All Categories Non-Fiction- Biography - Cultural - Historical - Humor - Nature - Travel - War Stories Fiction- Action/Adventure - Crime/Mystery - Fantasy - Historical - Horror - Humor - Romance - Science Fiction - Supernatural - Thriller/Suspense - Childrens Stories Poetry- Haiku - Renga - Tonka - Humorous - Life - Love Articles- Arts and Entertainment - Book Previews - Book Reviews - Cultural - Family - Historical - Science - Travel - World - Site Articles

Advanced Search

As I explained in my introduction to "Conisbrough Castle in the Times of Edward II", I grew up in the shadow of the Conisbrough Castle and developed a lifelong fascination with it. I am also interested in the Arthurian legend. When reading about the background to the Arthurian legend, I was fascinated with the attempts to prove that various places were the historical Camelot. So, more for the sake of an academic exercise than because I thought it likely, I decided to examine the case for Conisbrough Castle as Camelot. Much to my surprise, I found that Conisbrough is as good a candidate for that honour as any of the other places that have been suggested.

Let's begin with a quick overview of the main candidates:

• Winchester, Hampshire
• Caerleon, on the River Usk in South-East\\Wales
• Wroxeter: Roman Viroconium
• Cadbury Castle, an Iron Age hill-fort in Somerset

Winchester is identified as Camelot by Sir Thomas Malory who wrote the definitive version of the Arthurian Romances ("Le Morte D'Arthur", printed in 1485). At the time, Winchester Castle was widely believed to be Arthur's fortress - a belief that was reinforced by the "Round Table" displayed in the Great Hall. However, Winchester Castle was built in the 11th Century by William the Conqueror, and radio-carbon dating has shown the Round Table to be a medieval fake (probably made during the reign of Edward II). Winchester is no longer considered as a serious candidate.

Caerleon is said by the earliest detailed source (Geoffrey of Monmouth's "Historia Regum Britanniae" of around 1135) to be Arthur's base (the name Camelot first appears in 1170 in Chretien de Troyes version of the story). This is not improbable: "Caerleon" means "City of the Legion". It was so called because it was an important military base in Roman Britain. Such a base would, no doubt, be similar to the surviving ruins at Porchester where there are huge curtain walls and massive stone bastions. When the legions finally left Britain, it would have been an ideal place for the Arthur’s army to take over, as all its infrastructure would be intact.

Wroxeter (Roman Viroconium) is considered a possible candidate because there is evidence of substantial rebuilding in the early fifth century. However, as this is too early for Arthur, it is more usually associated with Vortigern, an earlier and less well-known figure in the British resistance to barbarian invasion.

Cadbury Castle is undoubtedly the archaeologists' favourite. It is not a "Castle" in the medieval sense of the word, but an iron-age hill fort. It has long been associated with Camelot because the word "Camel" appears in the names of two nearby villages: "Queen Camel" and "West Camel". Extensive excavations carried out in 1966 and 1967 showed that the castle had been refortified in the Arthurian period. However, it is unlikely that a major figure such as Arthur would choose such primitive fortifications when there were many examples of stone-built Roman forts (such as Caeloen) that could be used without the need for rebuiliding.

Perhaps the greatest argument against all four of these places is geographical. The main threats to Britain in the late fifth century were the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, who were making inroads from the East, and the Picts who were attacking from the north, and who raided as far South as the River Humber. Any base for organised resistance would clearly need to be in the North-East. The places discussed above are all in the South-West. As the British were gradually driven from mainland England, the South West did indeed become the from line, but that was much later (during the campaigns of Ceawlin in the late 6th Century).

So how does the case for Conisbrough as Camelot stand up when compared to the competition?

First of all, there is a well-established link with Arthurian legend. The earliest detailed source is Geoffrey's "Historia". This is frequently criticised by historians because it is a mixture of history and legend, but there is no doubt that it presents the whole Arthurian episode in a more historical form than Malory's "knights in shining armour" version.

Geoffrey describes the arrival of the Angles, led by Hengest and Horsa (also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), and the great battle, not far from Conisbrough, where they were defeated by Aurelius. Conisbrough is mentioned by name in this account:

When Hengist saw that his men were beaten and that by God's grace the Britons were victorious, he fled immediately, making his way to the castle of Kaerconan, which is now called Cunungeburg.

This is a kind of prologue to the story of Arthur. Aurelius dies soon after, and is succeeded by Uther Pendragon, who is in turn succeeded by Arthur. All three leaders have resistance to the invader as their main aim. It is also important to note, that some historians identify Arthur with Aurelius, or believe that Arthur was the “Dux Bellorum” (war-leader) under Aurelius’ command. Compared to this, Malory's Arthur inhabits a mythical never-never land in which no Picts or Saxons exist.

If Conisbrough was the site of the decisive battle against the Angles, it could have served as a base for future operations. Place names also provide some evidence. Conisbrough has been know by many names. All are variants of the names given in the three different languages spoken by the people who inhabited it:

• Caerconan: an Ancient British word. The element "Caer" can still be found in many Welsh place names, "Caer" means "fortified place". Conan may be a personal name, perhaps the name of the founder of the settlement.
• Cyningesburg: this is simply a translation of "Caerconan" into the Anglo-Saxon language. "Burg" also means "fortified place". "Cyning" means "king". This may be the result of poor translation, or may signify that Hengest, who briefly took refuge there, considered himself to be king of Britain (as he would have been if he had won the battle). "Conisbrough" is clearly a modern version of "Cyningesburgh".
• Camelodunum: this is the Roman name for Conisbrough (though it is sometimes confused with Doncaster which uses the second element: "Dunum" or "Danum", both referring to the River Don). Scott Surtees explains that "Cameldunum" is simply a description of the place in Latin:
• "Camelodunum" from "cam" (bend), "alclud" (rock), "dune" (Don) or "The Rocky Fastness at the bend of the Don: an exact description."  It is easy to see how a long word like "Camelodunum" would be shortened to "Camelod or Camelot" over the centuries.

But was there a castle in Conisbrough at this period? We know that the present castle was built after the Norman conquest with a date of 1180 being suggested for the keep. However, any visitor to the site can see that there are earthworks which extend far beyond the castle walls. These are the remnants of an earlier fortification which was probably part of the Southern frontier defences of the Brigantes. Also, the castle is mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and by Peter of Langtoft, who describes a brief visit by King Egbert.

It is strange, in the light of this evidence, that the Domesday Book makes no mention of a castle. This could be because Conisbrough belonged to King Harold, and perhaps because of this, any fortification would have been pulled down.

So was Conisbrough Camelot? If "Camelot" makes us think of a "many towered" medieval fortress, peopled by "knights in shining armour", then the answer is no - though Conisbrough Castle would certainly look well in that role! If instead, we think of Camelot as a base for defensive operations against invading barbarians then a positive answer is more likely. It is situated in the right area, it is mentioned in the earliest version of the legend, its Latin name could easily be simplified to "Camelot", there was almost certainly a fortification there in the Arthurian period, and it is likely that at least one major battle against the Anglo-Saxons was fought nearby.

This article began as an academic exercise – just a bit of fun, really – but having worked my way through the evidence, I have managed to convince myself that Conisbrough Castle, if not the "Camelot" of the romances, is “Camelot” in the sense of an earthwork fort that played a major part in the defence against the Anglo-Saxon invaders.

© Arthur, 2008