Arthur's Britain: History and Archaeology: A.D. 367-634

by Leslie Alcock

Book Overview

We are all familiar with the heroic deeds and enchantments of the legendary tales surrounding King Arthur. But what evidence is there for a real figure beneath the myth and romance? "Arthur's Britain" assembles a wealth of information about the history of Arthur by delving into the shadowy period in which he lived. Drawing on evidence from written and archaeological sources, Leslie Alcock, who directed the famous excavation at Cadbury Castle in Somerset,...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0140213961
• ISBN13: 9780140213966
• Release Date: June 1970
• Publisher: Penguin Group
• Length: 464 Pages
• Weight: 0.70 lbs.

Customer Reviews

One of the best

This is one of the finest popular histories I have ever read. Whether it is a book about 5th and 6th century British history using Arthur as a organizing principle, or a book about the "real" Arthur using 5th and 6th century history as a backdrop, this book is wholly convincing concerning the reality of Arthur and the historical context in which he lived. The book may actually be too good. The most convincing evidence it cites -- the so-called British Easter Annals -- appear to have been called into question by subsequent scholarship; and the link between Arthur and Mount Badon is not quite as convicing as it seeme to be when Alcock wrote the book. In short, this masterpiece needs updating. But a masterpiece it is. No one who reads this book with any care can fail to come away from it without a vastly improved understanding not only of the British dark ages, but of the nature of historical evidence, scholarship, and truth. This is a great book. After posting my original comments, I would still rate this book a "5." But there has been a lot of "water over the dam" since Alcock wrote, and the book was so good it deserves an update. For example, Sykes wonderful "Saxon, Celt, Viking" does a genetic analysis of Great Britain (the technology was not available when Alcock wrote" demonstrating that about 2/3 of what is now England is "Celtic" by the male line and over 3/4 by the female line. So we know there was not a "Germanic replacement," something Alcock suspected but could not prove. And Alcock himself revised his position somewhat: "In the 'Mortimer Wheeler Archaeological Lecture', given before the British Academy on 13 October 1982, Professor Alcock makes the following statements, re-assessing his position on Arthur's historical reality: "The Arthur of history is another matter. Whatever value my essay in souce-criticism may have had in 1971 [see above], it has largely been swept away by the studies of Drs Dumville, Miller and the late Kathleen Hughes. Largely, I think, but not entirely; and certainly the debate is too large to enter into here. At present, however, my position on the historicity of Arthur is one of agnosticism". While this is not a full recantation, Alcock certainly steps far back from his earlier position."

Awesome book to read

I have researched and researched all over the Internet about King Arthur, Camelot, and his knights. I found many misleading websites that only talked about the fantasies of Camelot and King Arthur. Now, I found this book that tells the "REAL" side of who was King Arthur, Camelot, Merlin, and many others. It is a "must" for those who want to know the truth, and nothing but the truth. Leslie Alcock has done an excellent job in this book. I highly recommend it.

Wonderfully detailed introduction to the topic

This book is a fascinating introduction into the search for the historical Arthur. It covers the various forms of evidence: historical, literary and archaeological; and presents the arguments for and against the existence of a historical Arthur.It was written almost 30 years ago, so parts of it are out-of-date and superceded by subsequent research. In the second edition (1989), Leslie Alcock wrote a supplementary bibliography to the work and addressed the criticism of the work since its publication. I greatly appreciated this, and feel that it was terrific to have more recent research on the topic pointed out to us.As to the book itself, how to describe it. This is a very fascinating, dense and informative introduction into the scholarly research into the search for King Arthur. Instead of an examination of the Arthurian romance, it concentrates on the reality that was 5th and 6th century Britain. We are given the background on what happened after the Romans abandoned Britain. We are given information about the early Christian Church in the British Isles, and the arrival of the Saxons. We are also shown through archaeological evidence the technological and architectural setting of this period of British history.This book covers a lot of territory, and does not attempt to be the ultimate reference for the historical Arthur. Leslie Alcock, in his introduction to Arthur's Britain, states that this book is a preliminary sketch for a vast canvass. I feel that sums up the book admirably. I certainly came away with a much better understanding of the impact of the departure of Rome and the arrival of the Anglo Saxons for the British Isles. A fascinating book, and a must read for someone wanting to know more about the scholarly search for the historical Arthur and not just a review of the romance. The only reason this book received 4 stars instead of 5 is that it is a bit out of date.

Brilliant historical and archaeological scholarship.

I wish I could give it 5 stars, because the good parts of the book are so good. It does, however, have a couple of mistakes in it. For example, Alcock is correct in trying to shift the dates of the Arthurian entries from the Welsh Easter Annals back several years, but his math is misused; by speculating that the dates were counted in years from Jesus' Passion, as opposed to his Incarnation, and that the two dating systems were confused, he subtracts 28 years from the dates in the Annals in an attempt to correct them. If he had used that sort of math correctly, however, he would have had to add 28 years to the dates, which would only confound the problem of incompatibility with other evidence even further. The dates in the Annals do appear to be erroneously late, but the nature of the error remains a mystery. Parts of the book have since been bested by Alcock's associate, Geoffrey Ashe, in _The Discovery of King Arthur_(which I have also reviwed), but one cannot fairly fault Alcock on this point since Ashe's insights in _Discovery_ were so revolutionary that they had been missed by everyone, Ashe included, for nearly two centuries until the early 80s. On the whole, however, Alcock's book is astoundingly fascinating, extremely informative, and downright entertaining. It gets confusing too, but that is to Alcock's credit; this subject is naturally confusing because the evidence is so sparse and disjointed; Alcock is frank enough to address this head on; he doesn't misleadingly oversimplify things like, sadly, many authors do. Alcock is a great archaeologist, as well as a great historian. One of the most important archaeological discoveries (one in which Alcock was instrumental) relating to Arthurian Britain is the massive 5th century reoccupation and refortification of the hill now known as Cadbury Castle, which is documented in this book. Whether this site was actually called Camelot by its inhabitants is unknown, but the evidence indicates that its lord must have been the most powerful British noble of his generation. Other evidence (particularly in Ashe, mentioned above) harmonizes with this by identifying Arthur-Riothamus (Riothamus is a title meaning "royalest") as such a leader. I would love to see this book back in print again, but it would be best if Alcock prepared an updated edition which takes into account newer evidence and insights, and includes any corrections that would be in order.