What do you think?
Rate this book
Arthur's Britain
This remarkable book assembles all that is known or can be deduced about the most shadowy period of British history since the Roman occupation and about its legendary hero.
The author of it is the archaeologist who directed the famous excavation at Cadbury Castle in Somerset, originally identified with Camelot in Leland. Drawing evidence from both written and archaeological sources, Leslie Alcock sifts history from myths to create a convincing picture of life between the fourth and fifth centuries, when Celtic Britain was abandoned by the legions to the Picts, Scots and Anglo-Saxons.
The amount of information...is terrific, but this does not prevent the book from being scholarly and readable in the highest degree...No one reading Mr Alcock's book could seriously doubt that an important figure called Arthur existed - Anthony Powell
He has produced a book which seems to a layman like myself to be authoritative, scrupulous and enlightening - C.P. Snow
Cover Photograph: Evelyn Hofer
The author of it is the archaeologist who directed the famous excavation at Cadbury Castle in Somerset, originally identified with Camelot in Leland. Drawing evidence from both written and archaeological sources, Leslie Alcock sifts history from myths to create a convincing picture of life between the fourth and fifth centuries, when Celtic Britain was abandoned by the legions to the Picts, Scots and Anglo-Saxons.
The amount of information...is terrific, but this does not prevent the book from being scholarly and readable in the highest degree...No one reading Mr Alcock's book could seriously doubt that an important figure called Arthur existed - Anthony Powell
He has produced a book which seems to a layman like myself to be authoritative, scrupulous and enlightening - C.P. Snow
Cover Photograph: Evelyn Hofer
415 pages, Paperback
First published June 30, 1971
12 people are currently reading
599 people want to read
About the author
Leslie Alcock
34 books5 followersLeslie Alcock was Professor of Archaeology at the University of Glasgow, and one of the leading archaeologists of the Early Medieval British period. His major excavations included Dinas Powys hill fort in Wales, Cadbury Castle, South Cadbury in Somerset and a series of major hillforts in Scotland.
For more information, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_A...
For more information, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_A...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 15, 2024
This was a fascinating read. Having said that, it dates to 1971 and I don't know what new scholarship or archaeological finds have rendered any of Leslie Alcock's conclusions questionable. I appreciated his rigorous historiography on the historical Arthur. Alcock was an archaeologist and he meticulously discusses what we can and can't know based on the sources - contemporary texts, and excavations from the 19th century to the 1960s. What we know about Arthur is almost nothing. What we know about his time period is only slightly more.
The sum of what we know about Arthur is that he "was a renowned British soldier, more probably a great commander than a king. His battles were fought principally in the first part of the sixth century AD or perhaps around the turn of the fifth and sixth centuries. It is difficult to overthrow the traditional view that his military activities extended very widely over Britain, perhaps from the southern uplands of Scotland down to Somerset or Dorset. And since no cogent case can be made for dismissing as fable Arthur's connection with the battle of Badon, we should see his major enemy, the one against whom he won his most signal victory, as the Anglo-Saxon invaders."
Arthur won the battle of Mount Badon, but we don't even know where that took place. Of interest:
• Arthur was an overtly Christian ruler; we know this because a manuscript from 518 informs that in the Battle of Badon "Arthur carried the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors."
• "We have no reason to think that Arthur was a territorial ruler, attached to a particular kingdom. It is more likely that he was either a freelance who offered the services of himself and a band of followers to whatever king would pay best, or an overall commander appointed collectively by the kings of the Britons."
• "The name Arthur was unknown in native circles in Britain before the time of the Arthur who is our concern."
• the language of the Britons was Primitive Welsh
• the language of the Britons of the north, "no less than that of the sixth-century inhabitants of Wales, was British in the process of becoming Welsh."
• the English and the Britons were two different groups (should I be embarrassed that I didn't know this? I'm guessing yes.)
• "The most dramatic aspect of this process [the barbarians overrunning Britain's Roman defenses, and the period from 367-634] was the virtual extinction, throughout eastern Britain from the Forth to the English Channel, of British speech and culture. In its place we find the vigorous growth of the English language, and...a flourishing material culture with Teutonic roots."
• one of the only extant sources for this period is Bede, but "he was faced, as we are today, with a dearth of material for the crucial period of English settlement between the end of Roman rule and the mission of St Augustine to Kent in 597."
• documents and archaeology "refute Bede's view that the coming of the English...was a single cataclysmic event, datable to the middle of the fifth century."
• "Both the Britons and their enemies possessed systems of customary law: in the case of the Britons, the old Celtic tribal customs somewhat modified by Roman influences; in the case of the Anglo-Saxons, Germanic tribal law with no such modification."
• "When we look for archaeological evidence there is indeed very little in the way of monuments or other remains of Christianity in the last century of Roman Britain. The available material evidence suggests rather a strongly flourishing Celtic paganism. The verbal evidence, on the other hand, favors a contrary conclusion. There is no suggestion in the Life of St Germanus that he had to combat paganism as well as refute heresy in Britain. In the following century, Gildas found it necessary to attack the failings of a mature church which had become decadent rather than those of a young evangelizing body."
• At the death of Edwin in 633 "Christianity, which had been established by Edwin's conversion, received an immediate setback."
• "From the time when the Anglo-Saxon mercenaries and settlers first began to throw off the control of the Britons, they received only two serious checks."
• The cases of Tristan and Mark "disclose a perplexing mixture of romance, legend, and history. The case of Arthur is similar in kind but even worse in degree. ...attempts to identify [the location of Camelot] are pointless. The name, and the very concept of Camelot, are inventions of the French medieval poets. ...the whole concept of the Round Table is a medieval invention."
• -"...it would seem that it was only the decayed vestiges of Roman material culture which the Britons of Arthur's age had inherited. The decay itself was due more to economic decline and social disintegration than to barbarian ravages."
• There was no currency in British culture from 450-650. "The economic implications of this are of course profound, and ...economic decline should be considered in the light of this absence of currency. For our present purposes we should note that we can no longer date sites with the kind of precision that coins may provide."
• The decline in material culture and technology from Roman Britain to after is evidenced by the lumps of iron ore, slags, etc. related to metalworking. "A single lump of iron cinder from a Roman site might weigh 80 lb." whereas the total weight of all such material collected from excavation at Dinas Powys over five seasons weighed 50 lb.
• Christian tombstone inscriptions: "A statement about the age of the deceased, which had been customary on pagan epitaphs, is exceptionally rare, and it is generally considered that the rarity reflects a Christian indifference to the length of this worldly life."
• Bede "explains that the Saxon homeland was the region 'now known as Old Saxony', while that of the Angles was the 'land called Angulus...between the provinces of the Jutes and the Saxons.' Angulus must correspond broadly with the modern Angeln towards the base of the Schleswig-Jutland peninsula; the territory of the Jutes lay in the northern part of that peninsula; and Old Saxony was the land between the Elbe and the Weser."
• on the pagan English: "The two rites of cremation and inhumation are both present in England, and in general the larger cemeteries are those in which both occur." "An interesting inhumation ritual is that in which the skull is placed beside or between the legs, presumably to prevent the corpse or ghost from walking. On the other hand, reports of skeletons without hands or feet are more likely to reflect the incompetence of excavators in recovering small bones."
• "In so far as an English village of the fifth and sixth centuries is now available for excavation it is because it failed to become a permanent settlement, and this of itself should warn us that it may not be typical." (In a permanent settlement, the previous settlements would be buried below it, or destroyed, and unavailable for excavation.)
• "Even when closely similar jewels are found in different cemeteries, we may be dealing with the movement of people - craftsmen, brides, hostages, or even whole nations - rather than with commercial activity."
• "...loot must always have been a precarious source of income, and it is clear that the main support of the king was an elaborate system of tributes, food-rents, and obligatory service."
• Horsemen of this time lacked stirrups.
• "Much of the widespread skepticism about the historicity of Arthur stems from the undoubted fact that his name became attached to unhistorical tales, to fabulous wonders, and to places which can never have been connected to him. But just the same thing happened in the cases of both Vortigern and Ambrosius, whose historicity has never been called in question."
• “In terms of realpolitik [Arthur’s] achievement is negligible. As a person, his significance comes later, in the realms of literature and romance. It may be reasonably asked here how the Arthur of romance could evolve at all from a figure whose political significance was so slight. It is not the purpose of this book to trace the evolution of the legend of Arthur…”
What Arthur may have looked like:
November 23, 2023
Leslie Alcock, historian and archaeologist at the University of Glasgow, put forward in 1971 a thorough analysis of sub-Roman Britain to clarify our picture of the world in which the legendary King Arthur, if he were real, might have lived. The book is not an attempt to convince readers King Arthur was a real historical figure, but in his investigation he makes the argument that the legendary Arthur must have been based on an Arthur who did exist, who did win a decisive victory at the battle of Badon, but who is shrouded in mystery and myth that is nearly impossible to illuminate with firm historical evidence.
The scarcity of written records, the expansive character of oral reports, and the cultural celebration of tales of victory and positive success as a counterpoint to mournful records and poetry create an environment conducive to myth-making, even within the lifetime of the person who becomes the subject of myth, as we see even today. This is particularly true when those myths may prove politically useful, or unite people under a shared sentiment. The book’s real purpose is a close study of Britain from the fourth to the seventh centuries.
The book presents a meticulous examination of the verbal and material evidence — written records and archaeological items. The former is based primarily on the works of Gildas and Bede, the hard to decipher and unreliable Historia Brittonum, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, collections of works that Alcock calls the British Historical Miscellany, and a heap of Easter annals, geneologies, legends, battle poetry, laws, and fragments. The latter, the material evidence, is composed of artifacts and remains of structures found at numerous digs across Britain, many of which Alcock himself led.
Even ignoring the fascination of the period and the context, Alcock’s patient and detailed explanation of how these records fit together, how the evidence can be understood and interpreted, and the hundreds of shortcomings and ways in which it can be doubted and scrutinized and shown to be sloppy or filled with errors, is intensely interesting. There are sizable chapters that analyze the texts and the physical remains with such clarity and detail that one loses sight of the period and area that are under study, and gets lost in the mindset of the historian or the archaeologist for a time. I’m familiar with discussions of historical source material, but archaeology is fairly new to me. Alcock distills the complexities of this field into the basics: the art of preservation of objects, the process of discovery and excavation, and the strange things that can be overlooked in a complicated excavation. Discussions of typology, chronology, and topography further reveal the tools and considerations important to the archaeologist.
Arthur’s Britain conveys the difficulty, or maybe impossibility, of constructing a coherent narrative history of many aspects of this period. The big events can be known, like major battles and wars and the activities of rulers and important figures. But questions of cultures and life and smaller details can be harder to learn. Roman accounts begin to break down, the documents that have survived sometimes contradict one another or suggest unlikely things, and sometimes the physical evidence seems to cast doubts on the written history.
For example, it has been reported that the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain occurred more or less at once, over a short period in the fifth century, shortly before Vortigern hired them as mercenaries against the Picts or Scotti. But archaeological evidence suggests the Anglo-Saxons may have come in multiple waves, starting as early as the fourth century. Findings at sites of old fortresses or homes or towns can present conflicting evidence, or fragments that are stitched together in ways that are open to half a dozen interpretations. Lots of plausible interpretations can contradict other evidence, or present a radically different picture of battle tactics, for example, than might be suggested by art or sculpture or written documents.
Cultural questions are also hard to answer. Historical and cultural background is provided, based on well established history of the Celtic kingdoms and invasions, the Germanic migrations, the Welsh and other British peoples, the early Christianity of the region, and Roman and British cultures. The enemies of the British are also studied, the Scotti, Picts, and English.
The imagery included in the book is excellent, from photographs of ancient architecture, ring forts, standing stones and sculptures and art, to detailed drawings of weapons, pottery, armor, reconstructions of structures, and maps of important sites and battles. Because of the nature of the records from this period, much of the analysis must be speculative and its strongest support is educated guesswork and reasoning. I’m in no position to judge the veracity of the many hypotheses and ideas Alcock discusses, or those he rejects. I’ve no other option than to trust his judgment and his judgment seems sound, argued with appeals to the available evidence, and with informed speculation where that can be the only guide. His comparative analysis between British, Anglo-Saxon, and other European cultures in terms of art and architecture and armaments reveals some surprising puzzles that have not entirely been resolved.
Alcock ends the journey with a brief study of heroic culture and society, and returns to the question of Arthur as a person, concluding that some shadowy warlord named Arthur may have led a warband of about a thousand warriors to victory in a pivotal battle against the Saxons in the late fifth century, but beyond that everything we read of Arthur is myth. It shouldn’t be surprising that a real figure of insignificant political stature could go on to legendary status through just one major victory.
The Nibelungenlied and other works of Germanic and Scandinavian heroic literature turn many historically real figures into characters of legend, like Theodoric of Ostrogoth as Dietrich von Bern, or Attila the Hun as Etzel or Atli, or Gothic king Ermanrech/Ermanaric, appearing with his name unchanged, or Burgundian king Gundaharius as Gunnar or Gunther. And then the long list of Viking warriors and kings who were immortalized in the Icelandic sagas. Arthur seems to be no different, except that the lore around him grew and evolved over centuries into one of the longest running and most widely read bodies of legend the world has known, emerging from a historical period and place shrouded in unknowns that is, in my opinion, among the most interesting in all of history.
The scarcity of written records, the expansive character of oral reports, and the cultural celebration of tales of victory and positive success as a counterpoint to mournful records and poetry create an environment conducive to myth-making, even within the lifetime of the person who becomes the subject of myth, as we see even today. This is particularly true when those myths may prove politically useful, or unite people under a shared sentiment. The book’s real purpose is a close study of Britain from the fourth to the seventh centuries.
The book presents a meticulous examination of the verbal and material evidence — written records and archaeological items. The former is based primarily on the works of Gildas and Bede, the hard to decipher and unreliable Historia Brittonum, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, collections of works that Alcock calls the British Historical Miscellany, and a heap of Easter annals, geneologies, legends, battle poetry, laws, and fragments. The latter, the material evidence, is composed of artifacts and remains of structures found at numerous digs across Britain, many of which Alcock himself led.
Even ignoring the fascination of the period and the context, Alcock’s patient and detailed explanation of how these records fit together, how the evidence can be understood and interpreted, and the hundreds of shortcomings and ways in which it can be doubted and scrutinized and shown to be sloppy or filled with errors, is intensely interesting. There are sizable chapters that analyze the texts and the physical remains with such clarity and detail that one loses sight of the period and area that are under study, and gets lost in the mindset of the historian or the archaeologist for a time. I’m familiar with discussions of historical source material, but archaeology is fairly new to me. Alcock distills the complexities of this field into the basics: the art of preservation of objects, the process of discovery and excavation, and the strange things that can be overlooked in a complicated excavation. Discussions of typology, chronology, and topography further reveal the tools and considerations important to the archaeologist.
Arthur’s Britain conveys the difficulty, or maybe impossibility, of constructing a coherent narrative history of many aspects of this period. The big events can be known, like major battles and wars and the activities of rulers and important figures. But questions of cultures and life and smaller details can be harder to learn. Roman accounts begin to break down, the documents that have survived sometimes contradict one another or suggest unlikely things, and sometimes the physical evidence seems to cast doubts on the written history.
For example, it has been reported that the coming of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain occurred more or less at once, over a short period in the fifth century, shortly before Vortigern hired them as mercenaries against the Picts or Scotti. But archaeological evidence suggests the Anglo-Saxons may have come in multiple waves, starting as early as the fourth century. Findings at sites of old fortresses or homes or towns can present conflicting evidence, or fragments that are stitched together in ways that are open to half a dozen interpretations. Lots of plausible interpretations can contradict other evidence, or present a radically different picture of battle tactics, for example, than might be suggested by art or sculpture or written documents.
Cultural questions are also hard to answer. Historical and cultural background is provided, based on well established history of the Celtic kingdoms and invasions, the Germanic migrations, the Welsh and other British peoples, the early Christianity of the region, and Roman and British cultures. The enemies of the British are also studied, the Scotti, Picts, and English.
The imagery included in the book is excellent, from photographs of ancient architecture, ring forts, standing stones and sculptures and art, to detailed drawings of weapons, pottery, armor, reconstructions of structures, and maps of important sites and battles. Because of the nature of the records from this period, much of the analysis must be speculative and its strongest support is educated guesswork and reasoning. I’m in no position to judge the veracity of the many hypotheses and ideas Alcock discusses, or those he rejects. I’ve no other option than to trust his judgment and his judgment seems sound, argued with appeals to the available evidence, and with informed speculation where that can be the only guide. His comparative analysis between British, Anglo-Saxon, and other European cultures in terms of art and architecture and armaments reveals some surprising puzzles that have not entirely been resolved.
Alcock ends the journey with a brief study of heroic culture and society, and returns to the question of Arthur as a person, concluding that some shadowy warlord named Arthur may have led a warband of about a thousand warriors to victory in a pivotal battle against the Saxons in the late fifth century, but beyond that everything we read of Arthur is myth. It shouldn’t be surprising that a real figure of insignificant political stature could go on to legendary status through just one major victory.
The Nibelungenlied and other works of Germanic and Scandinavian heroic literature turn many historically real figures into characters of legend, like Theodoric of Ostrogoth as Dietrich von Bern, or Attila the Hun as Etzel or Atli, or Gothic king Ermanrech/Ermanaric, appearing with his name unchanged, or Burgundian king Gundaharius as Gunnar or Gunther. And then the long list of Viking warriors and kings who were immortalized in the Icelandic sagas. Arthur seems to be no different, except that the lore around him grew and evolved over centuries into one of the longest running and most widely read bodies of legend the world has known, emerging from a historical period and place shrouded in unknowns that is, in my opinion, among the most interesting in all of history.
January 31, 2020
For a lot of Arthur enthusiasts, the scholarly consensus about where he stands will be less than satisfying: if he even existed at all (and it’s not clear that this is definitively the case), he was almost certainly a dux bellorum (a war chief or battle commander), not a king. The characters have grown up around his legend were also added on over a period of centuries after Arthur’s life, some of whom we have little to no original evidence for. The real Arthur didn’t know any of them. The good news? In the opinion of Leslie Alcock, one of the greatest British archaeologists who spent an entire lifetime working on the problem of Arthur, such a person most certainly did exist.
A quick word upfront to save the casual reader interested in the general outlines of the Arthurian legends some time: this isn’t the book that you’re looking for. In these pages are there is no Guinevere, Lancelot or Mordred; no Gawain, Morgan le Fay, or Merlin. This is almost entirely an archaeological survey of the sites we most associate with Arthur today, like Glastonbury and Tintagel Castle in Cornwall. As an introductory guide to the legends themselves or the various books and poems in which you can find them, this volume is very nearly useless.
Maybe the most approachable part of the book, and the information that will be of interest to most audiences, is the discussion of sources in the first fifty or so pages. These pages are almost an entire course in how to navigate a text with the tools of contemporary source criticism. (How much reliability do newer versions of texts lose due to amanuensis error? How can you tell an older from a newer text?) A few of the sources that he looks at are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British Historical Miscellany, the Easter Annals, and the De Excidia et Conquestu Brittaniae. The information in the first few chapters is also where you get the book’s pure history, with information about Britain straddling the fall of the Roman Empire, from 367–634 A.D.
The rest, however – and this more than 200 pages – consists of little more than records of pottery shards. While it never loses its readability, I think that the general title of the book (aimed at the reader of casual as opposed to scholarly interest) will probably be largely uninterested in what Alcock is writing about. If, on the other hand, you want to know about the history of archaeology in Arthurian studies – and I do stress “history,” as this book was published in 1971 – then it seems like it could possibly offer a wealth of information.
For those who have a subscription to the Greater Courses Plus, the Netflix-like streaming service associated with Great Courses, there’s an entire 24-lecture course on Arthur called “King Arthur: History and Legend” presented by Dorsey Armstrong, an English professor at Purdue University. It’s absolutely fantastic, and well worth the 12-hour investment.
A quick word upfront to save the casual reader interested in the general outlines of the Arthurian legends some time: this isn’t the book that you’re looking for. In these pages are there is no Guinevere, Lancelot or Mordred; no Gawain, Morgan le Fay, or Merlin. This is almost entirely an archaeological survey of the sites we most associate with Arthur today, like Glastonbury and Tintagel Castle in Cornwall. As an introductory guide to the legends themselves or the various books and poems in which you can find them, this volume is very nearly useless.
Maybe the most approachable part of the book, and the information that will be of interest to most audiences, is the discussion of sources in the first fifty or so pages. These pages are almost an entire course in how to navigate a text with the tools of contemporary source criticism. (How much reliability do newer versions of texts lose due to amanuensis error? How can you tell an older from a newer text?) A few of the sources that he looks at are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the British Historical Miscellany, the Easter Annals, and the De Excidia et Conquestu Brittaniae. The information in the first few chapters is also where you get the book’s pure history, with information about Britain straddling the fall of the Roman Empire, from 367–634 A.D.
The rest, however – and this more than 200 pages – consists of little more than records of pottery shards. While it never loses its readability, I think that the general title of the book (aimed at the reader of casual as opposed to scholarly interest) will probably be largely uninterested in what Alcock is writing about. If, on the other hand, you want to know about the history of archaeology in Arthurian studies – and I do stress “history,” as this book was published in 1971 – then it seems like it could possibly offer a wealth of information.
For those who have a subscription to the Greater Courses Plus, the Netflix-like streaming service associated with Great Courses, there’s an entire 24-lecture course on Arthur called “King Arthur: History and Legend” presented by Dorsey Armstrong, an English professor at Purdue University. It’s absolutely fantastic, and well worth the 12-hour investment.
July 12, 2008
Fascinating look at Britain between the Roman and Anglo-Saxon periods. Interesting look, too, at the question of whether or not King Arthur actually existed. Great stuff; especially if you appreciate extended discussions of historical sources, archaeology, etc.
One thing I found disconcerting was the author's puzzlement regarding the lack of remains of churches from this period. His solution is that churches and houses probably looked very similar, so archaeologists may mistakenly identify some churches as houses. This is an odd argument, especially since we know that the early christian communities did not worship in seperate buildings, but worshipped in peoples homes. They literally were house-churches, hence the lack of archaeological remains of church buildings.
Over all, this is a great read, and an excellent intoduction to this era of history.
One thing I found disconcerting was the author's puzzlement regarding the lack of remains of churches from this period. His solution is that churches and houses probably looked very similar, so archaeologists may mistakenly identify some churches as houses. This is an odd argument, especially since we know that the early christian communities did not worship in seperate buildings, but worshipped in peoples homes. They literally were house-churches, hence the lack of archaeological remains of church buildings.
Over all, this is a great read, and an excellent intoduction to this era of history.
April 30, 2020
This is probably one of the best academic books that I've read. It's a very thorough introduction to the literary and archaeological evidence surrounding the (rather nebulous) so-called 'Arthurian' period of British history. Broadly speaking, it is the period of British history beginning a little while before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, up until perhaps the eighth century or so. This book, I should add, could just as well be an introduction to the early British Dark Ages, or perhaps even to the Age of Bede.
To give an idea of what is covered in this book, I've included the chapter headings below.
1. The Nature of the Evidence
2. Three Key Texts
3. The Arthurian Documents
4. The Historical Background AD 367-490
5. The Historical Background AD 490-634
6. The Archaeological Background: The Nature of the Evidence
7. The Culture of Roman and Sub-Roman Britain
8. The Culture of the Britons AD 450-650
9. The Enemies of the Britons I: Picts and Scots
10. The Enemies of the Britons II: The English
11. Economy, Society and Warfare
12. Arthur and Britain
Each of these chapters contain a rigorous study of its subject matter. The earlier chapters primarily concern literary culture, and the later ones primarily focus on material culture. As a whole, the book isn't really about Arthur per se, but it is about the world in which such a figure would have lived. It comes to few conclusions, but instead presents evidence with relevant analysis, and leaves the reader to connect the dots if they want to do so.
This is not really for the general reader, but for scholars (or the very interested), this is a great introduction to a fascinating period of British history.
To give an idea of what is covered in this book, I've included the chapter headings below.
1. The Nature of the Evidence
2. Three Key Texts
3. The Arthurian Documents
4. The Historical Background AD 367-490
5. The Historical Background AD 490-634
6. The Archaeological Background: The Nature of the Evidence
7. The Culture of Roman and Sub-Roman Britain
8. The Culture of the Britons AD 450-650
9. The Enemies of the Britons I: Picts and Scots
10. The Enemies of the Britons II: The English
11. Economy, Society and Warfare
12. Arthur and Britain
Each of these chapters contain a rigorous study of its subject matter. The earlier chapters primarily concern literary culture, and the later ones primarily focus on material culture. As a whole, the book isn't really about Arthur per se, but it is about the world in which such a figure would have lived. It comes to few conclusions, but instead presents evidence with relevant analysis, and leaves the reader to connect the dots if they want to do so.
This is not really for the general reader, but for scholars (or the very interested), this is a great introduction to a fascinating period of British history.
December 6, 2008
I've been wanting to learn more about the so-called Dark Ages in England, between the end of Roman occupation and the Norman invasion. When I got this book, I didn't know that it's more of a scholarly analysis than a general public summary.
So, if you like books that explain what the source material is, what the problems are with making sense of the source material, and come to the appropriate provisional conclusions, you'll probably like this one. I wasn't looking for that sort of text, but I'm glad I read it. I expect it to help me read the other books I've gotten that are more clearly targeted at the general public.
So, if you like books that explain what the source material is, what the problems are with making sense of the source material, and come to the appropriate provisional conclusions, you'll probably like this one. I wasn't looking for that sort of text, but I'm glad I read it. I expect it to help me read the other books I've gotten that are more clearly targeted at the general public.
February 1, 2023
This is such a great book! It uses primary Medieval sources and archaeological evidence to piece together the world in which King Arthur came from (5th/6th century England) and well as the truth about Arthur himself. It's a fascinating book, where each chapter tackles different topics about Arthur and his England (for example, one chapter talks about England before and after the time of Arthur, and another tackles the primary sources which first mentioned Arthur as a person). Such a great book and if you are a fan of Arthurian legends, you'll love it!
March 30, 2018
For anyone interested in the historical Arthur, this book is a must. Alcock is one of the most respected British archaeologists specializing in Dark Age Britain and has excavated several important Arthurian sites, most notably Cadbury/Camalat, which some may be the historical (and legendary) capitol of Arthur. It may be hard going to read for some, since it is academic in tone, but if you love the legend, you'll appreciate the reality too.
June 13, 2013
There was once an up-and-coming archeologist who had studied under the most renowned scholar of his day, in India. When he returned to Britain, he was offered the dig at Dinas Powys, traditionally believed to be the royal site for the Powys dynasty. His research and findings, at one time both incredibly thorough and with the ability to make leaps of brilliance, won him the recognition of his peers. When funding for archeological digs flagged and it was decided to explore a local legend regarding King Arthur to drum up money, he was again called upon. His work on South Cadbury kept to strict scientific guidelines while allowing for the possibility of Arthur's existence. His ability to walk that line won him regard among his peers, the respect among enthusiasts, and a standing as a hero among the romanticists.
In 1970, he again wrote on the subject of Arthur, and again balanced the facts with the climate. The first portion of his book goes over the inherent weaknesses of all the sources that need to be used to study the Arthurian period. He then does his best with the tools at hand to describe the people, society, laws, and warfare of the period. In this he is again thorough and his arguments sound. My problem with the book is neither that the author was a poor scholar (even in death he is still one of the most respected experts on the period) nor did he in any way compromised his integrity. The book is still the first thing any individual learning about the period should read. It is simply outdated on almost all counts. The historical sources he spoke of are all much better understood now. More sites have been excavated, leading to a better understanding of the physical culture of the Britons. Read the book, but then read his later works. He would go back to the subjects in that book over and over again in his career.
In 1970, he again wrote on the subject of Arthur, and again balanced the facts with the climate. The first portion of his book goes over the inherent weaknesses of all the sources that need to be used to study the Arthurian period. He then does his best with the tools at hand to describe the people, society, laws, and warfare of the period. In this he is again thorough and his arguments sound. My problem with the book is neither that the author was a poor scholar (even in death he is still one of the most respected experts on the period) nor did he in any way compromised his integrity. The book is still the first thing any individual learning about the period should read. It is simply outdated on almost all counts. The historical sources he spoke of are all much better understood now. More sites have been excavated, leading to a better understanding of the physical culture of the Britons. Read the book, but then read his later works. He would go back to the subjects in that book over and over again in his career.
May 16, 2015
I loved this, but it's probably too dry and scholarly to be very readable for anyone without a prior interest in the field. However, as someone who is fascinated by the so-called dark ages, and post-Roman Britain in particular, I found this careful, rigorous, and detailed survey of the available archaeological and written evidence about 'Arthurian' Britain and the historical Arthur delightful. There is something about the deep attention that Alcock gives to the nature of the evidence that is itself intoxicating: one can see the path by which knowledge of the past gradually takes shape.
April 7, 2021
Королем Артуром та легендами про нього я цілеспрямовано не цікавлюся взагалі, хоча кілька художніх варіацій на цю тему прочитала (велике непіонерське спасибі тим письменникам, які мене зуміли зацікавити), і цю книжку випадково купила. Ну як випадково - не можна просто так зайти у атмосферну книжкову крамничку на Мадейрі і не купити щось історичне.
Дивно казати, що над деякими сторінками серйозного історичного дослідження я реготала як гієна, але саме це і сталося. Перші сторінок п'ятдесят, здається, присвячені описові письмових джерел, і автор відвів душу, з чудовою іронією покритикувавши красне письменство того часу та всілякі підходи викопування необхідної інформації зі жменьки творів. Далі вже трохи нудніше, але глиняні черепки і інша сувора археологія не дуже підходять до легкої розповіді, що поробиш.
Не скажу, що король Артур став мені ближчий, та автор і не мав на меті довести, що той існував, але книжка дуже сподобалась.
Дивно казати, що над деякими сторінками серйозного історичного дослідження я реготала як гієна, але саме це і сталося. Перші сторінок п'ятдесят, здається, присвячені описові письмових джерел, і автор відвів душу, з чудовою іронією покритикувавши красне письменство того часу та всілякі підходи викопування необхідної інформації зі жменьки творів. Далі вже трохи нудніше, але глиняні черепки і інша сувора археологія не дуже підходять до легкої розповіді, що поробиш.
Не скажу, що король Артур став мені ближчий, та автор і не мав на меті довести, що той існував, але книжка дуже сподобалась.
September 29, 2020
Fascinating study of admittedly spotty evidence for the existence of a Briton war-leader that could've given rise to the iconic series of legends. Alcock marshals what evidence exists, making inferences where warranted, to arrive at a "more likely than not" conclusion for the existence of a historical Arthur.
Some of the discussion is fairly technical and is hampered by poorly-executed illustrations (particularly the maps) but the care taken with the evidence is evident throughout. Warning: this is a fairly dry topic, but a fascinating look into the difficulties caused by lack of physical evidence from post-Roman Britain.
Some of the discussion is fairly technical and is hampered by poorly-executed illustrations (particularly the maps) but the care taken with the evidence is evident throughout. Warning: this is a fairly dry topic, but a fascinating look into the difficulties caused by lack of physical evidence from post-Roman Britain.
August 25, 2025
Leslie covers this period in history in great detail. I was expecting sort of an overview of what life was like in Arthur's era and was surprised at how detailed this book is. Descriptions are given for surrounding cultures, wars, religious beliefs, and pretty much everything you could want to know. I appreciated the authors' objective use of ancient claims and stories, and their attempt to validate or refute them using archaeological evidence when possible. I would recommend this book for in-depth analysis of England as it transitioned from Roman rule to English. If you are looking for a more simple look at Arthur's England, this is not for you.
May 5, 2020
An oustanding survey of the sub-Roman Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries. The author comprensively analyses scant textual and archaeological evidence to demonstrate how daily life and warfare might have looked like in the age of Arthur. In his quest for the historical Arthur, he arrives at a conclusion that this famous figure was probably an important leader of Romano-British resistance against Saxons. This book is a classic that I can highly recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about what happened right after Roman legions left Britain in 410.
October 19, 2017
Well-written, well-organized book giving an overview of what is known about history and material conditions in Britain from 367 to 634. The book is especially strong on archaeology, with good plates and diagrams of sites and artifacts, but also gives a clear summary of the sparse written sources from the period, relating it all, of course, to the possible life and deeds of the historical Arthur. The book would be especially useful to a writer setting a historical novel or fantasy in the period.
January 3, 2021
Obviously this is out-of-date now since it was published in 1971 and more has been understood since then. But I found it very interesting because I previously only knew the Welsh history from that period so it was good to get a broader view of Britain. I liked how it put some reality around the period, despite the evidence being so scarce and bitty.
July 20, 2020
Written with passion, much is dry, academic stuff, but of interest to Arthurian legend buffs.
September 27, 2024
Just okay. Parts of it were a bit too technical for me but I enjoyed the overall history.
July 20, 2014
For my second book, I read Arthur's Britain by Leslie Alcock. This book tells about Britain and its history during the Arthurian age. The beginning tells some of how and where the author got his sources from that period. Some of the poetry and laws believed to be from or around the time were used to draw information, as were three texts that contained most of the evidence for Arthurian Britain. These texts were the De excidio et conquesta Britanniae, Historical Miscellany, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It then went into the historical background, covering the time period A.D. 490-634. Some of the events were the aftermath of Badon, Celtic kingdoms, and early Christianity in Britain. Next was the culture of Roman/Sub-Roman Britain and the Britons. Subjects under this included the material culture, activities, and religious monuments. Next was the enemies of the Britons, the Scotti, the Picts, and the English. Finally, it ended with the economy, society, and warfare during that time. There was a social pyramid, the basic economy consisting of the farming and cottage industry supporting the pyramid and the top being a warrior king. Overall, Arthur's Britain was a book I highly recommend to anyone interested in this time in history.
September 1, 2014
Pottery shards are clearly not the stuff my dreams are made of. An archaeologist is not what I was meant to be. If you like pottery shards, dating systems comparison and (non-literary) textual analysis, this book is for you. Clearly it is well liked by the people who like these things based on the other reviews here. I read 100 pages and then ran my eyes over the rest hoping for some straight history. None of this is meant to disparage the book but simply to explain why the book and I could never meet over coffee and a danish and have a nice chat. If you don't find that pottery shards call out to you across the centuries, you'll probably feel the same way.
April 1, 2014
I encountered this book for a weekend workshop I recently took on the fact and fiction of Arthurian Lore. This book painstakingly discusses the validity of different types of source material in the history of Britain in order to shed light on the possible origin's the the legend of King Arthur. While undoubtedly a valuable contribution to scholarship, it is also an exceedingly dry read. However, those interested in unearthing the historical basis of the stories will be well-served to explore this work.
May 10, 2008
Interesting, but very dry.
November 24, 2014
A good examination of the archaeology and history underlying the Arthurian myths. A bit dated nw but very valuable still.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews