Bamburgh Castle and Early British History

[PhilusEstilius]

Howard.

They are very good links you have shown of Bamburgh Castle, in fact living here in Northumberland I have been to the castle many times.
In fact living here in Northnmberland I am surrounded by castles in every direction, and I know all about the Whinsill that not only this castle stands on but also Hadrian's Wall.
A very long time ago I even had to blast a way through this Whinsill when I worked a few miles out under the North Sea, for its a huge fault that cuts right across Northumberland and runs all the way to the Roman fort of Magna (Carvoran) on Hadrian's Wall.
Then just west of here the Red Rock fault that runs north south caused Hadrian to make the western part of his wall in turf, indeed its the start of the area where Scotland crashed into England when it came south east from Nova Scotia.

[Vindex]

...and just because it's folklore doesn't mean its totally wrong. It's a living tradition of history.

[PhilusEstilius]

That's very true Moi and you have proved that my spelling is also not so good.

[Vindex]

That's very true Moi and you have proved that my spelling is also not so good.

:oops: ...sorry. Didn't mean to correct you.

Well actually its a moot point isn't it? Who's to say folk law isn't right in this context too?

[Robert Vermaat]

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

Nearly spilled my coffee there. Especially given the fact that Ole King Art was a Briton spending his life pushing the English back into the sea (when not on quests for swords, damsels and/or grails).

[Robert Vermaat]

The article is perfectly fine and not off topic

Agreed there, but we usually discuss post-Roman Britain in the Allies & Enemies section.

[Caballo]

Thanks and fair comment, Robert! I was I think focussing on whether it was Off topic or not.

[authun]

Arthur is more of a British rather than strictly English hero of mythology/legend

Yes, quite!

The trouble with research and King Arthur is separating the serious student from the new agers and tree huggers. I've never thought of Bamburgh as a candidate location but the question of what happened to the Votadini is interesting. This article in Heroic Age has some interesting info on the placenames of the area. The interactive map (linked) is useful too.

The P-Celtic Place-Names of North-East England and South-East Scotland

cheers
authun

[Ghostmojo]

The article is perfectly fine and not off topic

Agreed there, but we usually discuss post-Roman Britain in the Allies & Enemies section.

Which possibly reiterates the need/desire to have another section to this site that deals with post-Roman or later non-Roman activities. That is assuming such periods should be dealt with at all of course. I think they should, and I guess most people here would too, but surely anything after the fall of Rome deserves a separate catchall zone?

The Allies & Enemies of Rome of course covers much of this but in theory should only really deal with this lot when Rome was still potent? The Greeks could even fall into this section (to some extent) even though thankfully we have a separate zone for them.

I think the recent discussion (somewhere else) about having a Byzantine section was a good idea - but perhaps it should just be broadened to cover the post Roman period up until whenever it is determined we enter territory that this site no longer is designed for. A good argument for that might be the fall of Rome and retreat from empire itself, and yet we allow for much Dark Ages type discussion (which I am all in favour of).

It's a tricky one and since I'm not running the site nor moderating it (and therefore not having to undertake their onerous duties - for which I am grateful) of course I am happy to defer to their decisions. But it is an interesting topic and perhaps an extension to the site/forum might be beneficial?

I am about to start a new topic myself on the lost Battle of Brunanburh and am curious as to where to stick it myself (answers on a postcard please - and keep them clean!) :wink:

[J. Harris]

Hey Everyone,

Having just read the thread I thought I should point out that the blog post about Bamburgh is a response to a question. It describes the nature of the association with Bamburgh and Arthurian legend but clearly states that the connection is an imagined one based on later accounts and the sound of the name.

"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"

Furthermore, it also says that the Arthurian legends were a product of 'the age of courtly love' and states "Its very difficult, therefore, to make much of a case for or against the preservation of a historical element in the Arthur legends, particularly those that we do not have in earlier forms, and harder still to bring Bamburgh into them"

The author is clearly stating the point that the Arthurian connection is based on legend, finishing with the quote ‘When the legend becomes a fact, print the Legend’.

The article then steers the conversation into place-name evidence, all of which is under debate in current academic literature. It finishes with 'Sadly, in historical terms, this period seems to live more intensely in myth than in history'

The article explains why the association came about,
Points out that this is a legend, not fact
Provides information about the origin of the name based on recorded names from EM lit.

Answering the questions it set out to.

Thanks for listening,
Jo Harris

[Vindex]

Thanks for posting Jo.

I did try to point out at the beginning that the blog/article was in response to a question with a more scholarly response; my post is on the first page.