06-23-2006, 01:12 PM
Apologies for joining this thread late, but I've been away from a computer all week. 
I would go further and say that Arthur's Britain is very readable. And it's still in print because it's good.
Quote:Leslie Alcock's book 'Arthur's Britain' [is] yet another book by an archaeologist dabbling at history, but still very readable, which I guess is why it's still in print.That's not quite fair, Robert. Leslie was Professor at Glasgow when I studied there in the late 1970s/early 1980s, so I know a little about him. Archaeologists used to snipe that he was a historian, but he quickly demonstrated his command of both disciplines, and showed himself to be an intelligent, articulate scholar.
I would go further and say that Arthur's Britain is very readable. And it's still in print because it's good.
Quote:That backlash also hit Leslie Alcock, who had to recant many previously claimed 'Arthurian' connections to several of his digs.Leslie excavated archaeological sites and tried to make sense of them using the meagre historical records surviving from the Dark Ages. He was concerned with historical events, of course; not with the mythical Arthur. As a Romanist, I never kept up-to-date with Leslie's work, so I am curious to know what the "previously claimed Arthurian connections" are.
