gradual change. When we do try to pin down specific historical incidents we often become unstuck. The classic case, which I will discuss in Chapter 6, is that of the so-called Anglo-Saxon ‘conquest’ of England, and its aftermath.
Because archaeologists work with data that are foreign to most historians, we are sometimes accused of stretching the evidence too far. I was once kindly, but rather patronisingly, told by a classicist that I, and archaeologists like me, should take lessons on the limitations of inference.6 He did not believe that prehistoric data (i.e. sherds of pottery, fragments of flint, or pieces of bone) were capable of sustaining speculation about the manner in which prehistoric communities might have viewed the world around them. Most prehistorians consider we are ‘speculating’ from the safety of solid statistical or palaeoenvironmental data. We do not believe that we are flying kites. Having said that, we do not believe either that we have actually hit on the truth, because unless a day dawns when we can somehow get inside the minds of long-dead people, we will never know how or what they actually thought. Even then we will have to confront the many prob lems that face anthropologists when they try to explain what motivates tribal societies in various parts of the world today. In fact the long established, innate conservatism of the archaeological profession makes it extremely hazardous for any prehistorian to espouse ‘flaky’ theories, or ideas that tend, however slightly, towards the crackpot. Recently, however, there has been a welcome freeing-up of attitudes. In the past two decades the intellectual climate in archaeology has become more liberal, and slightly less intolerant of dissent from within. Ironically, only history—in perhaps a century or two—will be able to judge the extent to which archaeology is actually revealing truths or is building castles in the air.
There is one important difference between history and archaeology which has nothing to do with the quality of the data we study, but rather its quantity. Written historical information on the post-Roman era in Britain is surprisingly scarce, and new discoveries happen very rarely; when they do, it is often in the course of archaeological excavation. By contrast with the essentially static historical ‘database’, that of archaeology is constantly increasing. Hardly a day goes by without some new discovery. Often these discoveries might appear routine and unimportant, such as the exposure of the footings of yet another Saxon-period house, but these isolated pieces of information can be fitted together to form a coherent pattern. It’s a process that can take years, as we will see (Chapter 8) in the case of Dominic Powlesland’s work at West Heslerton in Yorkshire, but that does not make it any less reliable. The progress of archaeological research tends to be gradual and cumulative; it can only be measured from time to time. That is why it is sometimes necessary to step back in both time and space to take a broader view.
When I started writing this book, I intended to organise it much as we had done the three television films, for the simple reason that it seemed to work very well. I also liked the process that gave rise to the structure of the films. In many ways the making of the television series was like an archaeological project, being based on a small and closely integrated team. As the months passed its structure grew in complexity: stories nested within stories in a way that is only possible on film, where one can show one thing on screen, while telling another in commentary and flashback. I decided to arrange the book in a simpler fashion, that was only broadly based on the structure of the films. I start with two chapters on the ancient sources and modern origin myths of Britain, and the legends that surround King Arthur. In subsequent chapters I turn to the archaeological evidence, starting not in the Dark Ages of immediately post-Roman Britain, not even in the preceding Roman period, but in pre-Roman, or prehistoric, times, where the roots of the mythical King undoubtedly lie.7
Dates and Periods
| Date | Period Name | Alternative Names | Period |
| 1500 | Post-medieval | ||
| 1066 | Medieval (can start c. AD 800) | The Middle Ages | |
| 800 | Late Saxon | Early Medieval | |
| 650 | Middle Saxon | ||
| 450 | Early (or Pagan) Saxon (‘Pagan’ is an older usage) | Early Christian (in the south-west) | ‘The Dark Ages’ or Migration Period |
| 410 | Sub- or Post-Roman | ||
| 43 AD | The Roman Period | ||
| BC 150 | Late Iron Age | ||
| 450 | Middle Iron Age | ||
| 750 | Early Iron Age | ||
| 1250 | Late Bronze Age | ||
| 1500 | Middle Bronze Age | ||
| 2500 | Early Bronze Age | ||
| 4200 | Neolithic or New Stone Age | ||
| 10,000 | Mesolithic or Middle Stone Age | ||
| 500,000 | Palaeolithic or Old Stone Age |
| Archaeological Characteristics | Notes |
| 1485 Le Morte d’Arthur printed c. 1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain 1066 Norman Conquest | |
| Towns flourish | 871-899 King Alfred reigns |
| Appearance of first towns in Britain | 731 Bede’s History finished 664 Synod of Whitby |
| 625 King Raedwald of Essex buried at Sutton Hoo 597 St Augustine’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons lands in Thanet c. 475-550 Gildas writes | |
| ‘Anglo-Saxon’ pottery at end of 4th century | |
| Most of Britain a part of the Roman Empire | 409 British reject Roman rule367 great Barbarian Conspiracy60-61 Boudica’s revolt |
| Wheel-made pottery British Celtic Art flourishes |
54-55 Caesar’s two expeditions
|
