Product Description

Shattering all existing assumptions about Britain's most famous hero, this book rewrites the legend of King Arthur, radically relocating Camelot and the sites of his brilliant victories.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #65944 in Books
• Published on: 2000-09-07
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 304 pages

Amazon.co.uk Review
Describing himself as an "amateur historian" Alistair Moffat delves into the history of his local area in lowland Scotland and discovers a possible new identity for the man behind the legends of King Arthur. He asserts that although Arthur's person and influence did reach southern Britain his base of power was in fact in the Scottish Borders. Arthur becomes crucial to the shaping of the Britain we know today and to the creation of a powerful Scotland which remained a nation for 1000 years even though his legend becomes associated with South-west England and Wales, thus masking the glories of Dark Age Celtic Scotland. The text is packed with fascinating clues to life in the Celtic past gleaned from traditional cultural practices (there is an enthralling section on tree lore) and changing place names--evidence which Moffat claims is often unreasonably disregarded by historians. His new "common sense" deductions are combined with succinct coverage of the documentary and archaeological evidence. Those who have read other books on Arthur will find a new dimension in Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms. Readers new to the subject should find that the book provides a vivid and thought-provoking introduction to Arthur and his times through a lively, intricate and personalised text. Historians will no doubt find plenty to grapple with. --Karen Tiley

Customer Reviews

Not entirely convincing
The book which inspired the latest 'King Arthur' movie, this volume is written by a man who rigorously points to his own lack of credentials as an historian. Alistair Moffat nevertheless identifies one major factor which is largely lost in much popular history - the people who inhabited what is now the borders of Scotland were, until the Romans arrived, Welsh speaking. Their legacy can be found in the place names of southern Scotland and northern England. The Roman invasion drove the Welsh speakers into what is now Wales, and left the peoples of the Lowlands of Scotland and the north of England to be colonised by other cultures.

Moffat is largely dependent on linguistic inquiry, trying to make sense of Celtic traditions and languages which had never been written down. He considers how Britain came to that name - it was from the Roman colonial name of 'Britannia'. No one living on the island had considered themselves 'British' until the Romans came. 'Britannia', itself, comes from a corruption of the Roman geographer, Ptolemy's description of Albion as a "Prettanic isle" - 'prettanic' appearing to allude to the painted men who occupied it. Albion? Moffat points out that 'Alba', the contemporary Gaelic word for Scotland, originated from the description of the white cliffs of Dover - the Latin 'alba' means white. Hence we get 'Albion', meaning Britain.

Moffat uncovers much interesting material like this, and, despite his deconstruction of language, his writing style is accessible and very readable.

However, he seems to be dogged by an assumption that somehow the whole of Britain had some sort of cohesive, national identity, despite being broken up into recognisable kingdoms, harassed by barbaric tribes like the Caledonians or Hibernians. His search for Arthur is for a man who lived in the Scottish borders, Moffat's home (and mine). His Arthur is a post-Roman warlord who unites the native Celts against invaders, giving them a British identity ... and whose legacy and history will later be corrupted by the invading Anglo-Saxons as they try to establish their historic rights to the island.

Moffat does seem to get a bit confused in places - and there are some significant errors in his analysis and his history. He argues, for instance, that there are hundreds, if not thousands of places named after Arthur in Britain; he concludes that this points to there being a real Arthur around the time of the Roman departure from the island. It could equally point to a folklore 'Arthur' (or many such characters) dating back centuries before.

It's an entertaining read, it does give a perspective on how legends can become real in pre-literate societies and literate ones, and it's a book which should stimulate you to think about the culture and heritage of the borders of Scotland, but, as for his identification of the 'real' Arthur as a Romanised war leader, well, I was still left unconvinced.

A fascinating, new approach to history
Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms is a history book with a difference. The author has built a thesis of the existence of Camelot in the Scottish Borders based not on Archaelogical evidence, and to only a slightly greater degree on manuscripts. His story is built on place names and legends, but is hugely persuasive nonetheless. An excellent read and some very original and thought provoking material. I shall certainly read it again and visit the sites of the story next time I am in Scotland.

Totally disappointing
My copy must be different from that book the others have reviewed as mine contained an almost total lack of any decent evidence.