Talk:Tintagel Castle

Untitled
Maybe a photo could go here? I must have one somewhere - buried in boxes of old prints - but would require scanning in. Maybe someone else will oblige! David Martland 09:34, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Controversy over the site
I have restored the original text as below, as I think you will find that your statement is inaccurate - in fact the judge returned a verdict of "not guilty" when there was no evidence presented and a Public Interest Immunity Certificate was granted.

In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wrote to English Heritage asking them to remove all signs bearing their name from Cornish sites by July 1999 as they regard the ancient sites as Cornish heritage, not English. Over eleven months eighteen signs were removed by members of the Cornish Stannary and a letter was sent to English Heritage saying "The signs have been confiscated and held as evidence of English cultural aggression in Cornwall. Such racially motivated signs are deeply offensive and cause distress to many Cornish people". (see external BBC link). *Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Av151 (talk • contribs).


 * "But Geoffrey Mercer, prosecuting, said the men had agreed to be bound over for a year in the sum of £500 each. They had also paid English Heritage £4,500 compensation. Judge Graham Cottle praised the prosecution approach for being "sensible and pragmatic. And he said he would make no further comments as "the publicity is exactly what the defendants seek and I shall deny them that satisfaction."


 * As you said on another article - "mentioning a political fact concerning this site is not against wikipedia rules so long as neutrally written". So when you write a neutrally written article, it can stay. Your current paragraph is absolutely one sided. Putney Bridge 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My view, as expressed elsewhere, is that the topic is relevant to this article (though not to some others), and deserves a neutral paragraph or two. While the previous text (which is reproduced above by User:Av151) seems neutral in tone to me, it expresses a POV by omission: i.e. it does not include the end of the story.  May I suggest the following text, which may be reproduced mutatis mutandis on other articles dealing with this publicity stunt? — mholland 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine, except that it should state that the Revived Stannary Parliament is unofficial, and not accepted as a successor body to the former, historical Stannary Parliament. Totnesmartin 19:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference to Tintagel, as it will make it easier to copy to all the other articles. I would be hesitant in putting the unofficial Revived Stannary Parliament, as it may seem like POV, in deriding the CSP. Putney Bridge 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how unofficial is derisory. It simply explains that the CSP isn't actually the Cornish Parliament or something, which people might assume if they don't know much about Cornwall (ie most people). Totnesmartin 23:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that unofficial is a fact. I was thinking that the Stannary Parliament probably feels that it is official, and emphasising unofficial could cause a conflict. We want to find an acceptable to all paragraph, so conflicts are best avoided. I did say hesitant though, so feel free to add it to the new paragraph if you can find a good way to word it. Putney Bridge 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Roget's Thesaurus suggests: independent, unaffiliated, breakaway, dissenting, and unauthorised. There are many others, but they're too POV. "Independent" looks best. With a small i. Totnesmartin 12:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text (feel free to edit, but please record your changes): 

In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation. Members of a pressure group, the Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament, removed several signs bearing the English Heritage name.

Other issues to consider are Putney Bridge 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reinstatement of Cornwall, England from Cornwall, UK. Someone has already reverted this on the Tintagel article earlier, quoting a previous discussion.
 * An IP has added a link to "Cornish Stannary Parliament tackles cultural aggression in Cornwall" under external links.
 * The biased paragraph appearing on the talk pages. Is there a Wiki policy for talk page content?


 * 1) The intro now reads Cornwall, England, UK, which complies with the consensus which was thrashed out at great length on WP:UKGEO. According to that consensus, the 'UK' part is optional, but I see absolutely no benefit to be gained from arguing it further.
 * 2) The link to the CSP article is one of two valid sources for the 'Controversy' section which we are now debating. I am of the opinion that it, and the link to the BBC News story, should both be cited in the references.  I have invited the anon who added the link back in to this article (and other articles) to join this discussion.
 * 3) There is no relevant policy covering POV on talk pages. I see no reason why the old text should not remain here while we debate it.  No user should remove it, but if User:Av151 wishes to strike it out, it is his/her prerogative.  I assume that the paragraph was added in good faith.
 * — mholland 00:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the point about this text is that it takes up such a large percentage of the total article that it inflates its importance somewhat - in the thousands of years of history of some of these sites just how important is this incident? Obviously worth mentionning, but shouldn't be 80% of the text as it is in some examples.  Might I suggest a separate article describing this incident in full (expanded on what is used here) and then only a reference to it here - something like ''In 1999 there was some controversy regarding this site and others under the care of the English Heritage organisation.

'' and leave it at that?


 * There is no policy regarding the text on talk pages so long as its not abusive or vandalism - its there to talk about stuff on so shouldn't be censored!


 * Regarding the England/UK issue consensus that I helped to hammer out - the majority of people wanted the home nation to be included in some form, but that use of UK as well was not wrong. The most important thing we were trying to address was POV changes to established articles (often from unregistered users across large sections of wikipedia) where the only alteration was removal of either UK or England, showing a clear POV intent.  These are reverted as a matter of course, as disregarding personal opinion, most established editors agreed that this was disruptive to Wikipedia.Mammal4 10:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The episode is already considered at Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament. I wouldn't want to pre-empt the community, but if it was split off from there, it might well be merged back in. — mholland 11:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That still works then - the link can be made to Revived Cornish Stannary Parliament which will take the reader to the relevent section only Mammal4 11:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea. — mholland 12:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with the current text, with the link to operation Chough (which I have changed), and removing the extraneous links where they have been added. Putney Bridge 17:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought this had been settled, but then someone added three references to the agreed paragraph. Please may I have some comments on whether the paragraph needs to quote three sources, even when the sources are not really relevant to the article. Example articles are Tregiffian Burial Chamber Carn Euny and Halliggye Fogou.

Finally, a message to the people promoting Cornish Heritage. May I suggest that it would be more productive expanding these articles, so we can learn about the ancient Cornish, rather than highlighting modern day protests. Putney Bridge 15:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the two refs which had already been in circulation here - the BBC one and the CSP page. The third ref (from the Guardian) is User:Av151's (diff).  I agree that three refs are not strictly necessary (particularly since all of the material in the 'agreed' sentence above can be accurately verified and attributed to the BBC article alone), but I can't bring myself to complain about over-referencing.  I wish more articles had that 'problem'.  Yes, it would be very nice indeed if these articles were longer: then it wouldn't be the case that the refs are longer than the text itself!
 * I wouldn't object to pruning the refs, but others might. — mholland 15:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the claim that the original para is biased - it is simply a statement of fact, which does not give support to either side of the dispute. As for the 'Cornwall, England, UK' thing - there was a discussion at Cornwall WikiProject about this. DuncanHill 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is very badly phrased:

"It has proved not possible to obtain this information, as there is a Parliamentary injunction [3] preventing MP’s from raising questions about, or even attempting to discuss, Duchy related matters. On 16th July 1997 the Liberal Democrat Andrew George MP attempted to raise a Duchy-related question but he was prevented by an injunction that disallows MPs raising any questions in Parliament that are in any way related to the Duchy."

Should it be changed?Serpren (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As a general comment this section seems overlong and would benefit from re-editing now that even more text has been added which is nothing to do with Tintagel Castle. It could be covered by a subsection of the History of Cornwall article perhaps.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 11:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Arthur
I don't go much on the Arthurian legends but there is one possibility. If Arthur was indeed a 5th century Chieftan based in Wales and dealing with the Saxon invasion, wouldn't Tintagel have been an almost ideal port to ship to Wales the Cornish tin and copper needed to make the bronze for his war machine? It seems a much shorter shipping route across the Severne than pack trains along the much longer route around the source of the Severne.AT Kunene (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is unlikely that any tin or copper was exported from here as there are no good harbours on this coast (however slate was exported from Tintagel in the 19th century and Bossiney was at one time a small fishing port). For more background information please see Mining in Cornwall and Devon and Saints' Way (for the route between the estuaries of the Camel and Fowey).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The recent episode of Secrets of the Dead, King Arthur's Lost Kingdom, mentions the notion of trade at Tintagel, meaning two way exchanges. The buildings uncovered suggest that the old ships did find a good harbor there. Archaeologists have found the pottery from Mediterranean places. They suggest that in return, the ships from so far away took tin mined in Cornwall, or even near Tintagel (the remains of a deep open cut mine were shown briefly). Tin was a metal in demand for making bronze items. This review of the program makes mention of the trade of tin for the fine objects and possibly wine from the Mediterranean places, as well as the Atlantic Coast of France, here. I do not know if there are books that describe what was presented in the program. The notion of sailing all that way only to sell goods, bringing nothing back, seems less likely than two-way trade to me, so I mention it here. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the section on Early medieval period.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a source of reliable information Thomas, Charles (1993). Tintagel: Arthur and Archaeology. London: Batsford/English Heritage. ISBN 978-0-7134-6690-4.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see this sentence at the end of the section on the Early medieval period, "This evidence led him to believe that Tintagel was a site where ships docked to deposit their cargo from southern Europe in the early medieval period." I must have missed it firsst time around. Another Wikipedia article about this area says there is no suitable port. I can fix that other article now. That sentence addresses the fact of a suitable port location. I do not find the word tin or tin mines or anything about a cargo to fill the ships going back home, as payment or barter for the goods coming in. Was the tin trade part of what is said in Thomas 1993? That is not a googlebook, and not readily available to me. The point about trade being a two-way exchange seems important to me, and was that really an old tin mine shown? Were the remarks on the television show based on archaeological work done after 1993? Thank you for your quick replies, and .  --Prairieplant (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My limited understanding of all of this is that that there has been a good deal of new archaeology and study in recent years, which is very unlikely to be fully covered by a 1993 book or, perhaps, the original comments in this thread from 2012.  For example, here are reports on recent excavations - you may be able to dig out (!) links to useful reports and publications.  But I'm not in a position to advise on what the current state of academic knowledge is, or on what reliable reports have been published.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay and thanks. It does seem that there were new digs in the area in 2016 to 2017, based on newspaper articles and this highlight from Current Archaeology in 2018 here. The stone with writing in the photograph at the top of the text was shown on the television program, complete with the experts named explaining the writing and the meaning of the words. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * More looking on google, I see that the BBC aired a television show about this in 2018 with anthropologist Alice Roberts as the presenter; she was in the US show as well. The other huge thing uncovered is the outline of the palace, the buildings where King Arthur's myths say he was born, and in that era. I find lots of news and magazine articles on this, but no journal article. I left the link to the US program as an inquisitive person can still stream it online. The BBC program had King Arthur in the title as well, but the last airing was last year, no airings scheduled. I hope these refs are acceptable until better ones come along. The digs were real, and they really found new information. I think archeologists take time to digest what they have found before publishing, slower than television producers, perhaps. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The mine next to Merlin's Cave was I think for lead, there are no tin ores in this district of Cornwall. Thomas writes about the cove known as the Iron Gate as a possible harbour. I will refer to the book again and report back.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The legend does not place Arthur's birth here but his conception; it has been distorted into the idea of his birth; and an Arthurian palace here is very unlikely though a seasonal residence of a local chieftain is quite possible.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This contains an account of the mines in this district of Cornwall: * Jenkin, Kenneth Hamilton Mines and Miners of Cornwall in 16 volumes, vols. 1–14 originally published by the Truro Bookshop, 1961 onwards and reprinted by various organisations: ** Pt. XVI. Wadebridge, Camelford and Bude Penzance: Federation of Old Cornwall Societies, 1970:- PP. 57 to 61 cover the history of attempts to open mines in the parishes of Tintagel, Trevalga, Forrabury and Minster (Boscastle) and St Juliot: for copper and silver-lead on the Island (1806 and 1852-54 and 1873-73; described by William Taylor in 1927 as a silver-lead mine; described by Thomas in 1883 as a galena mine). None of this is relevant to the Roman period when tin was only obtained by streaming; hard rock mining was only possible from the industrial revolution and availability of explosives and capital to make shafts and adits.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not so interested in the versions of the King Arthur myth, my interest is more about the Dark Ages perhaps not being quite so dark, and all the interesting stuff uncovered, literally uncovered, by the digs in 2016 and 2017, and wondering if the statements in the US television show were on the right track about tin mining in the Roman or post-Roman eras, not the 19th century. I know that others will draw attention to the Early medieval period for the myths about Arthur, but I see that as a way to draw attention to this work, not the most interesting aspects of it. The people who used that palace and left scraps of their meals behind were not the people in the Arthurian legend, I think, but Celtic people living there, the early Britons. Clearly lots of tin was mined somewhere, it is the definition of the long ago Bronze Age, copper and tin. Long ago meaning long before the 5th and 6th centuries after the Roman Empire collapsed; the Bronze Age ended in 600 BC. The image shown was of an open area, not an underground mine. I do not know Cornwall well enough to recognize the place in the image in the tv show. I stumbled upon a reference that describes the 5 year project in Tintagel Castle, including the two digs in 2016 and 2017, finding the outlines of the palace; this reference says a full report is expected in 2021 from the Cornwall Archaeological Unit. Anyway, the link to the PBS television show is streaming now, but I do not know if that means streaming only in the US or beyond. I watched it on regular over the air television. Nothing about the tin mining is in this article, as I see a need for more sources first. --Prairieplant (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merlin's Cave and Tintagel Haven (4992).jpg: the disused lead mine in on the right of this picture. It sounds as if the television programme is not a reliable source for anything about the Dark Ages (a term which historians deprecate). The early Cornish tin trade is covered by Mining in Cornwall and Devon; to get responses to the 2016 and 2017 excavations will need a search for what archaeologists have subsequently said about preliminary findings.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Call them what you will, the Dark Ages meant little literacy (no or few written records, except in Ireland) in Europe after the Roman Empire collapsed and the various tribes they kept out of their part of Britain and countries on the continent were free to engage in warfare with the locals. That is the story of Britain now, though there is no solid history to back up that story. The discoveries at Tintagel Castle area are yielding new ideas on how Britain was split, with travel from the east easiest on the east side of the island of Britain, the Angles and the Saxons, while the west side of the island had ships from Spain and the Mediterranean Sea, based on what was found there. So far, archaeologists have not found a basis to support that the island was overtaken by warrior Angles and Saxons once Rome fell; the thoughts are more along the lines of intermarriages and cultures combining in those early centuries long before the Anglo Saxon Chronicles were started. I have included the sources I could find in the article, from some Archaeology magazines. BBC Two did a documentary on these findings, as well as PBS in the US, and you might look for the next airing of that programme. The link is in the References for the Early medieval period in the article, if you have been reading the new paragraph I added. All that I read in the Archaeology magazine posts, that same information was in the television show in the US. So I would not dismiss it out of hand as you have done. It was the television show that got me to search for the articles that I did find. What reports other scientists will write, I do not know; many are interested in this work, and the extra work done in labs after the digs ended. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Mining in Devon and Cornwall article on Wikipedia shows that tin from Cornwall has shown up in places along the Mediterranean Sea since the Bronze Age. All that lacks now is a specific object in bronze that is from the time after the fall of Rome to have its tin from Cornwall. When such objects are found, then the trade can be verified and not a wild idea from a television producer. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What you have added is of some interest but it does get close to making the article longer than it needs to be. The place to write about the history of Great Britian in the 5th and 6th centuries is Sub-Roman Britain; sea travel in this period is frequently the means of immigration for settlers and raiders from Scandinavia, Britian or Ireland to some other territory. Unlike the later Danish invasions of England these were not large armies.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. It is the history of this place in Cornwall that is the topic, the outlines of a palace found on the headland, supporting the notion of chieftains or princes being there in the time after Rome fell. The palace gave no indications of being a place of battle or the place of an army, but a travelling court with its chief. Cornwall is part of Great Britain, and contrasting it with the rest of Great Britain in that same era seems logical to me. The prior belief was that Britons in Cornwall and parts east but not all the way to the eastern coast were holding off the marauding Danes -- the Angles and Saxons. This latest study suggests Cornwall was not warring against them in that century, as 1) the Angles and Saxons did not get that far into Britain, and 2) where they did land, it was more a peaceful blending of cultures. That puts a bit of a knock on the King Arthur legend -- he did not need to fight invaders in that century based on what was found in the recent digs. I do not think that the Arthurian legend will fall away due to a new theory from the find in an archeological dig, and did not focus on that aspect, which is very much tied to this place. I think the text is about this place, especially as we wait for the scientific report to be published, to see what of the initial published reactions will stand up. Is that agreeable to you? --Prairieplant (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions; it is obviously worth updating with the outcome of the later archaeological work. Some tV programmes can be informative depending on the knowledge of those who make them but the Arthurian legend can be misunderstood very easily. Some historians have located Arthur in the North of England and Southern Scotland rather than in the Westcountry, e.g. Andrew Breeze whose article I found recently. --Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Cornwall, England
The existing text conforms to WikiProject Cornwall guidance: "Cornwall may not be culturally part of England, however, administratively it is. Articles related to Cornwall should reflect the situation at this present time; they should only be adjusted if/when the situation changes." Mentioning both England and the United Kingdom in Cornish articles was considered the best compromise as both facts were true.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not culturally part of England"?
 * Cornwall today is indeed very much linguistically and culturally part of England...in addition to having its own unique linguistic and cultural heritage.
 * Jacob D (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Jacob D
 * This sounds like POV or agenda pushing and should be removed unless reliably sourced. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 21:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion relates to WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Current events, links for future use
https://competitions.malcolmreading.co.uk/tintagel/#concept - bridge competition

https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/brandalism-at-tintagel-and-this-time-its-permanent/ - English Heritage's vandalism

http://docs.planning.cornwall.gov.uk/rpp/showimage.asp?j=PA15/03150&index=12609845&DB=8&DT=4 - Impact assessment

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

statue
Views of minor protest group, which unbalanced the historical nature of the section. Views on the statue, both pro and anti, are already in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpren (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The alleged Cornish etymology for Tintagel cited in the article is spurious.
I will quote from the journal article "Topographical Notes: III. Rosnat, Rostat, and the Early Irish Church", by Charles Thomas (Ériu, Vol. 22 (1971), pp. 100-106).
 * "Attempts to explain the first element as Co. din-, 'stronghold, large fortress, cliff-fort', lack force when it is realised that all the other numerous Cornish place-names with this prefix, not a few of which are recorded before 1145, have retained their initial d throughout. Nor does the second element readily suggest any known Cornish word, or find any local parallels.

Henry Jenner put forward an ingenious idea, on the quite reasonable premise 'Tintagel' originate in a Norman-French milieu, comparing it with '...a rock called Tente d'Agel, or Tente d'Ageau in the Island of Sark [Channel Isles] which is locally said to mean "the Castle of the Devil"." https://www.jstor.org/stable/30007604?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

As it happens, this site actually does exist on Sark Island, and it is known today as Tintageu. http://www.geograph.org.gg/photo/1736

As for a purported Cornish etymology for the suffix "tagel" meaning "constriction", I find no evidence for this.

The Cornish word "tagel" means "wattle" (fleshy appendage). http://www.cornishdictionary.org.uk/browse?field_word_value=tagel&=Apply

The closely related Welsh word "tagell" likewise means "wattle", or "gill" (of a fish), or "double-chin".

These words do not signify a constriction at all, but rather a flabby fold of flesh. Jacob D (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Jacob D

Dark Age
The difference in the last two edits is to do with grammar: for the adjective "dark age" is correct: similarly here "alternatively carry the kopis, a heavy knife with a forward-curving blade. Dark age warfare transitioned into hoplite warfare in the 8th century BC".--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The new new bridge!
Having experienced the new bridge am bemused as to why no update to include mention of this plus a photo? Apart from anything else accessibility for the less abled has been magically transformed into a reality. Please update! 2A00:23C6:998A:6E01:BDD7:49E:849B:7056 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The new bridge is mentioned in the article, in the "21st century" section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Article updates
The excavations in the 1990s aren't currently mentioned in the article, but are detailed in an open access book from the Society of Antiquaries of London: Excavations at Tintagel Castle, Cornwall, 1990-1999.

English Heritage published a new guidebook in 2019, replacing the guide by Thomas and at least one guide published in between. The guidebook features the most recent interpretation of the site and could be used to update this article.

Susan Greaney's 2020 chapter "Where History Meets Legend: Presenting the Early Medieval Archaeology of Tintagel Castle, Cornwall" would also be a useful source.

I can't promise I'll get round to adding information from these any time soon, but thought they might be useful here for other editors interested in the subject. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)