THE ONLY CAMLAN CANDIDATE THAT IS LINGUISTICALLY, GEOGRAPHICALLY AND CHRONOLOGICALLY VIABLE: CAMS SHORE IN HAMPSHIRE

[NOTE:  Since writing this piece, I have been unable to determine whether 'shore' was used in the early period for the Cams.  The term may be merely a modern convention.  While local usage can be important when doing this kind of place-name work, if one can't demonstrate the existence of a term from the Medieval period (and preferably the early Medieval period), then its value must be called into question.]

Cams Shore, Hampshire

My readers know all too well by now that I have recently treated (or "re-treated") of several possible candidates for Arthur's Camlan[n].  The problem with ALL OF THEM is that they fail two important tests for validity:

1) the name can easily be shown to derive from a place-name that means 'crooked/bent shore/bank' or, less likely, 'crooked/bent enclosure'

2) the location must fit some known historical event found in an independent source

Quite some time ago, I "discovered" the Cams Shore in Hampshire.  For an article on that place (containing links to related pieces), see

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-more-precise-geographical-fix-for.html.

Ironically, my reason for preferring Cams Shore had to do with Cerdic of Wessex, who at the time I was putting forward pretty strongly as a possible candidate for Arthur himself!

Alas, my final identification of Uther Pendragon with Illtud (something made possible by a better analysis of early Welsh poetry and hagiography) forced me to shift my focus away from Cerdic.  I now had an Arthur who was centered at Durocornovium, modern Wanborough.  As the Arthurian battles in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM were Gewissei battles, I was looking at a man put forward as a British counter or 'foil' to the English Cerdic (although Cerdic himself was actually Ceredig son of Cunedda, whose father, Cunedda, was of Irish descent). 

What I can say is this: the death-dates for Cerdic and Arthur pretty closely match (534 and 537, respectively).  Cerdic dies just after, supposedly, consolidating his conquest of the Isle of Wight.  This had happened after he had failed to penetrate north into Hampshire past Charford.  Although we are not told how Cerdic died, I had proposed that he had changed his focus after Wight, and had decided to attempt a new northern push somewhat east, up by Portchester and the Wallington River.  He had met his death at Cams Shore, i.e. Camlan.

Needless to say, Cams Shore works great for Arthur as well - with or without Cerdic.  An Arthur centered at Durocornovium would not be fighting at a Camlann in NW Wales, nor at Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall.  And none of the other southern Cam- names, whether they have a suffix or second element, include the -lan[n] component.  

Still, even with Cams Shore we immediately run into unexpected chronologial problems.  

Arthur can't have died in 537 prior to fighting in the subsequent HB battles (which, again, are listed in somewhat altered forms in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE).  Certainly, he cannot have died prior to fighting at Badon!  Granted, Badon is a tricky one, as we all know too well.  I have only recently discussed Badon in the context of Arthur, Gildas and the Gewissei, showing how the 501 ASC battle involving Bieda could have become confused with a Badbury and/or a Bath battle.  

A related problem concerns what I term the 'reversal of generations' evinced in the ASC for the Gewissei.  By that I mean that the Welsh generations run from Cunedda/Maqui-coline to Ceredig and Cunorix (these last two being "sons"), while the English have Cerdic coming first, then Cynric/Cunorix his son, then Ceawlin/Coline.  To add to our problem, various modern authorities have tried to establish revised chronologies for the Gewissei battles.  None of them are very helpful.  The academic community currently holds to the notion, based primarily on archaeology, that the first Saxon settlements were up the Thames Valley, and NOT in Hampshire.  

If we are going to accept Cams Shore as Arthur's Camlan, we must be able to put it into the context of his previous battles - especially that of Badon.  I will try to do that here, at least provisionally.

The first thing to notice about the Gewissei battles is that they nicely delineate what is obviously meant to depict the nucleus or the future kingdom of Wessex.  In other words, if we plot all the battles from the first one belonging to Cerdic to the last one belonging to Ceawlin on a map, we have a rough boundary that encloses primitive Wessex.  

The problem with this "pattern" is that it mysteriously leaves out any interior battles.  In those few cases where the central area is encroached upon, the Gewissei are repulsed.  For example, they start off trying to gain access to northern Wiltshire, beginning with a victory at Old Sarum (Salisbury).  But this progress stops suddenly after what appears to be a defeat at Barbury Castle.  Not until 36 years later do they again attempt to enter this part of Wiltshire, this time at Adam's Grave.  And again they are defeated.  

Now, we can look at this in two ways.  One, the pattern of battles is entirely artificial, a 'conjured history' that is intended to neatly map out early Wessex.  This is entirely possible. Or, two, SOMEONE was successfully holding out for decades from northern Wiltshire.

A factor that favors the second possibility is our knowledge that the northern boundary of Wessex is believed, ultimately, to have run along the Thames and the Bristol Avon.  Trying to define it by using failed battles at Barbury Castle and Adam's Grave is quite inefficient.  And this is true even when we factor in the supposed conquest of Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath - all of which are way beyond Wiltshire.

We can see that the failures at Barbury Castle and Adam's Grave meant that a huge area was left unconquered, viz. the region stretching from Durocornovium in the north, east to Bath and south to Salisbury (assuming the Saxons were not holding a stretch of the Avon north of Salisbury and south of Barbury), including all of Salisbury Plain (where we find the famous Amesbury and Stonehenge).  Also in this swath of country are the North Wessex Downs.

So, that is our situation.  We appear to have an Arthur based at Durocornovium.  His famous Badon victory can only have been at Liddington Castle/Badbury, and I have proposed that it was this battle - not that of nearby Barbury Castle - that not only halted the Saxon advance in this part of England, but delivered such a catastrophic blow that even 36 years later the Gewissei failed to penetrate the area.  This same Arthur, who had defeated the Gewissei on many other fronts, perished fighting with a fellow Briton at Cams Shore or 'Camlan' in Hampshire.  The Cams Shore battle may also have involved Cerdic of Wessex, who is said to die at roughly this time.

It goes without saying that we cannot wholly discount either the Cam in Gloucestershire at Uley Bury hillfort or Camerton (on what appears to have been a Camel stream) as Arthur's Camlan.  After all, his death in that region may be a reflection of the Gewissei victories at Gloucester and Bath.  However, while the same battles in the HB and the ASC are claimed as victories for both Arthur and Cerdic, respectively, we cannot really opt for the Avon Bath as Badon, given that Liddington Castle is next to Durocornovium.  And, of course, there is that troublesome lack of the -lan[n] element in the context of both the Cam and Camerton.

At this point, I am prone to adhering to the Arthurian chronology as offered in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM. The ASC dates are, I feel, much more highly suspect.  I feel they are all too late, and have to respect the Welsh sources when it comes to the correct order of generations for Cunedda Maqui-Coline/Ceawlin, Cunorix/Cynric and Ceredig/Cerdic. The Gewissei themselves can be made pro-British or anti-British or both.  If they were co-opted by the Saxon historians, it is possible they were actually fighting against the invaders, rather then in alliance with them.  Or they may have been fighting for the king of central Wales with the Germanic invaders against internal British enemies of that Welsh ruler.  And the chief internal enemy was Arthur's people, descendents of the Roman period Dobunni.  The situation after the Roman left Britain may have become very complicated and very chaotic. 

As there is good reason for having Arthur at Durocornovium, another possibility has occurred to me.  It has been suggested by scholars of Roman Britain that the -cornovium element of Durocornovium could indicate that the place was garrisoned by a group from the ancient tribal territory of the Cornovii.  That territory is where we find Viroconium, the site of the memorial stone for Cunorix/Cynric, son of Cunedda Maqui-Coline/Ceawlin, and the seat of the central Welsh king alluded to above.

I have confirmed the Cornovii connection for this place-name with Welsh expert Dr. Simor Rodway at The University of Wales, and with Prof. Peter Schrijver at Utrecht:

"This does indeed look like the “fort of the Cornovii”. The -owjo- derivative of “horn” is only attested in the tribal name." (PS)

"It is a reference to the Cornovii." (SR)

Could it be that Irish or mixed Hiberno-British 'federates' (the Gewissei, named by the Saxons for Ceredig son of Cunedda; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-startling-though-astonishingly-simple.html), settled in Gwynedd, were being employed by the central Welsh king, but that the war-leader actually in charge on the front line against the Saxons was A MAN OF CORNOVIAN-DOBUNNIC DESCENT WHOSE BASE WAS IN NORTHERN WILTSHIRE?  Were the British kings Arthur was said to have led in the HB actually the Gewissei?

That may seem like an absurd suggestion, but it would allow us to have both Arthur and the Gewissei be victors of the same battles.  Otherwise, we are forced into the uncomfortable position of having to choose one side or the other.  Either the Gewissei won the battles and ascribing those victories to Arthur is a historical lie or vice-versa.