Customer Reviews

From Scythia to Camelot: A Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail (Arthurian Characters and Themes)

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

To laypersons with a passing interest in history and archaeology this book will seem both puzzling and difficult to swallow. The authors Littleton and Malcor don't claim to have all of the answers, but put forward an interesting and plausible theory regarding the origins of Arthurian legends. I heard about their work from an issue of Archaeology magazine and managed to purchase their book at one-third the price from a friend at a bookstore. The Roman occupation of Britain is a well known bit of history because without the Roman conquests there the world as we know it would have been a radically different place. What is not well known is that the Romans used Scythian horsemen as their primary occupation force (while stationing British conscripts in other lands). From the Scythians and their stories of Batraz (a hero king of the Caucasian people whose primary descendents today are the Ossetians) Arthurian legends came to be. Also worthy of mention is the daring theory about Lancelot being of Alannic extraction. What is presented is the impact of Iranian-speaking peoples (whose better known cousins established themselves in the Near East from Kurdistan to western Pakistan) upon European culture as part of Roman armies and "barbarian" hordes. These people are a fascinating and little known Indo-European peoples who were assimilated into the general populations of Europe, but live again thanks to the work of scholars like Littleton and Malcor. An interesting work that deserves far more recognition from people interested in Arthurian legends, the various peoples of the Eurasian steppes, or radical theories made plausible.

While it makes for an interesting read as an opposing point of view to the current ideas concerning the origins of Arthurian literature, the authors, in their attempt to "deconstruct" the Arthurian myth and cut it clean from Celtic studies, often make outstanding leaps in logic (without sufficiently reliable sources being cited) and quite often mangle the Celtic evidence (which they are trying to discredit) by utilyzing incorrect etymologies of Celtic words and ignoring Celtic literary themes and archaeological evidence which would tend to discredit their Iranian-origin theories. By throwing the baby out with the bath water, they weaken their argument, for it has been consistently proved by other authors in recent years that there is, without a doubt, a strong Celtic influence over the entire genre of Arthurian literature. This shaky scholarship, coupled with a printing that is riddled with spelling/graphical errors unfortunatley leads to a strong warning of caution to any potential reader.

Recommended only for revisionist historians.

Littleton and Malcor purport to prove that just about all--yes, all--Arthurian legends stem from the ancient horse cultures of central Asia. What they deliver is something less. Riddled by unflagged opinions and "presonal communication" masquerading as scholarly sources, this book does provide exhaustive analysis fo many Arthurian tales.

As a goad to further discussion and research, this book works. As "one of the most significant scholarly works on any subject in the humanities written during this century", as the cover blurb claims, it fails.

Reader be warned, Littleton and Malcor do not examine the various theories of who or whether there was a historic Arthur. They are content to accept the work of others there. What they do is discuss the origin of the stories.

They should have reviewed J. R. R. Tolkien's "On Fairy Tales" ("The Tolkien Reader", Del Ray, 1966). While not denying, because he felt it strongly himself, "the desire to unravel the intricately knotted and ramified history of the branches of the Tree of Tales", Professor Tolkienb quotes with approval, "We must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled." Despite his decades as Professor of Anglo-Saxon [philology] at Oxford, Tolkien humbly acknowledged himself too "unlearned" to deal with the "questions of origins."

Littleton and Malcor suffer from no such humility, but then their book hardly reflects the high standards of scholarship Tolkien probably sought.

Recommended only for the serious student of Arthuriana. For all I can tell, Littleton and Malcor's theory may be correct, but their methodology and documentation clouds rather than supports their scholarship.

I am a student of medieval history, and in fact am working on a research paper right now to determine if there was any kind of cultural influence on the Scots/northern British. I must say that this theory is the most ridiculous I've ever seen. In relation to cavalry, Malcor and Littleton completely ignore the fact that the Celts, Romans and Germans had cavalry, in most places before any contact was made with Sarmatians. Effective battle tactics are much more likely to be adopted than foreign legends. This alone negates their theory.

I emailed Dr. Malcor when I began my research because of the difficulty in finding information on the Sarmatians specifically; most of it was on the Scythians. She replied with the name Sulimirski, who I've read since and his own research contradicts hers. She sent one additional tidbit. There is a genetic study being conducted on families in Scotland, along the Hadrian's Wall area, and in NE Ireland. This study has found genetic markers unique to Eastern Asian and Scandinavian peoples. Malcor emphasizes the Eastern Asian connection, and pushes the idea that it is from the Sarmatians. However, any person even casually familiar with British/Irish history know 1.that Scandinavians settled, raped and raided in Scotland and Ireland both for centuries. A few thousand Sarmatians will not make that kind of difference. 2.The frequent movement between Scotland, Britain and Ireland, with settlements and marriage. Centuries of settlement and marriage will make a larger impact than a few foreign imports. These are more compelling facts than the Sarmatian theory.

Last, although Melcor and Littleton choose to emphasize the work of Sulimirski, they neglect to mention that of the 5,500 Sarmatian cavalry troops sent to the Hadrian's Wall area, and this is the only place they were sent by Marcus Aurelius, he acknowledges that 5000 of them are unaccounted for. The little settlement at Ribchester they make so much of was a typical veterans settlement, which would have only had 500-1000 veterans. The others disappeared from both history and Roman records. Most likely they were killed in combat or deserted.

The other assertion they had was that the Sarmatian/Alan cavalry was the inspiration and direct ancestor for the well-known medieval "knight in shining armor". The question I asked myself the entire time was "why did it take more than 1000 years for this kind of knight to develop in Europe?" It seems obvious that if both tribes had the kind of influence in Britain and Gaul that Melcor and Littleton insist on, the prototypical knight would have developed much sooner.

The shoddy research and manipulation of facts were very funny to read. If you want a good joke, by all means read this book. But if you want historical fact or plausible theory, leave it strictly alone.

Sarmatians were capable mounted warriors originally from Central Asia. Sarmatians spoke Iranian languages and had cultural, artistic, linguistic and martial arts connection with other Iranian people namely Persian, Medians, Parthians and so on. Alans were one of Sarmatians tribes who were famous for their cavalry abilities. They further spread in Europe and northern Africa. Roman historians described Alano-Sarmatians as good-looking warriors.
I am convinced that this tale has its roots in Sarmatians (A branch of Iranian people) heavy cavalry troops stationed by Romans in Britain. This was indeed the result of groundbreaking research by C. Scott Littleton and Ann Thomas. They concluded that in 2nd century a number of Alano-Sarmatians troops who were originally step nomads were recruited by Romans and transported to northern Roman Britain. Scott Littleton and Ann Thomas suggested Lucius Artorius Castus as possible historical King Arthur. There are many parallels between Alano-Sarmatians and King Arthur knights legend.
1- Cataphracts: Both King Arthur knights and Samartian knights were heavily armored and followed some kind of code of conduct. Something similar to Javanmardi principle of their Persian and Parthian cousins (other Iranian people and founders of some great dynasties in Iran/Persia).

2- The importance of swords: The same way as Sarmatians, King Arthur knights greatly cherished their swords. One can say both nearly worshiped their swords. They even buried their fellow warrior thrusting his sword in his grave. I believe there is no need to mention the significance of Excalibur, King Arthur's own sword.

3- Similarity of tales: the Ossetian (Iranic ethnic group and Sarmatians' descendants) tale of Nart saga demonstrates striking parallels with King Arthur legend:. For example Batraz who is the greatest warrior in Nart saga has a great spiritual connection to his sword and it should be thrown in the ocean as he dies. In Nart saga there are similar concepts such as Cup of the Narts (=Arthurian Holy Grail) and withe dressed magical women associated with water (=Arthurian Lady of the Lake).

There are some who believe Samartian only influenced King Arthur Tale rather than being it historical basis. I guess much more unbiased research should be conducted regarding this theory. Recently it was announced that researchers may have found King Arthur's Round Table in Scotland.

My co-author, C. Scott Littleton, died of complications of open heart surgery on 11/25/2010 (Thanksgiving). Services will be in late December. Contact me for more info: Legend@malcor.com.

Cheers,

Linda A. Malcor (From Scythia to Camelot)

Although I personally find the idea of the "Sarmatian Connection," as it has come to be known, very interesting, I don't find the evidence really all that convincing. For one thing, the Caucasian oral traditions of the Narts are recorded only from the late NINETEENTH century - why does no one ever seem to ask whether the direction of influence was the other way around? That is, perhaps the Nart traditions were derived from the Arthurian stories, which were popular all over Europe, rather than the Arthurian stories having derived from the Nart cycles. It seems to me that would explain the parallels without assuming hundreds of years of "crypto-transmission" from pagan Sarmatian cataphracti to medieval Christian bards.

I appreciate the authors of this book shedding light on the commonly unaccepted belief that Arthur was actually a Roman battle commander. Contrary to come reviewers comments, this book was thoroughly researched and presented exceptionally well. To say Lucious Artorius wasn't alive during the accepted time of Arthur or all the Knights had Celtic or Gallic names is to fall into the trap of historians protecting what they were tought, regardless of the facts at hand...... it's sort of like saying Senator McArthy was wrong about communist spies even after the Venona Project was declassified. You won't here those types of things because historians defend their positions regardless of indisputable facts. There is no accepted time frame for Arthur, every historian and scholor is stumped to when it comes to hard facts about him. As far as why the names are all celtic and gallic, when legends and languages evolve, people twist them to make them their own. Languages, pronunciations, spellings, they all change, and get passed down..... if you were a british soldier would want to hear heroic tales of Sir Slobadon or heroic tales of Sir Tristan to inspire you for battle?

All in all this book was a great read, as long as you go into with an open mind that nobody really knows a hard fact about Arthur. The theories are backed up, believable, and presented well.... I think this book has more evidence and depth than any other book about the legend of arthur, and if more people would open up their minds and stop defending the status quo of what we think is history, could lead to the end of the mystery as to who King Arthur really was.

Linda Malcor's book on King Arthur seeks to not only break the mythological perceptions of the romanticized Arthur but also seeks to part with the main schools of thought on this subject by presenting a revolutionary theory that Arthur was a Scythian warrior serving as a Roman auxiliary cavalry leader in Britain at the end of the Western Roman Empire. Don't be fooled by the propositions in this book as the scientific methods presented are based almost entirely on etymology allowing for no more than conjecture as to the conclusions they claim to support.

Most historians agree that Arthur was a Celt-Roman leader in Britain who lived during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire c.450-475 A.D. and, that he led a military/political movement to fight off the increasing migrations of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, that were coming to Britain from modern-day Denmark and northern Germany. Contrary to the book's claims Lucius Artorius is not a possible candidate, as evidence strongly indicates that he was alive under the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus c. 180 A.D.: that's 270 years before the accepted time frame for King Arthur. Primarily through flawed etymology and conjecture, the book claims that the Holy Grail, The Lady of the Lake, etc. are undoubtedly the product of Sarmatian culture and evidence of such culture in Britain. These premises are entirely the product of conjecture and refer to no physical evidence to support the conclusions that are made. The Holy Grail is a Christian symbol that had been around for 450 years in the Roman Empire and such symbols were introduced to Britain and Ireland by evangelists such as St. Patrick. Dragons, The Green Knight, Merlin, The Lady of the Lake, and Excalibur, are all stronger evidence of known Celtic/Druidic symbolism and rites than anything else. The book therefore fails to conclusively show how the Sarmatian culture was a necessary precondition for such symbolism in England during the Dark Ages or that Arthurian myths have anything to do with Sarmatian culture specifically. Another point the authors fail to properly explain is, if members of Arthur's entourage were Sarmatian, why do they all have Celtic/Roman/Germanic names such as Artorius, Ulfius, Galahad, Tristan, Gawayne, Uther, Vortigern, Morgana, Mordred, etc., etc., etc.? All of the characters in Arthurian myth have Celtic, Roman, or Germanic names: not Sarmatian ones. Also, whereas there is good indication of Sarmatian influence in Poland, Russia, and Eastern Europe, in the adoption of their unique cavalry tactics and armor (Sarmatians wore wings as part of their cavalry armor) by the indigenous populations, it interesting to note that no evidence of such armor or weapons has been found in England. Finally, most of the Arthurian myths come from Wales and southern England, not Scotland or Northern England where the book claims Arthur was the most active: presumably there's a reason for that. It is also important to note that most of the Celtic revival and geopolitical expansion at that time was focused in southern Britain and Brittany in northern France as evidenced by multiple Celtic settlements and forts: not Northern England.

This book is on shakey grounds and based primarily on conjecture no different than if one were to conclude that the words 'dog' and 'dogma' are very similar and therefore many Old English words have Hindu origins so that the English must have been of Hindu origin or vis versa. Robert Graves had similar problems in his book "The Greek Myths" in which he tried to support his theory of pre-Mycenean Amazonian civilizations whose matriarchal goddesses such as Hera, Hecate, etc. simply incorporated into the patriarchal triad of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, by later Mycenean and Doric invaders. Graves wanted to show how words and names in the myths such as with Kronos or Theseus and the Minotaur reveal the practice of males being sacrificed and castrated by these matriarchies in their religious festivals. Although Malcor and Littleton actually have a contrasting culture to reference as opposed to Graves' mythical Amazons, the means to connect them is still limited to inconclusive etymology that is simply insufficient to scientifically support their theories. The inconclusive etymology presented in the book is a stronger indication of the lack of grounds than the strength of it. In addition to a strong absence of written sources, the book also suffers on the archeological level in that there are simply no artifacts or monuments to suggest Sarmatians had any significant presence or role in England during that time. This work is therefore more of an excercise in academic sophistry than anything else and bears little scientific weight. [...]

For those who cling stubbornly to the customary interpretations of the Arthurian sagas as being wholly Celtic in nature, this book may well present what appears implausible evidence. But for those who seek further than the past thousand years for clues about the nature of the Arthurian drama and the quest for the Holy Grail, as well as many of the symbols surrounding it, this book offers much convincing evidence that rings true on many levels. Strongly recommended!