THE CAMLANN-AVALON PROBLEM: A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF DIFFICULTY FACING THE ARTHURIAN RESEARCHER

Map of Hadrian's Wall, Showing Proximity of Camboglanna to Aballava

One of the most difficult part about being an Arthurian researcher is the multiplicity of possible site identifications that are encountered.  A good example of what I'm talking about are Arthur's Camlann and Avalon.

In the last few weeks I have revisited my "theories" on a Southern Arthur. In doing so, I once again had to explore potential places Camlann and Avalon could be situated.  The result?  One can find some Camlanns (well, the only real ones, i.e. that etymologically match a proposed British *Camboglanna, are in NW Wales), but no good nearby candidate for Avalon.  We must for the latter default to Geoffrey of Monmouth's Gerdavalan on the Camel (anciently Cambula; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-avalon-of-geoffrey-of-monmouth.html) or to Glastonbury. 

And we must make one fateful (fatal?) decision: choose to ignore that Camboglanna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall, along with the Aballava/Avalana Roman fort only a few miles to the west.  We must also refuse to accept or acknowledge the presence of Dea Latis at Aballava, a literal 'Goddess of the Lake'.  While some have interpreted her name as relating to beer, because extensive marshes lay at Burgh By Sands and a Dea Ratis or 'Goddess of the Fort' is found in the same region, it is fairly certain we do have in this deity an apparent prototype for the Arthurian 'Lady of the Lake.'

So when we look at places like Camboglanna and Aballava, and we pour over early Arthurian sources such as the PA GUR poem, we come to realize that the traditions concerning Arthur are quite schizophrenic.  For some portray a man who is decidedly of the North, while others feed into the Southern tradition, which remains popular to this day.  For the man of the North we must be cautious we are not looking at a fusion of the more famous, earlier Arthur with the later Arthurs of Dyfed and Dalriada.

How does one decide where to good when searching for the true, historical Arthur?  Does one opt to go North or South?

Well, I'm afraid it comes down to two things.  Personal bias, obviously.  And that bias can be based in regional or nationalist pride or any number of other motivators.  Secondly, what makes the most sense logically.  While the application of logic to the Arthurian Question is itself fraught with danger, as logic can be used to prove just about anything (especially when objectively obtained evidence is mostly or wholly lacking), it is a better guide than mere intuition (which all too often derives from preconceived, personal belief). 

For me, three elements of the Northern Arthur prompt me to go in that direction.  One is that I can identify the Arthurian battle sites rather simply, without having to "get creative" by seeking them in the South under the guise of Welsh renderings of English place-names or, worse yet, by resorting to "sound-alike" etymologies (a forbidden sin engaged upon by amateurs with no knowledge of toponomastics).  Two, I do not have to ignore things like Camboglanna and Aballava.  And, three, archaeological findings in the North, and most notably on and near Hadrian's Wall, supports the view that someone like Arthur was operating in the area (see the works of Dr. Ken Dark for a good summary of this).

Ironically, my deciding for or against the North depends almost entirely on the interpretation of only one word found in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, the elegy poem for Uther Pendragon.  That word is kawyl.  If I stick with the emendation favored by the Welsh experts (like Marged Haycock and Simon Rodway), we can read the word as sawyl, a reference not only to the Biblical Samuel, but to Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  Like Uther, Sawyl had a son named Madog, although we know this only because of Irish records.  Sawyl's son was called Ailithir, 'other land', a designation for a pilgrim, and this title may be present in the Eliwlad name for the son of Madog, son of Uther. I have in my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER written on this Eliwlad in great detail, citing many famous Celticists who confirmed my idea.

A Sawyl name in the poem would allow us to easily translate the pen kawell in the previous line as 'chief of the sanctuary', an epithet for God in the same line.  The god at the shrine where the Biblical Samuel served was literally called the deity of the sanctuary, and in the famous passages of Samuel's calling the action takes place in the darkness of the shrine, when the light of the lamp had not yet gone out.  

Or I can put kawyl forward as an error for Welsh cannwyll, a word which can have the transferred sense of  "star".  This would be a reference to Uther's dragon-headed star in Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudo-history.  If kawyl is for cannwyll (something requiring several more steps to get to sawyl, which only needs a simple eye-skip by the copyist), then our best direct connection with Sawyl Benisel is lost. We might also try to see in pen kawell something else - even a place-name (like the River Cale, anciently Cawel, not far east of Cadbury Castle in Somerset). 

This is how tenuous Arthurian theory can be.  And we must never forget that it is just theory.  Well, actually, not even that, as a theory by definition is something that can be scientifically tested for its validity.  Rather, I would define it as a reconstruction built upon reasonable speculation. 

What does my gut tell me - after some three decades of questing after Arthur?  Yes, you read that right: my gut.  For at this point I really have nothing other to go on than instinct.  Not that different from intuition, although I continue to try very hard to avoid allowing belief-fueled impulses to influence my decision (and cloud my judgment).  

And my gut tells me the Northern Arthur is the right fellow.  It is probable that as most of Britain fell under the dominion of the Saxons, the Scots, and later the Vikings and the Normans, Arthur's story came to reside chiefly in what was still predominatly Celtic Wales and Cornwall.  This would be an explicable folkloristic process. We know the Arthurian legends even made their way to Brittany, itself of bastion of late Celticism.  Over time, most of the tradition concerning the original Arthur of the North was lost.  The lands where he was once victorious over the Germanic invader went from being Cumbric to English. He was effectively erased from the landscape.  Only some snippets of lore in the early Welsh poems were preserved.  His ghost survived only in that ethereal realm.    

My candidate for a historical Arthur will, therefore, remain the son of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  If any new information should be forthcoming in the future that causes me to change my mind, I will  utilizie that in any reformulation of my prevailing "theory."