Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Leslie Alcock
#16
Apologies for joining this thread late, but I've been away from a computer all week. Sad

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.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#17
Quote:
Vortigern Studies:pphl8ho2 Wrote: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.
OK, I was too hard on the man. My critique centered on his use of the sources - he was not critical enough about them. But I take back the 'dabbling' and the 'yet another'.

Quote:I would go further and say that Arthur's Britain is very readable.
Hey, that's what I said! Big Grin

Quote:
Vortigern Studies:pphl8ho2 Wrote: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.
His 'Arthurian conclusions' were made too quick according to some. He classified Tintagel as an Arthurian stronghold, then took it back and classified it as a monastic site. However, these days it seems more and more that he was right, after all!
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
[Image: artgroepbutton.jpg]
Reply
#18
Quote:Hey, that's what I said! Big Grin

Oops! Sorry. :oops:
posted by Duncan B Campbell
Reply
#19
I read today about the death of Leslie Alcock. He was my Prof and Tutor at Glasgow University along time ago.

It was a privelege to have been taught by him and he inspired many of us to make careers in archaeology and history.

No such thing as archaeologists dabbling in history. I trained in both.

There'll never again be the like of Prof Leslie Alcock
Reply
#20
i still find his work very inspiring and one of the reasons i chose archaeology for a career when i did and love his work on Early Dark Age society and trade links suggested by archaeological excavation.

He may have been proved wrong at times and had to recant some of his ideas but ideas are what keeps people motivated and sets a new generation off to search for new answers to old questions.

May he rest in peace
Reply


Forum Jump: