I picked this up in DC last week at "Politics and Prose", a nice independent bookstore out on Connecticut Avenue. Picks up the story in the ice ages and carries it up to the Norman Conquest. Does all the archeology and all the historical sources starting with Pytheas "On the Ocean", going on thru Julius Caesar, Tacitus, Gildas and Bede. Lots of good color illustrations of archeological finds, hand axes, gold hoards, weapons, torcs. Good maps. It is heavy on archeology, light on political history. It's up to date, the last book I read on this era was Alcock's "Arthur's Britain" published in the 1970's. It does not change Alcock's story much. Apparently the archeology is settled, with little new finds after 1970.
Naturally, we readers want to hear about Stonehenge, and King Arthur. Stonehenge is dated, described and illustrated but little more is said. The elaborate astronomical speculation in "Stonehenge Decoded" is not mentioned. King Arthur is mentioned, and dated but little more is said. The problem with King Arthur is a nearly totally lack of contemporary written sources. Most of the Arthur legend that we know and love was created 600 years after Arthur's lifetime by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Many of the better Arthurian tales are romantic stories written by late medieval authors whose names and dates we know, for example Christian de Troyes. The only near contemporary writer is Gildas, who simply never mentions the name of Arthur. Bede, writing a couple of hundred years later never mentions Arthur. All we have for contemporary writing is a couple of lines from an Easter table from Gwynedd. What we have is a medieval copy of the original. Arguments against the authenticity of this document are easy to make. Too bad, I love the Arthurian tales as much as anyone, and it is a little disappointing to find so little historical evidence for Arthur's very existence.
I enjoyed "Britain Begins", but I would have enjoyed it a bit more if it had covered the political side of the story more.
No comments:
Post a Comment