Bamburgh Castle and Early British History

[Vindex]

Not really sure where to place this interesting blog from the Bamburgh Research Project

http://bamburghresearchproject.wordpress...chproject/

which discusses the connection of the castle with the Arthurian legend of Lancelot and Joyous Garde.

Having recently watched 'Reclaiming the Blade', Bamburgh castle features quite heavily and I thought this may be of interest to early British historians.

And of course any connection between the amazing sword - which was documented in the dvd - and Lancelot are pure romantic speculation...

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

This should be in the off topic part of the forum since it is too ridiculous to put in the research arena...

M.VIB.M.

[Vindex]

This should be in the off topic part of the forum since it is too ridiculous to put in the research arena...

M.VIB.M.

Bit harsh, don't you think?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Not really. Any and all references to King Arthur, the knights of the round table, Excalibur and what have you, combined with archaeological digs, remains of castles et cetera should immediately be put in the trash bin and discarded to the realm of fantasy.

The Bamburgh castle could be a very interesting research subject, but King Arthur nonsense should not ever be a part of it.

M.VIB.M.

[PhilusEstilius]

Then how about the excavations done at Cadbury Castle many years ago with references to the same subject ?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

As I said. There was not, nor has there ever been a King Arthur of the Britons.

Arturius/Artus, Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Lucius Artorius Castus or anyone else for that matter have nothing to do with the King Arthur which was portrayed by de Monmouth.

Whether or not there was a king called Arthur in the isles which now are known as Great Britain has never been definitively proved. Therefore we have to suppose there was none. He might even have been named Albert for all I care....

It is therefore fantasy and instigates wishful thinking beyond belief. Now while this is entertaining enough for many, to me it is not science, proper research or even an attempt at it.

Of course works like De Historia Britonum, Annales Cambriae and the Welsh Vitae are interesting nonetheless as is the story of Culhwch and Olwen. These stories might shed a little light on the darker period between the Roman occupation of Britain and the later early eras. They are not, however, part of the Arthur myth as we know it today nor can they be.

M.VIB.M.

[Vindex]

Not really. Any and all references to King Arthur, the knights of the round table, Excalibur and what have you, combined with archaeological digs, remains of castles et cetera should immediately be put in the trash bin and discarded to the realm of fantasy.

The Bamburgh castle could be a very interesting research subject, but King Arthur nonsense should not ever be a part of it.

M.VIB.M.

May I ask if you have actually read the blog article or just condemned it by it's title?

It is a response to a question which receives an answer founded in scholarship with references to the mention of Din Guoaroy in the Historia Brittorum.

My reference to the dvd was merely to put it into the context of the images and research on the sword therein which could perhaps add a dimension to those who may be interested.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Moi, I have.

You wrote :

"which discusses the connection of the castle with the Arthurian legend of Lancelot and Joyous Garde.

Having recently watched 'Reclaiming the Blade', Bamburgh castle features quite heavily and I thought this may be of interest to early British historians.

And of course any connection between the amazing sword - which was documented in the dvd - and Lancelot are pure romantic speculation... "



All nice and well, but this definetely makes it an off topic item and not a serious research item in my book. Sorry to say.



M.VIB.M.

[Vindex]

...you are of course entitled to your opinion but you have not resonded to my question - have you read the article?

[PhilusEstilius]

I think one has to be an Englishman to even be able to understand about King Arthur.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I understand Douglas Bader, nuff said.

[Caballo]

(Mod)
Henk,

This is not a peer reviewed academic journal, but a forum. The article is perfectly fine and not off topic - here is a link http://bamburghresearchproject.wordpress...tish-name/.

Feel free to disagree- after all, debate is the lifeblood of this forum- but please disagree constructively and courteously. Thank you.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

I will, sorry if I have offended anyone. I just do not think that King Arthur should enter any serous historic research, unless it is based on proper method. That is all I tried to say.

The blog writer states:

"It is certainly easy to see how a recorded early British name for Bamburgh, Din Guayrdi or Din Guoaroy could have been imagined as the progenitor of the ‘Garde’ element of the name. Din, of course, meaning fortress in Welsh."

That is about the same as trying to attach importance in an Arthurian context to Maiden Castle hillfort in the South which in Celtic would probably be Mai Dunn, the Dunn being the same as Din, namely fortress...

Considering Din Guaroy as a BRITISH name for the fortress of Bamburgh especially puts you on shifting sands, not the other way around. It is putting a Gaelic/Welsh/Celtic context to a definition which is not the correct one for that time. Also, seeing the Guaroy part of the name as Garde is not proper and not only symantically incorrect but also linguistically unfounded.

I could as easily start stating tha Bernicia is related to the ancient Greek Berenike, and then see that as proof that colonists of ancient Greece reached the British isles by boat and started a colony...

The article is very flawed, as are the continuous attempts to attach historic credit to a legend written hundreds of years after the original supposed event.

Thats all I have to say about it.

M.VIB.M.

[Ghostmojo]

I think one has to be an Englishman to even be able to understand about King Arthur.

Possibly (I am one), but not absolutely (since the Welsh and even sometimes the Scots try and get in on the act) but in reality Arthur is more of a British rather than strictly English hero of mythology/legend (or extreme twilight history).

Bamburgh Castle is a fantastic building and remarkable location. The whole coastline up there is utterly awe-inspiring and one can see how any number of dreams could be attached to that place. The beginnings of that site for protective use certainly equate with the general Dark Age period to which we might ascribe Arthur, but I'm uncertain as to whether it is the correct part of the country for his (supposed) exploits and activities (even accepting the long tradition of some northern connections):

http://www.bamburghcastle.com/castle.php

http://www.bamburghresearchproject.co.uk/

[PhilusEstilius]

I may be totally wrong but way back in my very long life time I did read or hear that this place was known as Bebanburgh, this was after a Queen Beba who ruled here in early Viking times.
However with more recent excavations it has been revealed that Bamburgh may even have been more the capital of Northumbria than even Yeavering Bell in the hills to the west of it.

Then I may yet again be corrected when I relate to Welsh legend to say that Cuneeda was in fact a chieftain of the Votadini who was sent to Wales around about the dark ages to deal with Picti and Scoti tribes moving into the west across the Irish sea.

I also think that most counties in England would all like to claim that Camalote is on their soil, even to the King's and Queen's crags just north of Hadrian's Wall.
There is also the legend of the shepard who fell into a cave right near Hadrian's Wall who found the round table.
However like Cadbury Castle and Tintagel much of this legend still continues in folk law.