Smith’s Cliff, on the north Cornwall coast, will be cared for by the conservation charity as a space for wildlife to flourish, for heritage to be conserved and for people to access and enjoy forever.The 55-acre (22.6 hectares) acquisition puts in place a vital piece of the coastal ‘jigsaw’ for the National Trust in the area, joining up land that the charity looks after at Barras Nose, which lies north of the castle, all the way to Bossiney, to become a continuous 2.7-mile stretch of coastal land.Knitting together these sections will create a coastal corridor that connects and encourages the spread of wildlife within a naturally and culturally significant landscape. The site sits within the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Pentire-Widemouth Heritage Coast, and forms part of the setting of the spectacular Tintagel Castle.
Tintagel is also the home to an interesting sculpture of Arthur. The castle itself is a kind of memorial to Arthur: it was built in 1230, but " inspired by the association with Arthur, [Richard, Earl of Cornwall] had the castle styled to appear older."
It strikes me that this attempt to build a natural corridor around Tintagel will actually make it less like it was in Arthur's day (i.e., around 500 AD, not that we are sure that Arthur actually ever lived at all), because then it was a bustling area rich enough to build and sustain a castle. There would have been farms and bakeries and wells and wagons all up and down the nearby areas, commerce and merchants, peasants and men of the church.
The influence of the idea of the Wilderness on how we envision Arthur is long and striking, though; it is as old as the desire to build monuments either physical or literary to him and his tradition. Merlin in the earliest stories is tied to a man who went mad in the wilderness, and long dwelt there; as is Lancelot, in much later stories. The knights are always going to the wild to seek adventure, encamped in some forest or by some crossing to offer joust or battle to any who pass by.
The idea of the Dark ages (Late Antiquity) as a time of resurgent wilderness probably goes back to Gibbon, if not perhaps earlier. "Civilization" vanished with Rome, so Nature must have returned. Now we know that it didn't quite work like that, but the popular image and the "Nature = goodness" idea are probably stronger than history. At least for now.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
I listened to someone from English Heritage describing this, and was struck by the rationale. Sometimes they cre about historical accuracy, but if there is a powerful belief long held locally they will treat that as the historical fact to be commemorated. Something, something, belongs to everyone, respect everyone's opinion...
ReplyDeleteYou can see it in allowing druids to have some claim on Stonehenge celebrations, despite the historical inaccuracy of that. It's a way of dodging tricky questions, and honoring the myths people have.
Let's bet that there are beliefs historically held in many places that they aren't honoring now, however.
As an architect I find that the fact the 13th c. castle was built in mimicry of earlier styles to be fascinating. A kind of preservationist attitude, and a second hand window into the past, one which did not leave a lot of undisturbed structures for us to study. I am not aware of any castles/castle ruins in the British Isles older than the 10th century.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting argument for building in a historical style (something often frowned upon in the modern architectural world).
It’s my understanding that the Normans built the first of what we’d think of as medieval stone castles in Britain during their conquest and consolidation of power. Earlier castles would have been wood, or else Roman constructions of a very different character.
DeleteJust since we're on the topic of Arthur and AD 500, can anyone recommend some good histories of Britain around that time?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost certainly true that the Normans did indeed build what *we* think of as medieval stone castles, but there were at least four prior to 1066 (although perhaps also built by Normans).
ReplyDeleteBut the ruins at Tintagel currently were said to have been built in a way to appear to be of earlier vintage- so they were imitating something- I'm curious to know if we even have any idea what, or for that matter what the ruins looked like when new. Regardless, the implication is that in the 13th century, they thought older locals built in stone in some fashion. I doubt they'd be thinking Normans built there. So who, and how?
We know there would be masons in Britain since at least the time of Hadrian, so I doubt they did nothing after the Romans left.
What I've learned from what little I've researched this is that what we don't know about pre-Norman Britain far outweighs what we do know. There are apparently thousands of mounds- possibly Mottes- that have not been explored at all. Also, I think most people would think of pre Norman fortifications as 'castles' of a sort, even if not in the strict sense. Some of those were built in stone, and the differences are not so great.
@Tom:
ReplyDeleteThere's not a lot of "history" for a while there -- not if you mean history as the written record and the study of same. Chesterton I think remarked once that it's an amazing period in that you transition from shipping manifests and payroll records to stories of kings fighting giants in the hills. After the Anglo-Saxons get settled in, there's a resumption of history -- particularly following Alfred the Great -- but that's quite a period of not much to go on in writing.
You might try The Age of Arthur by John Morris, which tries to stick to the provable facts of the era: it's a fairly solid history of the time, working with such actual records as exist (e.g. from the Picts and the Scots, although that's also already a little late). Or, if you want more a survey about what the stories said about Arthur, Norma Lorre Goodrich's King Arthur.
@Douglas -- the distinction between the pre-Norman bailey and the Norman motte-and-bailey is greater, I think, than initially apparent. What the pre-Norman fortification looks a lot like is a Roman Legion marching camp:
ReplyDeletehttps://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4qlu2Gfv7U0/VXQHd_1h5WI/AAAAAAAAOgo/buz6ONMzWtg/s1600/enfrentamiento%2Bcon%2Blos%2Bbarbaros.jpg
The addition of the motte is a major change, one that remains in later designs as it transfers from a wooden motte defense to a stone tower to the donjon that the Normans favored as a final defensive structure within a stone curtain (or more than one) and/or a moat. The shift in emphasis is from "We need to be able to defend this against a rush, until we have time to mobilize our defenses" -- that would have been true for the Anglo-Saxons vs. the Vikings as it was for the Romans against the British tribes -- to "we need to be hold this even against overwhelming forces that may be brought up against us."
US military encampments in Iraq were more like the Roman ones, I notice in passing; we were not worried about being overrun, but we were worried about infiltrators or a rush of attackers being able to get in before we could bring our overwhelming force to bear. The Normans were involved in a different project, one in which the whole country (eventually several countries) were against a small military elite, and they needed to plan to hold to the last and possibly die there.
Thanks, Grim!
ReplyDelete