Talk:History of Cornwall

“Cornish defence of Jonathan Trelawny..."
There was no “Cornish defence.” The people of Cornwall did nothing in 1688 for Trelawny. The bishops were saved by a jury in London and the London street. The song, largely written in 1825, is rousing but invents history. I have removed the sentence as unfounded as it stands.Crococolana 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The WP article The Song of the Western Men agrees with this conclusion.
 * has a study of the author, Rev. Stephen Hawker, in his literary context (Chapter 5, pp.104-113)
 * ===Vernon White (talk)  22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Raids on Cornwall
Why is there no mention of the Spanish raids, or of Arab slavers raids of the 17th and 18th centuries as is mentioned in the Norman Conquest article? Naerhu 10:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * there is a little on this at Penzance - maybe someone should copy it across and expand it as I know there was more than one Spanish raid Mammal4 10:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the Slave raids on Cornish shipping and ports, see Ismail_Ibn_Sharifand its talk page. ---Vernon White 22:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Phoenician settlers in Cornwall
The article now says:

"Cornwall continued to serve as the principal source of tin for the civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean, and the Romans in fact knew the British Isles as the "Tin Islands" from Punic merchants who traded with the islands from the Carthaginian colonies in Spain. The Phoenicians traded with Cornwall and there is a strong local belief that some Cornish may be descendants in part from Phoenician settlers. [1] The origin of the Cornish Saffron Cake is also reputed to come from this period. [citation needed]"

The external link cited Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology merely says "there is a strong local belief that some Cornish may be descendants in part from Phoenician settlers". This does not seem a reliable source of evidence that the Roman geographers meant Cornwall, when they referred to "the Tin Islands". Is it a reliable fact?

I await an enlightening amendment.

- - - - Vernon White 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, and in fact there are several aspects of that paragraph that need a good bit of reworking. It's a very murky topic, because mostly we're dealing with prehistory (or perhaps I should say, historical hearsay). The geographic term in question was Greek (Cassiterides), and personally I tend to agree with the conclusion of the 1911 Enclyclopedia author that "the name Cassiterides represents the first vague knowledge of the Greeks that tin was found overseas somewhere in or off western Europe" (quoted in our article). Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Philip Payton is rather cautious about denying the Phoenician link (Cornwall: a history - 2004 edn - p.47) and refers to Malcolm Todd South West to 1000(1987). I have requested this and may return with a more constructive EDIT. Perhaps you would like the quote from Canon Doble that I have just insterted in his WP article. Best - - - Vernon White 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken the paragraph out, placed it here for appraisal, and replaced it, until something better is found, with an interpretation which is at least reliably sourced:


 * (Removed text):Cornwall continued to serve as the principal source of tin for the civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean, and the Romans in fact knew the British Isles as the "Tin Islands" from Punic merchants who traded with the islands from the Carthaginian colonies in Spain. The Phoenicians traded with Cornwall and there is a strong local belief that some Cornish may be descendants in part from Phoenician settlers. The origin of the Cornish Saffron Cake is also reputed to come from this period. 


 * qp10qp 00:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Saffron Cakes
In view of the chronology in the WP article History of Saffron, it seems highly unlikely that recipes and materials for Saffron Cake were handed down by Phoenician ancestors of the Cornish.
 * ===Vernon White (talk)  16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

{{-}

Returning to Camden
The text that Halliday may be using is:

Neither let any man surmize that in the daies of Constantius the Poeni [Phoenicians] had their abode here grounding upon these words of Eumenius the Rhetorician, Except perhaps no greater ruine had fallen upon Britaine, and borne it downe, than if it had been drenched thorout, and overwhelmed with the over-flowing of the Ocean: which being delivered from the most deepe gulfe [Poenorum], began to appeare and shew it selfe at the view and sight of the Romanes. For in the old Copie belonging sometime to Humfrey Duke of Glocester, and afterwards to the right honourable Baron Burghly, Lord high Treasurere of England, we read poenarum gurgitibus, that is, The gulfes of punishments, and not Poenorum gurgitibus. For he seemeth to speake of the calamites and miseries wherewith Britaine was afflicted under Carausius." Source:William Camden,Britannia (1607) with an English translation by Philemon Holland

In my understanding, Camden is casting doubt on the claim, that Phoenicians settled in Cornwall, by those using a Latin text by Eumenius. In that text, the word "poenorum" is used and the advocated of Punic Cornwall mistake this word for "poenarum", which means "punishments" not "Phoenicians".

Philip Payton Cornwall: a History p.25 gives an example of Halliday's being rather carried away by romantic notions in his treatment of the "Lyonesse legend" in History of Cornwall, page 29. He would appear to be more a believer than an agnostic in stirring stories. Hope this helps * * * Vernon White (talk)  23:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about that; Halliday is curtly dismissive of the idea of Phoenicians in Cornwall. And on the Lyonesse issue, he ends by saying "or, like the legend of Lyonesse are the stories merely the fabrications of later people...?" (p29)

Phoenician settlers in Cornwall: Part 2
It has been stated in Talk:Cornwall:


 * "Halliday [History of Cornwall (1959)] actually says this:
 * 'Who the foreign merchants were we do not know for certain, but there is no reason to suppose that they were Phoenicians, a speculation first advanced by Camden in the sixteenth century. '
 * I suppose Halliday may only mean that Camden raised the speculation and dismissed it, rather than that he believed it."

__

Camden's Britannica was published in 1586. However, Malcolm Todd (1987:12) suggests that John Twyne (c.1505–1581) "seems to have been the first to suggest to suggest that the Phoenicians, draw by the lure of Cornish tin, colonized Britain. He thus started a hare whose elusive shade is still hunted on the wilder shores of archaeological romance."

John Twyne's De rebus Albionisis, Britannicis atque Anglicis, Commentariorum libri duo (STC 24407) was published 1590. Thomas Kendrick (1950) rediscovered this influential Tudor writer. Todd (1987: 185-188) examines all the available references in classical literature to Phoenician contacts with Cornwall and reviews the interpretations offered by modern authors. He remains them deeply unconvinced of their factualty.

An unregistered contributor to the WP Cornwall article claimed that some tin ingots found at Pentewan were stamped in Phoenician style. Todd (1987:232) lists all known finds of ancient tin ingots and that the two ingots found at Pentewan Valley, Near St. Austell weighed about 10 Kilogrammes and are now lost.

Diodorus
According to Barry Cunliffe's book "The extraodinary voyage of Pytheas the greek", Diodorus who based his account indirectly on Pytheas) only said "The inhabitants of Britain who live on the promontory called Belerion..."  The identification with Lands End is due to Ptolemy who used the spelling Bolerium. David horsey 10:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition of another edition of Halliday
Vernon, I found your inclusion of another edition of Halliday to be unnecessary, and, like Orthrus, rather deformed. The policy Citing Sources cautions editors to make clear which edition inline citations refer to, the reason being that different editions may have altered texts or page numbers. Now that you have added another edition, the reader doesn't know which of the two editions has been cited in the footnotes. In this case, I don't think that matters much, as the edition I have was published in 2000 (not 2001) and has the afterword by Halliday's son you mention, so I dare say the pagination is the same. All the more reason, however, for the doubling up to be redundant. I would point out that the ISBN number identifies the edition (and makes it quickly traceable); the date 1959 is merely the first publication date, essential information for the reader. If you were to cite a different edition of Halliday in the article, that edition could then be included in the references list on its own line, and the footnotes would include differentiated edition dates, using square brackets for the original publication date: Halliday ([1959] 2000:46), Halliday ([1959] 2006:104), or whatever; in time, editors would ideally tidy the citations to one edition. On these matters the policy states:

Page numbers: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article."

Editions: "It is crucial that complete references be provided for each distinct edition referred to (or cited) in the article, and that each such in-line citation provide enough information to distinguish between editions."

qp10qp 16:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. Thanks for the advice. ===Vernon White (talk)  17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have amended the paragraph about the battles with the West Saxons to include the dates we agreed in the general section There are no references for the claims about the battle in which Doniert died and about the last king of Cornwall. Perhaps someone could put them in. Crococolana 22:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dungarth
I have amended the reference to Dungarth to include the source (Annales Cambriae), which I see I have erroneously treated as singular, and exclude the unsourced speculation about who ruled what. Crococolana 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced amendments
User:Jellery has made a large number of unsourced amendments. Some of the statements need sources to have any credibility, for instance "Twenty percent of the Cornish population are believed to have been killed during 1549. It is one of the major factors that contributed to the decline in the Cornish language. ". === Vernon White (talk)  21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race"
This was a staement made by William of Malmesbury -  Source:"Cornwall: A History" by Professor Philip Payton of the Institute of Cornish Studies  - From Dumnonia to Cornubia - The final subjugation of Cornwall, however, was left to Athelstan who in AD 936 set the River Tamar as the border between Cornwall and England, rather as he had set the Wye as the boundary between England and Wales. The remaining Cornish were evicted from Exeter and perhaps the rest of Devon (William of Malmesbury comments unpleasantly that Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race) - ref. William Stubbs, William of Malmesbury's Gesta Regum Anglorum (Deeds of the English Kings), Royal Society, London, 1887, p89. In effect, Athelstan had created the modern geo-political entity of Cornwall (Kernow) in that he had guaranteed its territorial and ethnic integrity (attacks from east of the Tamar would now be a thing of the past). In AD 944 Athelstan's successor, Edmund I of England, styled himself King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons (ref - Malcolm Todd, The South West to A.D. 1000, London, Longman 1987, pp. 287-9), an indication of how that accommodation was understood at the time. 217.44.83.62 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much on status of Cornwall
This article should reflect Cornwall's position in the world, e.g. first million seller - Silas G Hocking, first transatlantic signal at Goonhilly, Bob Fitzsimmons etc

17th century
Coverage of this is lacking apart from the Civil War.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain & British
There's a lot of the use "Britain" and "British" in this article considering it's about a county in the south west of England and that "Britain" as a state didn't exist until 1707. The article incorrectly conflates "British isles" with "Britain" and uses "Britain" and "British" as interchangeable words for England. The trouble is, it would take a major edit to correct all the inaccurate terminology and I don't have the time.

wonko (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In a historical sense Britain is the correct term as it refers to the geographical senbse of Britain and ethnographically as applying to the Cornish as a Brythonic people. It is incorrect to use the term England, English and Southwest England in this article Cornwall was not 'English' in any political sense until 922AD at the earliest and questionably until the mid 16th Century. Best leave as is. Artowalos (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)artowalos

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on History of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930033857/http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm/index.cfm?articleid=5772 to http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm/index.cfm?articleid=5772
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070208083353/http://www.cornwall.gov.uk:80/index.cfm?articleid=4956 to http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=4956

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Cornwall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225003753/http://www.roman-britain.org/places/illogan.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/places/illogan.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515141738/http://www.menantolstudio.freeserve.co.uk/blightcrosses.htm to http://www.menantolstudio.freeserve.co.uk/blightcrosses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
The edit by says "Income tax, introduced in 1799, lead (sic) to a number of traders and consumers evading the extra price burden by using the county's ragged coastline as a landing point for dutiable goods." It is not clear why this is relevant as smuggling evades excise duties, as stated below, not income tax. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Excises are defined as any duties levied on goods at the point of manufacture - since a duty is tax levied by the state, would this not include income tax as well? Income tax is taken as a proportion of earnings, so employment and self-employment earnings are liable to it - are these not contingent on the transaction of goods? Also, agree with you that the cocaine smuggling should probably not be in the 18th and 19th centuries section. The specific case I mentioned was, however, heavily covered in the national media, and I think drug smuggling should be mentioned, because it has become a notable problem in C'wall. Andysmith248 (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not see your point. As you say, excise is levied on goods, so it does not include a tax levied on income. Sources such as say that the height of Cornwall smuggling was in the eighteenth century, before the income tax came in.  Dudley Miles (talk)
 * Looking over the sources I would agree that smuggling hit Cornwall mainly before income tax came in. I still stand to think that both excise and income tax would have tended towards more smuggling, even though levels subsided in the 19C. Anyhow, would changing "Income tax, introduced in 1799," to "import taxes and other duties on goods" be more appropriate? Also, think it's worth mentioning some drug trafficking info, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries section. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks OK but I would make clear that smuggling was at its height in the 17th and 18th centuries - if you have sources for saying so, of course. As to drug trafficking, I think you need reliable sources to say it is significant in Cornwall, not newspaper reports of some cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

First Account of Cornwall
The page states that the first account of Cornwall comes from Diodorus who was paraphrasing Pytheas, however Philip Payton's "Cornwall, a History," a book which is referenced in this page, states that it is Publius Crassus visiting what was known as Cassiterides (the Tin isles) in the first century BC, is the first documented account of Cornwall. I was reluctant to make an edit correcting this because of how referenced "Cornwall, a history," is on this page, I thought there must be a reason for not including Publius Carassius's doccumentation. Am I mistaken or should an edit be made? Kvothe4273 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pytheas lived long before Publius Crassus, so he was the first. I do not think anyone can know whether it is worth adding Publius Crassus without access to your source, so it is a decision for you. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)