The role of fortifications in Early Medieval Britain: A Critique of Leslie Alcock’s methodology

Introduction.

The excavations in South Cadbury Castle during the last half of the 1960’s set a huge precedence to
understand the role of early medieval fortifications all across Britain. This was due to a combination
of different factors that helped this enterprise to prosper. The conformation of the Camelot
Research Committee (CRC) in 1965, the cunning use of the name Camelot as a hook for both funding
and public interest, and the favourable geographic and logistic conditions of the South Cadbury hill-
fort are some of the reasons beneath Leslie Alcock “successful” campaign.

However, this receipt would be hard to replicate somewhere else and huge contrast could be seen
in the other fortification that were dug by Alcock in northern Britain. This caused a negative outcome
not only in the way the excavations were made but also in the general interpretation of the Dark
Ages. On one hand, the methodological precepts that were set during the South Cadbury
excavations were not maintained to their fully extend maybe because of the limited results of this
ambitious project. On the other, due to the fact that the archaeological record was then
considerable more limited, the chain of assumptions to sustain the role of hillfort as princely
residents grows bigger and some of its links became weaker.

This essay will critically assess the theoretical assumptions and the methodologies applied by Leslie
Alcock to the excavation of hillforts and its consequences in the understanding of fortifications
during the early medieval Britain as the main settlements of a Heroic society. Taking as starting
point the South-Cadbury excavations, this writing, will compare the methodology and results of the
quest for Camelot to three of the sites (Dumbarton, Dundurn and Dunollie) excavated during the
long-term programme of research on historically-documented fortifications from 1974 to 1984 in
northern Britain offering a critical summary of the share elements in the interpretation of the
Hillforts.

The quest for Camelot: the south Cadbury excavations.

The excavations that took place in South Cadbury castle were motivated by a combination of
romantic expectations and academic interest in the fortifications of the Early Medieval Period. This
is self-evident due to the fact that the connection between South Cadbury Castle and Camelot are
not deeply rooted. According to Alcock and Ashe (1968) the first to acknowledge this relationship
was the Tudor antiquarian John Leland in 1542, who claimed that there was a local tradition relating
Arthur to the Hillfort. However, this could be Leland’s invention because in the accounts of William
Stokley, almost two centuries later, he says that: ‘the country people are ignorant of this name,
which was generally obtain among the learned’ (Stukeley quoted in Alcock, 1972:12). Nevertheless,
maybe because of Leland or maybe because a truly local tradition that Stukeley failed to recognise,
a rich Local Arthurian lore has developed around the fortification until our days. This phenomenon
was not only sustained by oral traditions. Leland and Stukeley, both reported different pieces of
archaeological evidence of the roman period such as slingshots and coins. In 1890, reverend James
A. Bennet summarize the Arthurian Folklore around the hillfort, and made his own excavation. In
1913, the first properly recorded dig took place by H. St George Gray, but nothing could be related
to an Arthurian tradition (Alcock, 1972; Alcock and Ashe, 1968). It would not be until the 1950s,
thanks to the chance findings of Mrs M. Hartfield and Mr J. Stevens, that Raleigh Radford would
identify the pottery coming from South Cadbury Castle as Tintagel ware and would claimed that it
was: ‘an interesting confirmation of the traditional identification of the site as the Camelot of
Arthurian Legend’ (Alcock and Ashe, 1968: 127). The weight of this affirmation, coming from one of
the most important archaeologist of the 20th century in Britain would unleash a wave of interest
culminating in the creation of the CRC and the five successive archaeological campaigns that would
take place on the hillfort from 1966 to 1970. Nevertheless, it has to be clarified that the range of
ideas held by the members of the CRC ranged from and uncritical believed in the romantic Idea of
Arthur and Camelot to a more academic interest in the archaeology of the 5 th and 6th centuries.
Alcock himself summarize his expectations about the excavation as the ‘affirmation of Arthur and
the rejection of Camelot’ (Alcock, 1972: 23).

It is important to stressed the role played by the CRC during the excavations in South Cadbury Castle.
They not only brought together a huge amount of different academic and private organisation but
also secured a constant flow of founding coming from them and also private donors. The list of
different groups contributing in some way or another to the project was vast and diverse1. Alcock’s
own initiative also play a significant role to extend the campaign one year more and to gain the
grants of the National Geographic Society of America and The American Philosophical Society.
However, even when they were not constrained by the requirements of a specific group, it was clear
what everyone was expecting from the project: they have to find evidence for an ‘Arthurian’
occupation. These expectations were reflected in the huge amount of public interest in the site.
According to Alcock and Ashe (1968) for the six-week field campaign during the summer of 1967
they were able to choose from hundreds of volunteers that were attracted for the scarce results of
the sampling excavations carried in 1966. There was also an estimated of 5000 visitors during the
1967 season! Which is really impressive taking into account that besides the freshly uncovered
superimposed defences there was not a lot of new features to see.

The archaeology survey was properly started during the summer of 1966 when a reconnaissance
was carried out with the objective to archaeologically asses the true possibility of occupation during
the Dark Ages. A group of aerial photography of the hill-fort, taken in 1955, was available showing
crop-marks but the quality was to poor and the view-points were oblique to be use as guidelines
(Alcock, 1972). Nevertheless, they were proof of settlement on the plateau of the hillfort. A contour
survey was carried out having as a result a very accurate shape of the interior, but also the
realization that mostly of the 8 hectares’ plateau enclosure was suitable for habitation (Alcock and
Ashe, 1968). Geophysical survey was done during this reconnaissance. Alcock’s team used a Soil
Conductivity Meter nicknamed ‘the banjo’, a pioneer device that was used to detect changes in the
conductivity of the soil and thus detecting anomalies in the bed rock. At the same time, an
independent geophysical survey was carried out by a team from the Oxford laboratory of
Archaeology, directed by Martin Aitken, using a wider range of instrument such as proton
magnetometer, fluxgate gradiometer, pulse magnetic induction locator (Alcock, 1972). Both studies
showed matching results and were later use to define the excavation plan during 1967 season. Three
sampling cutes were made by Alcock during 1966. One was placed against the innermost rampart
which showed evidence of refortification after the Iron Age. The two other were made widely
spaced, and they produced small yet substantial evidence of Arthurian occupation: Tintagel B ware
implying a wealthy occupant of post-Roman Britain (Alcock and Ashe, 1968).

After the reconnaissance, the subsequent excavations in South Cadbury Castle were focused in two
different fronts: the plateau and the defences. Besides the evidenced before mentioned, the main
reason for this was to correlated the hypothetical settlements on the top of the hill with the building
sequence of the ramparts. The most interesting aspect to this approach is how it constituted a
breaking point with the traditional way of surveying hillforts in Britain. Far from a mere typology of
the fortification using the amount and type of its defences, as the ordinance survey has done, the
questions that Alcock wanted to answer were related to the nature of the settlement on the plateau
and its inhabitants. For the following years a wide range of evidences from the Neolithic to the Late
Anglo Saxon period were found. Nevertheless, as early as 1967 the archaeological team realized the
limitation of the geophysical survey. On one hand, the excavation showed that by itself the
geophysical survey was not conclusive at all, and that the figures and pattern produced by the
instruments tended to be misinterpreted by the archaeologist. On the other, a lot elements had not
been picket out by the devices implying that the context was more complex than it was originally
thought. This means that decisions have to be taken on the go, and that what was originally planned
has to be constantly modified in order to better comprehend the evidence that was appearing. In
other words, the use of geophysical survey techniques did not bring a differential advantage to the
excavations in South Cadbury.

During 1967 and 1968 field seasons, a trench was cut in one of the banks using a mechanical
excavator. This was followed by a hand digging of a 10 meters wide trench. Then a historical
sequence was defined for the ramparts evidencing the building of fortifications in three different
periods: Iron Age, Early Medieval Period, and late Anglo-Saxon. The ‘Stony Bank’, as was called by
Alcock, was dated to the post-Roman period due to the presence of Roman building debris in its
core and (Alcock, 1972, 1995). Besides this, and the differences in the techniques of building of the
defences there was not any other kind of indication about the time of its construction. In the
plateau, evidence was also found for an Arthurian occupation. There was a row of small posts sets
in a narrow trench on the site “L” with a few fragments of amphorae of insular class Bi dated from
the 4th to the late 6th/ early 7th centuries (Alcock, 1995). This would eventually become part of the
feasting hall. Alcock’s method for dating the structure is a little controversial, he suggested that
because of the soft fabric of the Bi ware, that is easily eroded, a sharp edge would indicate that it
was tamped into the filling shortly after they were broken (1972: 75). Because of this, in 1969 the
top soil on the plateau was removed using a mechanical excavator to find the rest of the Arthurian
feasting hall. However, a lot of other features were uncovered on the bedrock making really difficult
the identification of the supposed structure. This forced Alcock to “join the dots”, first eliminating
the features that had evidence for other periods and later grouping those that seemed to being part
of the aforesaid structure. A statistical analysis was carried out by D. Fraser (Alcock, 1995) trying to
find out any structural similarity shared by the postholes, the results were negative but did not
necessarily disproved the existence of the structure.

According to Alcock, (1972, 1995) the main frame of the building consisted of upright post set at
about ten foot centres. Due to the shallowness of the post holes, it was inferred that the whole
structure depended on a braced timber framework rather than on earth fast posts. This explain the
slight traces that were found of some of the building features. No iron nails were found, indicating
the use of pegged joints showing a similar carpentry technique to the one used in the contemporary
rampart. The dominant position of the ‘hall’ on the axial ridge at the centre of the summit plateau
and its dimensions (10 m by 6.5 m), lead the author to believe that the hall was the principal building
of the Arthurian period. Needlessly to say that the process of reconstruction implicated a huge level
of speculation and it shows the clear bias of Alcock’s interpretation of the evidence however, it
makes sense within the limits of the author views of the Early Medieval Period as it is going to be
seen later. The last piece of evidence related to the early medieval period in South Cadbury to
appear was what was called the “Arthurian Gate”. It was uncovered during the last field season in
1970’s, and it was located in the south-west part of the hillfort. Mostly of the structure was again
inferred from postholes and was dated around the last third of the 6th Century, thanks to a leaded
high tin bronze ring with Anglo-Saxon ornament of English Salin’s Style 1, re-used as an annular
broch or a buckle that was found in the cobble road associate to the gate in 1970 (Alcock, 1972;
1995).

The Stony wall, and the Arthurian Gate are together the main components of the defences that
were found in the Alcock’s excavations of South Cadbury Castle. The main feature of the defence
was a timber framework constructed of beams about six inches square tied to a line of timbers at
the front of the rampart by the means of pegged joints (1972) or tree nails (1995), and was stabilized
with the earth and rubble within it. The structure was decorated lavishly with Roman dressed stone
in both the facing wall and the rampart core and according to the author enclosed a total area of 8
hectares. The Arthurian gate was a parallelogram of four posts with sides of 3.4 by 3.1 m that were
0.60 m deep and 20 by 15 cm wide. Alcock (1972) suggested that the sturdiness and depth of the
corner posts were indicators of a superstructure over the gate, that could have been a fighting
platform inspire by the timber gate-towers of Roman forts. However, by 1995 he also considered
the possibility of a structural reason due to the danger of the rampart, in which case ‘…any walkway
and breastwork on top of the rampart would have been carried continuously across the passage’
(Alcock, 1995:29).

The defences, the hall and the pottery were enough for Alcock to propose a strong hypothesis of
the roll of South Cadbury Castle during the Early Medieval period. The hillfort was occupied around
470 AD for a wealthy group that was able to take part on the Mediterranean trade, by AD 500 it was
used as a prince residence, the war leader that dwelt there feasted in his great hall as could be
inferred from glass fragments of western Britain tradition of the sixth and seventh century, and
partially by the clamp or mount made of bronze, then he could have taken part in the defence of
Dumnonia around AD 570 but before 600 A.D the fortification lost its status or was abandoned
(Alcock, 1995). The repairs that took place in both the ramparts and the gateway road and the
temporal sequence developed thanks to the Mediterranean (Class A, Bi, Bii, Biv) and Gaulish imports
(Class D) seem to back up the hypothesis of lengthy occupation (Alcock, 1995). Furthermore, the big
size of this fortification in comparison to the other forts of the late 5th and 6th century lead the author
to suggest that the prince that lived there presumably had a huge garrison to accommodate (Alcock,
1972; 1995).

The vivid image depicted by Alcock, clash constantly with the poverty of the evidence of South
Cadbury. By itself the archaeological evidence cannot sustained the wonderful tale that Alcock is
narrating. The Heroic Early Medieval society among the Celtic the Germanic people (Alcock, 1995)
with their Kings and their War band, is imperceptible in the archaeological record of South Cadbury
Castle.

Up to the north: archaeology of historically-documented fortifications

The conditions of the fortifications in Scotland are way different to those in the south western part
of Britain. According to Alcock (1981; 1995; 2003) at least 50% of the forts in Scotland were built
after AD 300, and a huge percentage has been recorded in different historical accounts. The long-
term programme of research on historically-documented fortifications from 1974 to 1984 in
northern Britain was focused then on different sites all of then identified by this sources (1981). The
manner in which Alcock used the historical accounts to date and assess archaeological sites has been
extensively explained by himself in different texts (Alcock, 1971; 1981). To address the entire
mathematic logic that allows him to create an entire chronology based on Easter tables,
hagiographies, chronicles and other historical documents from the Dark Ages is way beyond the
reach of this essay. However, a summary of his proposal has to be presented: The basic assumption
that sustains this approach is that mostly of the sources have an historical relevance, and describe
events and places that happened and could be contrasted with the archaeological evidence. The
type of the source: annals, narrative history, Easter table or welsh poetry its irrelevant because a
source would be deemed trustworthy as long as it could be sustained that the events described in
it were registered closed to the date of their happening, or base on a source that was. This is easily
perceived looking at the treatment that Alcock gives to the writings of Gildas and Bede to describe
the state of affairs of the Early Historic period in Northern Britain (2003) but it is also a common
feature across all the author’s writings.

Three sites have been selected to analyse the methodology used during the research of early
historical monuments in Scotland, trying to summarize the findings and the interpretations of
Alcock’s research. Some methodological traces were set for the entire research: The entrances in
the Scottish campaign were deliberately ignored by the archaeologist and only key-hole excavations
were done due to the late buildings that still stand in there but also to the logistic complications
implied in the digging of these sites.

Alt Clut (Clyde Rock) Dumbarton, is a volcanic plug, divided into twin summits by a natural cleft, with
truly precipitous crags, located in the isthmus between the Clyde and the Leven. It was identified
by Bede in AD 731 as a ‘strongly defended political centre of the Britons’ (Alcock, 1981:157). There
are also non-contemporary references: Muirchu’s Life of Patrick, and in Adomnan’s Life of Columba,
in which the place was the seat of the Strathclyde dynasty to the 5th and 6th century and also an
entry in the Annals of Ulster Record in which the fortification is siege by the Vikings in 870-1.
Excavations took place in 1974-75 revealing a timber-reinforced rampart overlooking the landward
approach but failed to reveal internal buildings. Five exploratory trenches were dug across the
defences and the terraces that seemed to be more suitable for human habitation (Alcock and Alcock,
1990). Pieces of imported pottery and what has been thought to be Germanic glass were found
besides evidence of bronze working and glass recycling (Alcock,1981;1995) that could be interpreted
as an indicator of the importance of the site. Three radiometric dates were taken giving a temporal
range from the early 5th to the late 7th centuries giving with to the historical account
(Alcock,1972;1995). A Viking sword pommel was found confirming either a siege or at least trade
or interchange with the Vikings.
Dundurn has been identified with a craggy pyramidal hill, also known as St Fillan’s Hill. An entry
mentioning a siege in this place was recorded in The Iona anal for AD 683. Six small scale excavations
were made in 1976-1977, following the pattern set in Dumbarton (Alcock et. Al, 1989), uncovering
a defence sequence on the summit: Originally, there was a wall of dry-stone, stabilized by hazel
wattling and oak beams, nailed together with massive iron spikes, that was destroyed by fire and
subsequently overlaid by a dry-stone wall that could have been timber-laced but not nailed (Alcock,
1981). Ten radiocarbon dates were obtained, some of them after calibration fully agree with the
historical data of the siege (Alcock, 1981). A virtuoso glass boss with blue and white spirals, a highly
decorated leather shoe, and well-preserved animal bones are part of the archaeological remains but
his implications are not commented by the author.

Dunollie is a unique example because of the comparatively huge amount of mentions in the Iona
Annals record. Alcock (1981) and Alcock et. Al (1989) listed at least sixth different entries, however
the information contained in these is contradictory and did not allow the author to elaborate a
trustworthy chronology. During the excavation in the summer of 1978 pin and ingot-moulds and a
Class E beaker proved occupation on the headland during the 7th and 8th centuries by and important
person. A sequence of defences was also proposed, stipulating an original occupation of intense
activity without defences on the headland and later fortification with a massive dry-stone wall.

To this point is clear that the scale of the excavations carried out in the northern hillforts is less than
satisfactory. Alcock is aware of this and states: ‘little can be said about the character of their
defences, and nothing useful about their internal buildings, or about the character, permanence or
intensity of settlement’ (Alcock, 1981:178). Not surprisingly at all, this concern continues to be an
issue in later publications (Alcock, 2003). However, even when he is aware of the limitations of the
archaeological date coming from the hillforts he proposes a hyphotesis relying again on the Heroic
ethos of the Brittonic societies. Firstly, he established a difference between the Iron Age and early
historic period landscapes. A typological difference is traced between their respective fortifications
in which the ones of the later period have a less rounded and bigger shape2. The distribution and
extend of the fortification would answer to the political and military needs of the Early historical
period, in other words to the Heroic ethos of Northen Britain (Alcock, 2003). Thus, similar to the
counter park in the south-west of Britain, the princely nature of the fortification could be related to
an entire set of activities that supposedly can be traced on the archaeological records. They could
be centres of metalworking as has been show by the evidence of Dumbarton, or they could have
played an important role in the redistribution of imported goods as can be seen by the evidence of
imported pottery in Dumbarton and Dunollie. They also feasted and the glass remains on
Dumbarton and Durdun are proved of that. Moreover, all of them have military features. Ramparts
are the main element that all this sites across Britain have in common. Some of them have surface
indications of conflict. In Dumbarton, for example there is evidence of vitrification, the melting or
at least the cracking of the stones resulting from the ignition of a timber-laced rampart. Originally
it was suggested that the fires were the result of a siege (1981) but latter has been interpreted as
the destruction of the settlement after its conquest (2003). Hillforts are in the north as in the south
the dwellings of the leaders of a military society.

2
Alcock acknowledges that this is not an entirely trustworthy method to date the structure, and it’s a
temporary solution to an urgent problem (2003).
Assessing the methodology, the problems with Alcock’s interpretation of the archaeological
evidence:

By now it is evident that there is a huge difference between the excavation carried out in South-
Cadbury and those in northern Britain. Even if all of the sites of the historically-documented
fortifications were listed and explore here we would find the same pattern: Keyhole excavations
across the ramparts and places that looked suitable for habitation. However, what is interesting is
that even in spite of this huge disproportion the conclusions in both regions seem to be similar if
not equal. A recapitulation should be made to illustrate this point.

A lot of novel techniques were applied during the Quest for Camelot. The excavation in itself was a
novel procedure for the understanding of this type of fortification. By the time when the labours
started in South-Cadbury not a lot of hillforts have been excavated in Britain. The analysis of this
structures were limited to the visible and over ground features and some time by chance discoveries
or key-hole excavations (Hogg, 1975). Moreover, mostly of them were confined to the Iron age and
were of lesser importance to other periods. the mechanical cuts through the ramparts is perhaps
the most interesting yet unique feature of the excavations there. Using this technique what Alcock
was trying to prove was the re-fortification of the structure during the Early Historical Period. To
this purpose the mechanic cuts across the ramparts proved to be really useful, because as has been
said before, they uncovered an entire sequence of refortification dated from the Iron Age to the
Anglo-Saxon period. This idea was reinforced by the findings of Late Roman pottery and a coin of
Honorius dated AD 393-402 underneath the Stony wall. However, even when there is a clear
stratigraphy of the defences there is also a problematic nature in the way that Alcock use the
material remains to dated and fix the evidence to early Medieval period, and this of course extend
to every single interpretative aspect on the site as for example the area excavation on the summit.

The excavation area that took place on the summit was considerable big, and it offered in terms of
archaeology an interesting insight in the history of South Cadbury. However, the evidence for the
early medieval period was not big enough to hold the detailed description that Alcock has offered.
The Arthurian hall is the only structure associated to this period in this area. If it is true that the post-
holes have structural logic, and that the absent some of them could be due to post-depositional
process, the overall reconstruction of the arrangement as a feasting hall of the early medieval period
is hard to believe. First of all, the dating method is by any means entirely trust-worthy. The use of
only non-erode amphorae of Insular class B as a time marker is not conclusively enough. Radiometric
dates are discarded for their inevitable imprecision (Alcock, 1995). Secondly, the arrangement is
itself problematic. The variables used to choose which features would conform the feasting-hall are
not explicit, and it seems more likely that they were chosen by Alcock’s intuition and that they didn’t
share any common characteristic at all. Finally, even when both the arrangement and the
chronology could be correct, there is no direct evidence to claim that the structure was indeed a
feasting hall. Mediterranean and Gallic pottery could mean besides wine trade a different variety
of imports from Europe. And even when poetry such Y Goddodin described the feasting as one of
the main activities of the Britons (Alcock, 1995) this does not have to apply necessarily to South
Cadbury. Similar critiques could be made about the Arthurian gate. From four postholes, and no
other evidence Alcock is able to recreate an entire structure. This does not mean that the post-holes
were not evidence of a gate, or that the chronology was wrong. However, there is a huge gap
between the evidence available and the reconstruction made by Alcock of a Roman-style gate with
or without a fighting platform.

Another set of critiques should me made of the methodologies apply in the north. Hogg (1975) cast
doubt over the reliability of using names to identified Hillforts. If it is true that some places could
have keep their original names, the possibility should be addressed carefully and in any case the
identification should be backed by extensive archaeological research. This lead us to our second
problem, the reduced scale of the excavations left a lot of things to the imagination, things like the
dimension of the defences were no fully discussed and explored during the northern campaigns
even when they were used on the South-West to determine the relative importance of one side in
relationship with another (Alcock, 1972; 1995). Guillbert (1981) is emphatic in how problematic is
proposing a demographic or functional model of a hillfort if the evidence is not fully comprehended.
Analogy is a common source of mistakes and only should be use when there is a great certainty
about the interpretation of the archaeological remains. The interpretation of the scarce
archaeological remains is also a problem. The total amount of imported pottery fragments in the
hillforts is comparatively smaller to those found in other non-fortified sites like Whithorn (Alcock,
2003). This is problematic because undermine the importance of the secular powers in relationship
with the religious settlement, subverting the model proposed by the author. The metalworking
evidence, and the glass remains do not have to be necessarily associated to the act of feasting on a
princely residence and could be indicators of a different social phenomenon even when Y Goddodin
refers explicitly to this activity as an integral part of the royal dwellings in northern Britain. Other
element that seems to be contradictory during the Scottish campaign, is the use of radiometric dates
to correlated the archaeological evidence to historical recorded facts. Alcock (1995) has previously
dismissed the use of this methodology deeming it unreliable but is broadly use in their northern
enterprise. However, C14 dates have little impact on the overall because mostly of the chronology
is stablished on the basis of typological identification that as in the case of South-Cadbury seem to
be no entirely trust-worthy. A compelling critique of this instrumental use of the historical sources
by Alcock has been made recently by Halsall (2013). This author judges inadequate the butchering
of the Early historical sources in order to made then malleable in the hands of the historian or
archaeologist, and suggest that the documents should be taken into account as a whole. Finally,
there is a general absence of material culture associated to any military process in the northern
hillforts and South-Cadbury. This is specifically problematic if we take into account the fundamental
role play by warfare in Heroic societies.

Conclusion: Alcock and the historical records.

So far, it has been show that the archaeological basis of the Idea of a Heroic society in northern and
south-western Britain is far from being solid. The limitations of the methodologies and specially of
the interpretative framework of Leslie Alcock has been addressed showing how unsuccessful they
are to explain the role of fortifications in the Early Medieval Period. The concept of a heroic society
is in itself problematic and it has not been originated from the archaeological evidence, but from
the historical and literary sources. The trust that Alcock puts on the veracity of the historical
accounts often put the archaeology in a secondary role to the point in which it could only
corroborated or slightly altered what has been already know for the fragmentary data of the Early
Historical Period. Thus, the princely resident image of the Hillforts only could be sustained it all the
assumptions made by Alcock are correct. From the veracity of the historical accounts, to the status
of the imported pottery, all elements have to play the role that is devised for them because they
only make sense if they are presented together.

Bibliography:

Alcock, L and Ashe, G. (1968). Cadbury is it Camelot. In: Ashe, G. ed. The quest for Arthur’s Britain.
London: Book Club Associates.

Alcock, L. (1971). Arthurs Britain: history and archaeology AD 367- 634. London: Allen Lane.

Alcock, L. (1972) ‘By South Cadbury is that Camelot...! Excavations at Cadbury Castle 1966-70.
London: Thames and Hudson.

Alcock, L. (1981). Early historical fortifications in scotland. In Guilbert, G. ed. Hillfort studies
essays for A.H.A Hogg. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Alcock, L. (1995). Cadbury Castle, Somerset. The Early Medieval Archaeology. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.

Alcock, L. (2003). Kings & Warriors, Craftsmen & Priests in Northern Britain AD 550-850.
Endimburgh: Society of antiquaries of Scotland.

Alcock, L and Alcock A. (1987) Reconnaissance excavations on Early Historic fortifications and other
royal sites in Scotland, 1974-84: 2, Excavations at Dunollie Castle, Oban, Argyll, 1978. In
Proceedings of the society of antiquaries of Scotland. 117.

Alcock, L and Alcock A. (1990) Reconnaissance excavations on Early Historic fortifications and other
royal sites in Scotland, 1974-84: 4, Excavations at Alt Glut, Clyde Rock, Strathclyde, 1974-75. In
Proceedings of the society of antiquaries of Scotland. 120.

Alcock, L. et Al. (1989) Reconnaissance excavations on Early Historic fortifications and other royal
sites in Scotland, 1974-84: 3, Excavations at Dundurn, Strathearn, Perthshire, 1976-77. In
Proceedings of the society of antiquaries of Scotland. 119.

Halsall, G. (2013). Worlds of Arthur Facts & fictions of the Dark Ages. Oxford: Oxford university
Press.

Hogg, A. (1975). Hillforts of Britain. London: Hart-Davis, MacGibbon.

Guilbert, G. (1981). Hill-fort functions and populations a sceptical viewpoint. In Guilbert, G. ed.
Hillfort studies essays for A.H.A Hogg. Leicester: Leicester University Press.