Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
A historian of late antiquity, Halsall successfully explains in his newest (after Humor, History and Politics in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages) why there's good reason to doubt the validity of the many histories and legends of King Arthur. He begins by discussing the "traditional narrative[s]" of the famed (and likely fictitious) king and exploring the archeological records of Britannia, before moving on to note the scarcity of extant contemporaneous written sources, many of which, the author asserts, have been "cherry-pick[ed]" in the service of mythmaking. He also denounces claims of corroborative "lost written sources" as no more than "superficially attractive." In the latter half of the book, Halsall leaves Arthur far behind and turns his attention to the grander question of the provenance of Arthur's world-England itself-yet this section, like the tale of Arthur, suffers from a lack of convincing evidence. Halsall pursues some compelling argumentative threads, such as the time line and scale of Anglo-Saxon migration to the isles; scholars will find plenty of academic fodder, but the import of Halsall's conclusions is hazy. 20 b&w images, 15 maps. (Apr.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Halsall's (history, Univ. of York) study is really two books in one. The first argues in great detail against the possibility of proving the existence of King Arthur, or even an "Arthurian" age. The second is an exhaustive survey of written and archaeological records pertaining to late-Roman/early-medieval Britain, laying out what can and cannot be inferred from the records. Halsall concludes by outlining his own ideas-not provable but consistent with the record-of what might support a much more modest picture of some kind of Arthur in fifth- or sixth-century Britain. He does a good job conveying the murkiness of the evidence and the confusions surrounding current arguments for the existence of a warrior king-Briton or otherwise-who could have been the inspiration for Arthur. However, this is not an easy book to follow. VERDICT The level of detail here, combined with its circuitous organization, probably renders this book attractive only to experts in the field and enthusiasts looking for evidence to support their views about Arthur. (The latter will be surprised!)-David Keymer, Modesto, CA (c) Copyright 2013. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
Halsall (History/Univ. of York; Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 2008) studies the veracity of Arthurian legends. The author draws on a lifetime of study on the Dark Ages, encyclopedic knowledge of the few known references and detailed notes on area archaeology, and migration. Perhaps the references are the most interesting, not for their content but for the author's instructions on their use. Citing works written from the sixth to the ninth centuries, including the Venerable Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he searches for hints about Arthur. Of the main works available, Halsall notes that we must understand that chronicle doesn't necessarily mean factual history. As often as not, their writing was didactic and hagiographic, there to teach a lesson and to laud one particular individual. If there's little mention of Arthur, is it because the writers didn't think he was sufficiently important? Or maybe he just didn't exist. There are records of three historical Arthurs in the sixth century, but that's the limit of information--just the name. Mere mention of the battle at Mount Badon and the death of an Arthur and a Mordred at the battle of Camlann isn't sufficient proof of the existence of that idyll. The social, political and economic conditions of the time are better clues to the enigma of Camelot. The author carefully notes that there is little direct mention of Arthur--this doesn't necessarily prove he never existed, but it doesn't help prove that he did, either. One of the most thorough scholarly works on the subject.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
