a look to see whether Nemthur could be matched to any of the names located in central Scotland. And that is how I stumbled on "MedioNemeton", a single word in the Ravenna Cosmography, which was easily seen (by me) to match if split to give Nemeton. So, imagine how I felt, when I realised that if you split MedioNemeton to Medio & Nemeton that Nemeton is now the 7th entry on the Ravenna Cosmography ON THE ANTONINE WALL, and therefore the last fort on the Antonine wall and therefore Old Kilpatrick.

Imagine then, when I checked the next entry and found it was Subdobiadon - which is easily equated to Dumbarton (and others have noted the likeness)

Fortunately, having been taught by one of the best Romanists - I wasn't under any allusion about the extensive amount of Roman archaeology in the central belt of Scotland (every lecture seemed to be on it and most field trips had a Roman content). I was also aware that most Roman forts had been shown to have civilian settlements. So, I couldn't see any problem at all with a Roman coming to Scotland and for their family to have stayed here.

Yes I can see how that might have seemed odd to antiquarians who didn't have our survey techniques and all they could see were the military remains. But now we do have ground survey techniques and have accounts like the Vindolanda tablets which shows the old views were very wrong.

However, despite the fact we are told he was born in Strathclyde, because people read antiquarians who could not believe civilians were in Roman settlements in Scotland, it seems that a bit of an industry has grown up relocating St. Patrick's birth to numerous other places.

So, my problem is one of trying to convince people - not of the facts (which are pretty conclusive) but to ignore the outdated views that led to St.Patrick's birthplace being translated anywhere other than where we are told it was. And after something like a decade of listening to people advance every conceivable reason why it can't be Old Kilpatrick, I've not come across anything like a convincing argument to reject the overwhelming case that Old Kilpatrick is Nemeton.

So, as I took over running the Roman Britain website - I thought I'd given the subject enough time to find any flaws - none were forthcoming so it was time to make the change.

[Renatus]

The best thing (rather than me reposting) is to read the summary I produced at the start of the article at:

http://roman-britain.co.uk/nemthur.htm

That says, ' . . . despite the early works on Saint Patrick telling us he was born in the area of Strathclyde.'  So, what do those early works actually say and how do we know that they are referring to Strathclyde? If they are sufficiently recent to use the name specifically, what is the evidence upon which the statement is based?

[MonsGraupius]

The best thing (rather than me reposting) is to read the summary I produced at the start of the article at:

http://roman-britain.co.uk/nemthur.htm

That says, ' . . . despite the early works on Saint Patrick telling us he was born in the area of Strathclyde.'  So, what do those early works actually say and how do we know that they are referring to Strathclyde? If they are sufficiently recent to use the name specifically, what is the evidence upon which the statement is based?

There are repeated references saying he was born in Nemthur (or minor spelling variants) so this is not in dispute. The question is where that is.

A gloss to the oldest copy of Fiacc's hymn (11th century) specifically tells us this was (at/in?) Dumbarton Rock

'INNemthur'.i. cathir sen fil imBretnaib tuascirt .i. Ail Cluade

'In Nemthor,' that is a city which is in North Britain, namely Ail Clúade (' Rock of Clyde ').
We don't know the source used for this.

This is corroborated by a letter sent by St.Patrick to Coroticus or Ceretic Guletic, stated by a 7th-century biographer to have been king of the Height of the Clyde, Dumbarton Rock. From Patrick's letter it is clear that Ceretic was a Christian, but more importantly Patrick uses the expression "civibus meis" in speaking of the soldiers or Caoticus which implies that Strathclyde was his home.

As a result most lives of the Saint tell us he was born in Strathclyde. For example the fourth Life given by Colgan states that St.Patrick came of the ancient race of Britons, who receded before the advance of the Roman arms in Armorica, crossed the channel, and settled in Strathclyde.

And Turner (1890) sums up the position well:

“four of the five perfect lives explicitly state that St. Patrick was born in Britain; three of them add, in the district of .Strathclyde! It is hard to imagine how any one could be so audacious as to reject such a weight of ancient testimonies,

In contrast, no one (until the modern period) locates his birth anywhere else. The only other location connected with his early life is the estate of his Grandfather at: Bannavem Taburniae. But note this was not given as his place of birth, but merely the place of his capture at 16.

[Steven James]

Mike wrote:

And yet this still isn't enough for some people - what do you want? For me to get a time machine, go back in time and interview the Roman commander of the fort and ask for him to tell me under his solemn oath what he calls the fort? Because that does seem to be the kind of crazy threshold for acceptance which some people seem to be demanding.
 
Amen to that. People only want what conforms to their “truth.” I’ve noticed some people on this forum make interpretations based on a collaboration of sources, yet when I have done the same thing, they claim I am wrong as the primary sources do not specifically make that claim.

[MonsGraupius]

Amen to that. People only want what conforms to their “truth.” I’ve noticed some people on this forum make interpretations based on a collaboration of sources, yet when I have done the same thing, they claim I am wrong as the primary sources do not specifically make that claim.

Thanks.

I've noticed in other subjects that it is much easier to ask questions and point our flaws, than to say when someone is right. Because you only need need to spend a little time thinking of a question - and a single potential flaw is easy to argue, whereas saying someone is right requires a detailed look at the subject ...however despite the feeling of being attacked ... I do very much appreciate people taking the time to think about it and raise criticisms.

But the result seems to be that the argument that Old Kilpatrick was Nemeton seems sound. Would I prefer that there were fewer errors in the original texts, yes. Would I prefer something more than to rely on notes in the text, yes. But put together with the three successive good fits to Balmuildy/Medio, Nemeton/Nemthur  & Dumbarton/Subdobiadon, I think it is watertight.

But what do I do now? I was looking on the web and I keep reading nonsense - and worse contradictory nonsense - with some people saying he was certainly born in Northamptonshire, others he was certainly born in Wales, others that he certainly was born south of Hadrian's wall.

I wondered about writing a book on St.Patrick - but after getting a few books I quickly realised the type that sell are not the kind of thing I would write as I was only interested in the bare facts and that was less than a chapter. I had very little interest in the "Inspirational" rest.

I've approached a few academics, but modern day Romanist academics have no interest or knowledge of St.Patrick and most have no interest in linguistics.

[kavan]

Have the Scots arrived in Strathclyde by this time? It would be nice to think that St Paddy was Irish after all.

[MonsGraupius]

Have the Scots arrived in Strathclyde by this time? It would be nice to think that St Paddy was Irish after all.

I think they arrived in the 7th century, but the Scots and Picts were assaulting "the wall" earlier.

[John1]

I thought he was from Bannaventa in Northamptonshire.......