What do you think?
Rate this book
Arthurian Characters and Themes
From Scythia to Camelot
This volume boldly proposes that the core of the Arthurian and Holy Grail traditions derived not from Celtic mythology, but rather from the folklore of the peoples of ancient Scythia (what are now the South Russian and Ukrainian steppes). Also includes 19 maps.
424 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 4, 2008
Littleton and Malcor have made a fresh contribution to the study of Arthurian legends. They examine both the sources and outcomes of northeast Iranian additions to the fables so popular and influential in western culture. Though many modern scholars acknowledge the contribution of Sarmatian and Alan cultures to the corpus of Arthurian history and legend, few have explained the connection in such detail.
Unfortunately, the product is less than it appears. Littleton and Malcor try to attribute all aspects of Arthurian legend to Northeast Iranian traditions, even to the point of seemingly inventing or twisting evidence (see below). Their one-size-fits-all approach becomes most strained the closer it approaches Arthur. Their case seems much more plausible, and less dependent on hearsay, as they relate it to Lancelot, Grail, Fisher King legends. Their Sword in the Stone hypothesis is pure speculation—plausible and entertaining, but thinly supported.
Littleton and Malcor’s “Introduction” warned readers that “hypothetical sequences of events, based on our findings” would be included. Since they seldom delineate such scenarios, the unwary reader may assume many such are supported by scholarly documentation. In fact, their theories intermix with cited materials in a way which defies unsorting. In fairness, drawing Second Century Sarmatian, Sixth Century Alan and modern Ossetian sources out of Medieval (Twelfth Century and later) romances would daunt any scholar.
At first glance the impressive quantity of chapter endnotes and appendices gives the appearance of solid scholarship. Closer examination shows the notes and appendices as much padding as relevant material. Also, the author's penchant for multiple, consecutive notes from a single source and notes for expository material weaken what is assumedly well-documented research. The numerous genealogies entertain, but add little to their thesis.
A word about sources. Though Littleton and Malcor acknowledge some evidence for their theory comes from “the ever-popular Anonymous,” in fact one of their most commonly cited sources is “personal communication” with various individuals. At least nineteen such citations dot the text and notes, most with John Colarusso, whose chatty, condescending “Foreword” sets the hyperbolic tone for the entire work. Interestingly, Littleton and Malcor seldom cited Colarusso’s published works. All these “personal communications” seem convenient, if not contrived.
They also relied heavily on the 1986 version of The Arthurian Encyclopedia edited by Norris J. Lacy et al., though their style of citation prevented naming that document, and they only intermittently named the author of individual entries. The 1996 revised and expanded Encyclopedia was not referenced.
Unfortunately, the product is less than it appears. Littleton and Malcor try to attribute all aspects of Arthurian legend to Northeast Iranian traditions, even to the point of seemingly inventing or twisting evidence (see below). Their one-size-fits-all approach becomes most strained the closer it approaches Arthur. Their case seems much more plausible, and less dependent on hearsay, as they relate it to Lancelot, Grail, Fisher King legends. Their Sword in the Stone hypothesis is pure speculation—plausible and entertaining, but thinly supported.
Littleton and Malcor’s “Introduction” warned readers that “hypothetical sequences of events, based on our findings” would be included. Since they seldom delineate such scenarios, the unwary reader may assume many such are supported by scholarly documentation. In fact, their theories intermix with cited materials in a way which defies unsorting. In fairness, drawing Second Century Sarmatian, Sixth Century Alan and modern Ossetian sources out of Medieval (Twelfth Century and later) romances would daunt any scholar.
At first glance the impressive quantity of chapter endnotes and appendices gives the appearance of solid scholarship. Closer examination shows the notes and appendices as much padding as relevant material. Also, the author's penchant for multiple, consecutive notes from a single source and notes for expository material weaken what is assumedly well-documented research. The numerous genealogies entertain, but add little to their thesis.
A word about sources. Though Littleton and Malcor acknowledge some evidence for their theory comes from “the ever-popular Anonymous,” in fact one of their most commonly cited sources is “personal communication” with various individuals. At least nineteen such citations dot the text and notes, most with John Colarusso, whose chatty, condescending “Foreword” sets the hyperbolic tone for the entire work. Interestingly, Littleton and Malcor seldom cited Colarusso’s published works. All these “personal communications” seem convenient, if not contrived.
They also relied heavily on the 1986 version of The Arthurian Encyclopedia edited by Norris J. Lacy et al., though their style of citation prevented naming that document, and they only intermittently named the author of individual entries. The 1996 revised and expanded Encyclopedia was not referenced.
February 6, 2012
"Radical" hits it on the head, as L & M join Barber & Pickett, and the incredible Wilson & Blackett. Here, we find refences/notes citing "private correspondence" from the same individual who wrote their introduction. A hefty batch of notes refer to postulations from mid-20th-century (or earlier) authors who were exactly that-- postulators.
We find a hefty reliance on Continental matter, not much from historical Britain, either during the late Roman or post-Roman periods. But worst of all, the book falls short of thorough research. Littleton & Malcor are unaware of the two Equites Taifali units sent into Britain in 396, or even the modern reenactment unit by the same name. This Alano-Gothic connection could have helped discover such items as Alanic hauma cups (grails) with bear-shaped handles. In fact, the bear (a "protective" figure, and on the Equites Taifali Seniors' shield)was known as "artos."
Instead, we are given the wickedly hilarious prognosis that a character named Lucius Artorius Castus led a group of socalled "Sarmatians" known as the Iasyges throughout the British countryside. In truth, Iasyges were Saraumatae, not related to Alans or Sarmatians. Artorius Castus had the rank of "praefectus castrorum" while stationed in Britain, that of an old vet, an officer who no longer commanded alas but puttered around as "keeper of the castle." So much for Artorius.
All of these facts, not speculations, were available, especially in the official Notitia Dignitatum, an illustrated Roman record still extant. But then again, evidently it's more fun to speculate and be a little radical:)
We find a hefty reliance on Continental matter, not much from historical Britain, either during the late Roman or post-Roman periods. But worst of all, the book falls short of thorough research. Littleton & Malcor are unaware of the two Equites Taifali units sent into Britain in 396, or even the modern reenactment unit by the same name. This Alano-Gothic connection could have helped discover such items as Alanic hauma cups (grails) with bear-shaped handles. In fact, the bear (a "protective" figure, and on the Equites Taifali Seniors' shield)was known as "artos."
Instead, we are given the wickedly hilarious prognosis that a character named Lucius Artorius Castus led a group of socalled "Sarmatians" known as the Iasyges throughout the British countryside. In truth, Iasyges were Saraumatae, not related to Alans or Sarmatians. Artorius Castus had the rank of "praefectus castrorum" while stationed in Britain, that of an old vet, an officer who no longer commanded alas but puttered around as "keeper of the castle." So much for Artorius.
All of these facts, not speculations, were available, especially in the official Notitia Dignitatum, an illustrated Roman record still extant. But then again, evidently it's more fun to speculate and be a little radical:)
Read
March 14, 2022Scott Littleton passed away in 2010, but I'm still around. I started a page on Facebook to celebrate the 26th consecutive year of publication of From Scythia to Camelot. The book has now been translated into Japanese, Hungarian, Russian, and Italian (in press).
If you haven't purchased it yet, you want to buy the Second Edition, copyright 2000. It contains information about Lucius Artorius Castus, who is the subject of The Roman King Arthur, which I am co-authoring with John Matthews.
Good thing I read it yet again. There's a lot of stuff in the book that I forget.
If you haven't purchased it yet, you want to buy the Second Edition, copyright 2000. It contains information about Lucius Artorius Castus, who is the subject of The Roman King Arthur, which I am co-authoring with John Matthews.
Good thing I read it yet again. There's a lot of stuff in the book that I forget.
April 12, 2021
This is one of those books that I will (eventually) insist on owning a copy of. It's thorough, well cited and documented, and well written, without attempting to cover up bad research with jargon. It makes a compelling argument for the Scythian influence in Arturian legend and the chivalry culture of the european middle ages.
March 6, 2022
important work acknowledging the role of Iranian peoples in Europe
The authors provide a real service in acknowledging the role of the Scythians and Alans in European history and culture.
The main weakness is an apparent lack of depth of knowledge about Iranian mythology as there are other references that are not mentioned, such as the shape shifting of the “daughter of the king of fairies” into a white serpent in Iranian fairy tales among others.
Also important to mention is Dick Davis’ work which makes a convincing argument that suggests that the source for Tristan & Isolde is likely the Parthian romance of Vis and Ramin.
The authors provide a real service in acknowledging the role of the Scythians and Alans in European history and culture.
The main weakness is an apparent lack of depth of knowledge about Iranian mythology as there are other references that are not mentioned, such as the shape shifting of the “daughter of the king of fairies” into a white serpent in Iranian fairy tales among others.
Also important to mention is Dick Davis’ work which makes a convincing argument that suggests that the source for Tristan & Isolde is likely the Parthian romance of Vis and Ramin.
December 8, 2022
While agreeing to the connection of King Arthur legend with Scythian tribe Iazyge Sarmatians, I believe that it is not appropriate to stress that Scythians (iskit/saka), Iazyge (yazig/yazığ) Sarmatians, Alans, Massagets, etc. are Iranian civilisations which are claimed to be Indo-European. In opposite, archeological, ethnographic and ethymological findings and studies show that Scythian/Sakas were more Turanian, ie. Proto-Turkic than Iranian.
March 12, 2018
Not having enough knowledge of all the details, its difficult to assess this accurately as to its reasonableness as an argument, and how much the evidence supports. However, just reading it critically, the style of argument was often weak and stretching the argument, and in some places was self-admitted pure conjecture. Interesting, but not convincing.
June 7, 2020
An intriguing book, arguing that the Arthurian myths--including the Grail stories--are based on Caucasian tales brought to Western Europe by Alans who invaded, and later settled in, the Roman Empire. There is a lot of convincing evidence for confusing aspects of the Arthurian stories. And it's more satisfying as an explanation for "Eastern" elements in the Grail stories than speculation about lost texts brought back from the Crusades. At the same time, I wonder if it goes too far in its own speculation. That there are similarities between Arthurian and Alanic/Sarmatian tales--some of which are kind of general--doesn't mean they are connected, they could just be touching on common Indo-European traditions or even subconscious archetypes (a la Jung and Campbell).
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews