What lies behind the legends of King Arthur? Fragments of history, or just wishful thinking? While historians study the ancient manuscripts, modern archaeologists join in the hunt for clues. From Arthur’s ‘birthplace’ at Tintagel to the fabled ‘Isle of Avalon’, we sift through the evidence. Journeying across Arthur’s Britain, we search for Camelot and the sites of his battles. Do the remains confirm or contradict the traditional accounts?
Far from providing objective proof, Christopher Gidlow shows how archaeologists’ interpretation of their discoveries reflects the academic fashions of their times. Sites which in the 1960s were used to prove King Arthur’s existence are now seen as irrelevant to the discussion of a completely mythical character. By comparing the written sources with the archaeology, Gidlow explains that the traditional image of Arthur leading the Britons against the Saxons around the year 500AD is actually a very plausible explanation of the evidence.
Gidlow provides an up to date discussion of modern Arthurian archaeology, and a positivist case for the existence of King Arthur (as a companion to The Reign of Arthur). He treats evidence dispassionately, with no particular pet theory, location or identity of King Arthur advanced. Complex issues of interpretation and historiography are explained here for the interested non-specialist.