C2C David W. Croft
Cpt. Daniell
English 306
22 February 1989
The Legendary Camelot
This king lay at Camelot one Christmastide
With many mighty lords, manly liegemen,
Members rightly reckoned of the Round Table,
In splendid celebration, seemly and carefree
(Stone 22).
This is the only time that Camelot, home of the Arthurian
legends, is mentioned in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
_______________________________
The fourteenth-century poem seemingly gives no clue as to
the location of the castle of King Arthur (Alcock 15).
According to the Encyclopedia Brittannica, the "real"
Camelot is to be found at a number of locations:
Camelot, in Arthurian legend, was the seat of King
Arthur's court. It is variously identified with
Caerlon, Monmouthshire, in Wales, and in England,
with the following: Queen Camel, Somerset; the
little town of Camelford, Cornwall; Winchester,
Hampshire, and, especially since archaeological
excavations begun in 1967, Cadbury Castle, South
Cadbury, Somerset (New Enclopedia Brittannica
__________________________
765).
There is much support for the latter location as
"Excavations . . . have revealed post-Roman remains of the
period associated with Arthur built over the pre-Roman hill
fort" (Canby "Camelot"). The validity of such a claim will
be discussed further below.
Experts agree that the Camelot of legend never existed
-- it is a figment of imagination. "It is as well to say
Croft 2
outright that Camelot has no historical authenticity: it is
a place that never was" (Alcock 14). "The Camelot of
romance is a medieval dream city which never existed
anywhere" (Ashe 81). "Camelot, with which Cadbury Castle
has been associated, is a twelfth-century invention . . ."
(Barber 15). If such is the case, why should we pursue it?
It is generally believed that the legend of King Arthur
has some historical basis and thus, must have had some sort
of base of operations:
". . . it seems reasonable to think that the
historical Arthur might have had a principal
stronghold or military base . . . and no less
reasonable to hope that such a base might be
identified in archaeological terms" (Alcock 18).
There are two major theories concerning Arthur's origins,
both of which are briefly presented below:
Arthur, the focus of an extensive medieval cycle
of legends and romances, was probably a Celtic
British king or chieftain of the 6th century A.D.
who fought against the Saxon invaders of England.
The name may also be that of a Celtic god whose
mythology was early confused with the exploits of
the historical figure (Zesmer 219).
Stone makes arguments that Arthur is the Celtic carry-over.
He presents historical and literary ties to the Sun-deities
and such Mediterranean heroes as Theseus and Hercules (Stone
153). However, if such is the case, Arthur never existed
and neither did Camelot. I find this to be uninteresting
and prefer the former theory.
Alcock reports that records reveal a soldier, perhaps a
leader of the forces of several British kingdoms -- but not
a king himself, fought in two battles in the 5th or 6th
Croft 3
century A.D. (Alcock 17). Professor Kenneth Jackson in his
1959 work "The Arthur of History" states that Arthur
probably existed and participated in the battles somewhere
in southern Britain about 500 A.D. (Ashe 76). Furthermore,
it is recognized that the name "Arthur" is a derivative of
the Roman name "Artorius." It is argued that the British
were still giving their children Romanicized names
subsequent to the Romans departure about the 5th century.
Finally, it is noted that after 550 A.D., four "Arthurs" are
on record within the royal houses despite the increasing
unpopularity of Roman names -- a sign that the boys were
named after a recent inspirational, nationalistic figure
(Ashe 77 - 78). All these facts point to the existence of a
historical "Arthur" who was a soldier-commander in southern
Britain.
Stone, who holds that Arthur is of Celtic origins,
takes a strictly literal basis for his location of Camelot.
The poet does not place Camelot; but if Gawain's
route from court to Wirral is to be imagined at
all, Camelot should be in the West Country or
South Wales, and not southern England. The huge
hill-fortress at South Cadbury . . . seems as
likely a place as any if Camelot was a real place
(Stone 154).
Other experts seem to agree, yet also use a cautious tone:
This particlar hill fort, one among many, has been
special for a long time because of a belief that
it was Camelot (Ashe 80).
There have been suggestions that recent
excavations, particularly at Cadbury Castle, can
be compare with Schliemann's discovery of Troy in
the last Century. If there is a parallel, it is a
very tenuous one indeed (Barber 15).
Croft 4
In 1542, a John Leland identifies Cadbury Castle as
"Camelot" but effectively only reports on a belief already
held by the locals:
"At the very south end of the church of South-
Cadbyri standeth Camallate, sometime a famous town
or castle. . . . The people can tell nothing
there but that they have heard say Arthur much
resorted to Camalat" (Ashe 80).
In 1723, another visitor, by the name of William Stukeley,
reported on the local belief that continues today:
"Camalet is a noted place," he wrote. "It is a
noble fortification of the Romans. . . . where
they say was king Arthur's palace . . . the
country people refer all stories to him" (Alcock
19).
However, such common beliefs could not be accepted
without archaeological or literary evidence to support them
-- evidence which was simply lacking. Leslie Alcock
reported at the end of his work covering the excavation of
Cadbury Castle,
We did not find the fabulous Camelot, nor add
anything directly to historical knowledge about
Arthur as a person. But at the least, the quest
stimulated debate and research into Arthurian
problems, both on the site and in wider academic
circles (Alcock 212).
Ashe follows Alcock's work with his similar opinion:
The net result of the fifty-year discussion was to
persuade most inquirers that there had been a real
Arthur of some sort. . . . The proof was that
scholars had reconstructed him in half a dozen
different ways. . . . They could be seen as
pointing vaguely to a real British leader,
probably an outstanding one. Cadbury-Camelot
could be seen as supporting them. As history,
however, they fell short (Ashe 85).
Croft 5
Barber goes so far as to develop arguments that dispute even
these meager links:
So the name Camelot in connection with Cadbury is
wholly wide of the mark, even in the general sense
of Arthur's court (Barber 135).
In any case, the argument we have already set out
would show that Arthur was neither a fifth-century
hero, nor associated with southern Britain (Barber
136).
The conclusion, for all the educated guessing, is that,
if there were an Arthur who existed as a commander in the
5th/6th century, and if he did possess some kind of
fortification, Cadbury Castle could have been it. Thus, the
legendary Camelot is most probably destined to remain just
that -- legendary.
Croft 6
Works Cited
Alcock, Leslie. Was this Camelot? Excavations at Cadbury
________________________________________
Castle 1966 - 1970. New York: Stein and Day,
__________________
Publishers, 1972.
Ashe, Geoffrey. The Discovery of King Arthur. New York:
____________________________
Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985.
Barber, Richard. The Figure of Arthur. Totowa, New Jersey:
____________________
Rowman and Littlefield, 1973.
Canby, Courtlandt. "Camelot." Encyclopedia of Historic
________________________
Places. Vol. I (A - L). New York: Facts on File
______
Publications, 1984.
New Encyclopedia Brittannica, The. Vol. 2. Chicago:
_________________________________
University of Chicago, 1987.
Stone, Brian, trans. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. 2nd
_______________________________
ed. New York: Penguin Books, 1988.
Zesmer, David M. "Arthur and Arthurian Legend." Academic
________
American Enclopedia. Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier
___________________
Incorporated, 1987.