Talk:History of Lincolnshire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] A druid nation?

"Lincolnshire before the Romans was a Druid nation". What is a druid nation? The druid link goes to a page explaining that the druids were a class within society. "Druid nation" makes it sound like a nation consisting entirely of druids. Telsa 08:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

True. Similarly "They also constructed sea defences, raising a large earth bank running along the coast some thirty miles from Ingoldmells to Boston, known now as Roman Bank." is a highly questionable statement except in its last clause. But the article just needs a little checking over. (RJP 09:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] King Arthur?

The bit in the "Saxons and Danes" section talks of Arthur as if he were an established, verifiable historical figure, and even gives a firm date for his death. That can't be right, he is at best legendary, if not the completely mythical memory of an old druid bear god. --Fire Star 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Red faced, I take back what I wrote. I have added brief notes about Arthur's first six battles to one or two articles see River Glen, Lincolnshire#History for example and I replied here before it occurred to me to check what I had put in the Lincs Hist article. In this connection, I hadn't added anything.

That said, some of what I wrote here remains true. The Arthur whose story has reached us after 1,500 years, during many of which the story was transmitted orally, is a compilation. Doubtless, gods got in there, but there is no reason to doubt that the man or possibly men, whose deeds were the incentive for beginning the story, existed. The best we can do now is to take the most reliable-looking sources and compare what they say happened, with the events of the world surrounding them, with the geography of the time, the politics, the known characters and the archaeology of the period. This last is best taken as a general context. For example, if the story says that a British leader lived in Norwich in 600, we might be sceptical as East Anglia had then been occupied by Angles for well over a hundred years. However, there are signs in the Guthlac story and elsewhere, that the British culture was still alive in Crowland in 699 for example.

This man, or these men may not have been known to his contemporaries as Arthur but that is as good a name as any for us to use when we are talking about him - unless he can be partially or wholly identified with such as Ambrosius Aurelianus, for example. Then of course, we are able to separate out the several bits of Arthur and the relevant names become appropriate.

The Lincolnshire connection with the first six of Arthur's battles, as listed by the Historia Britonum fits the geography, contemporary settlement pattern, archaeology, and place names of the region. Such a fit is not easily found elsewhere.

The section in the History of Lincolnshire, dealing with this period does need a revision of its facts and a re-write.

Shamefacedly, :) (RJP 10:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC))

No problem on my account. There are many primary sources (mostly pre-20th century) that will report on Arthur and others as historical figures. There are similar legends that may be based either on actual people or atavistic god or demi-god memories or a combination of them for Robin Hood, Beowulf etc. As long as we add the proper qualifying language, I see no reason to take any of the info out (which is why I didn't do it). Cheers, --Fire Star 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)