BU Research Blog

Holly Hayes/Flickr, CC BY-NC

King Arthur is probably the best known of all British mythological figures. He is a character from deep time celebrated across the world in literature, art and film as a doomed hero, energetically fighting the forces of evil. Most historians believe that the prototype for Arthur was a warlord living in the ruins of post-Roman Britain, but few can today agree on precisely who that was.

Over the centuries, the legend of King Arthur has been endlessly rewritten and reshaped. New layers have been added to the tale. The story repeated in modern times includes courtly love, chivalry and religion – and characters such as Lancelot and Guinevere, whose relationship was famously immortalised in Thomas Malory’s 1485 book Le Morte D’Arthur. The 2017 cinematic outing, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, is only the most recent reimagining.

But before the addition of the Holy Grail, Camelot and the Round Table, the first full account of Arthur the man appeared in the Historia Regum Brianniae (the History of the Kings of Britain) a book written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in around 1136.

We know next to nothing about Geoffrey, but he claimed to have begun writing the Historia at the request of Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, who persuaded him to translate an ancient book “written in the British tongue”. Many have concluded, as Geoffrey failed to name his primary source and it has never been firmly identified, that he simply made it all up in a fit of patriotism.

Whatever the origin of the Historia, however, it was a roaring success, providing the British with an heroic mythology – a national epic to rival anything written by the English or Normans.

Story teller

As a piece of literature, Geoffrey’s book is arguably the most important work in the European tradition. It lays the ground for not just for the whole Arthurian Cycle, but also for the tales surrounding legendary sites such as Stonehenge and Tintagel and characters such as the various kings: Cole, Lear and Cymbeline (the latter two immortalised by Shakespeare).

As a piece of history, however, it is universally derided, containing much that is clearly fictitious, such as wizards, magic and dragons.

If we want to gain a better understanding of who King Arthur was, however, we cannot afford to be so picky. It is Geoffrey of Monmouth who first supplies the life-story of the great king, from conception to mortal wounding on the battlefield, so we cannot dismiss him entirely out of hand.

A full and forensic examination of the Historia Regum Britanniae, has demonstrated that Geoffrey’s account was no simple work of make-believe. On the contrary, sufficient evidence now exists to suggest that his text was, in fact, compiled from a variety of early British sources, including oral folklore, king-lists, dynastic tables and bardic praise poems, some of which date back to the first century BC.

Here be dragons? George Reyes/Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA

In creating a single, unified account, Geoffrey exercised a significant degree of editorial control over this material, massaging data and smoothing out chronological inconsistencies.

Once you accept that Geoffrey’s book is not a single narrative, but a mass of unrelated stories threaded together, individual elements can successfully be identified and reinstated to their correct time and place. This has significant repercussions for Arthur. In this revised context, it is clear that he simply cannot have existed.

Arthur, in the Historia, is the ultimate composite figure. There is nothing in his story that is truly original. In fact, there are five discrete characters discernible within the great Arthurian mix. Once you detach their stories from the narrative, there is simply nothing left for Arthur.

Cast of characters

The chronological hook, upon which Geoffrey hung 16% of his story of Arthur, belongs to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a late 5th-century warlord from whom the youthful coronation, the capture of York (from the Saxons) and the battle of Badon Hill is taken wholesale.

Next comes Arvirargus, who represents 24% of Arthur’s plagiarised life, a British king from the early 1st century AD. In the Historia, Arthur’s subjugation of the Orkneys, his return home and marriage to Ganhumara (Queen Guinevere in later adaptions) parallels that of the earlier king, who married Genvissa on his return south.

Constantine’s statue in York. chrisdorney/Shutterstock

Constantine the Great, who in AD 306 was proclaimed Roman emperor in York, forms 8% of Arthur’s story, whilst Magnus Maximus, a usurper from AD 383, completes a further 39%. Both men took troops from Britain to fight against the armies of Rome, Constantine defeating the emperor Maxentius; Maximus killing the emperor Gratian, before advancing to Italy. Both sequences are later duplicated in Arthur’s story.

The final 12% of King Arthur’s life, as recounted by Geoffrey, repeat those of Cassivellaunus, a monarch from the 1st century BC, who, in Geoffrey’s version of events, was betrayed by his treacherous nephew Mandubracius, the prototype for Modred.

All this leaves just 1% of Geoffrey’s story of Arthur unaccounted for: the invasion of Iceland and Norway. This may, in fact, be no more than simple wish-fulfilment, the ancient Britons being accorded the full and total subjugation of what was later to become the homeland of the Vikings.

Arthur, as he first appears, in the book that launched his international career, is no more than an amalgam. He is a Celtic superhero created from the deeds of others. His literary and artistic success ultimately lies in the way that various generations have reshaped the basic story to suit themselves – making Arthur a hero to rich and poor, elite and revolutionary alike. As an individual, it is now clear that he never existed, but it is unlikely that his popularity will ever diminish.

Dr Miles Russell, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

What makes an exceptional athlete? Are people born with innate abilities which help them to succeed or is sporting talent nurtured through practice and training? As part of his ‘Great British Medallists’ research project conducted for UK Sport, Professor Tim Rees explored the importance of both nature and nurture in the development of elite athletes. The findings, which will be shared as part of his inaugural lecture, identified some of the differences between elite athletes (non-medal winning Olympians) and super elite athletes – those winning Olympic gold medals.

Expectations of top level athletes are ever increasing, so research that can help identify strategies to improve performance can make a significant difference to results. As part of his lecture, Professor Rees will dispel some of the commonly held misperceptions around sporting performance and will discuss what the future holds in terms of supporting top athletes.

Professor Tim Rees is a leading authority on human performance and talent development, his work published in the most prestigious and high-impact academic publications and featured in all major media including extensive interviews for BBC Radio 4 and US National Public Radio. His ‘Great British Medalists’ project was the most downloaded Sports Medicine article of 2016, earning a nomination for the Times Higher Education Project of the Year. His specialism has led to speaking engagements, collaborations, and consulting appointments worldwide.

Bournemouth University’s inaugural lecture series aims to celebrate new professorial appointments and the depth and breadth of research produced by the university. For further information on the inaugural lecture series, please visit www.bournemouth.ac.uk/public-lecture-series

About the event

To book your free ticket, click here.

Venue: AFC Bournemouth, Vitality Stadium, Dean Court, Kings Park, Bournemouth, BH7 7AF.

Date: Monday 20 November.

Time: 6:30pm for a 7pm lecture start.

Refreshments will be provided at the event.

For more information about the event, please contact Matthew Fancy: mfancy@bournemouth.ac.uk.

As North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and provocative missile tests draw the world’s attention, one crucial reality about the totalitarian regime has been left largely unnoticed: as bleak as life is for most who live in North Korea, it is often far worse for those who flee – most of whom are forced to suffer horrific human rights abuses away from the world’s scrutiny.

Since China shares a border with North Korea, it has become the first destination for desperate North Koreans who risk their lives to escape. An unofficial figure estimates that there are between 50,000 and 200,000 North Koreans living in China. The Chinese government denies most of them refugee status, instead treating them as economic migrants who have illegally crossed the border to seek work. Most have no formal identification or legal status. In addition, Beijing works together with Pyongyang to capture defectors and send them back, making their lives as escapees completely untenable.

I have interviewed many North Koreans now settled in the UK. Many of them told me they had been caught by the Chinese police and repatriated to the north a number of times, but managed to escape again and again. The combination of desperation, the denial of legal status and the terror of the Chinese police operation exposes these people to gross exploitation – especially women.

Among those who successfully leave North Korea, women make up the majority. In their search for freedom, many of them paradoxically end up being trafficked, detained and treated inhumanely because of their precarious and insecure positions in China as “illegal migrants”.

Vulnerability exploited

Drawn to what they hope is a guarantee of work, some women who cross the border are instead sold to Chinese or Korean-Chinese men in rural areas who cannot find wives due to poverty, undesirable living conditions, disability and the lopsided gender demographics created by the now-replaced one-child policy. Other women are abducted in public spaces, such as streets and trains, and forced into prostitution. As a survival strategy, a few women or family members volunteer themselves to be sold. Some are lucky enough to find decent and kind men, but they are a vanishingly small minority.

Most are locked up so they cannot escape. They are denied contact with their family members or friends, and often a whole village effectively becomes a community of guards to watch them so they cannot run. Many of the women forced into these relationships endure physical hardships, forced to work in the fields and do endless household chores. Some are trafficked to households with several men, where their keepers take turns to violate them on a regular basis.

During their captivity, many of them also become pregnant. If they manage to escape to other countries, such as South Korea, they are forced to leave their children behind – and since these children aren’t officially recognised in China, they are denied basic rights and entitlements, foregoing even basic healthcare and education.

And so even those fortunate enough to escape from their dire situations in North Korea and China are left with agonising worry and guilt about their left-behind children. Out of shame, many never talk about the intense pain they feel, instead suffering in lonely silence.

What must be done

A 2014 UN Commission of Inquiry report on the human rights situation in North Korea criticised the Chinese government for its violation of the human rights of North Korean refugees on a number of counts, including its repatriation of North Korean refugees, its failure to protect them from trafficking, and its refusal to recognise the children of North Korean women and Chinese men. However, the Chinese government rejected the commission’s report and refused to change its stance.

It is therefore time for the rest of the world to change the way it interacts with China. International organisations, governments and the media must apply even greater pressure on Beijing to change its policy towards North Korean refugees and the children they have in China; it must recognise that they’re entitled to refugee status by virtue of the human rights abuses they endure at home.

If governments are to act, their citizens and media must pressurise them to make this issue a higher priority. If a global campaign can gather enough momentum and strength, the Chinese government will be forced to listen and reconsider.

It may be a significant obstacle, but it is a challenge we can all play our part in. By demanding action, we can all support the fight against the sustained human rights abuse of desperate North Korean defectors and their invisible children. We might not be able to see it, but we know it’s happening – and we have a human duty to act.

Hyun-Joo Lim, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

For university students, work placements are heralded as a highly valuable opportunity. Taking a year out from studying to work in their chosen industry gives students a chance to learn more about their sector and get real life experience. Placements also allow students time to make contacts and network and prove themselves in a working role.

Shutterstock

Research has found that students are twelve times more likely to get higher grades after a placement. And that after a placement, student employability increases as many return to the same company for their first job.

Placements also allow universities to strengthen their reputation by building robust relationships with employers. And placement employers have the opportunity to try before they buy – assessing prospective employers in a real work situation without the drawbacks of interview. Other employers also gain from student placements, as they increasingly want graduates who can make an immediate impact on their organisation, and students who have completed a placement are able to offer this as evidence of their experience and skills.

There’s just one catch though – a lot of these placement years are unpaid. And this is perfectly legal – provided these placements are attached to a university course and last no more than one year.

Placement pressures

Students required to do an internship for less than one year as part of a UK-based further or higher education course aren’t entitled to the national minimum wage. And our new research shows that because of this, doing a placement can mean that many students get into debt and other financial difficulties.

The placement year is a time when students may have higher travel costs in actually getting to work, as well as additional expense of socialising in establishments that are more costly that the student union bar. Then there is also the work clothing to think about – students have to look smart when they are in the working world. Students are also liable for university fees during their placement – albeit at a lower rate than a tuition year. All of which can add up.

Placements can be a great opportunity for students but they can also end up being very costly. Shutterstock

The irony is of course that most interns are entitled to be paid the national minimum wage – but this doesn’t apply to so called “student internships”. So you could have an intern and a student on placement working side by side, doing the same job, and the same hours, with one entitled to the minimum wage and the other entitled to nothing.

This is something that impacts a lot of students – with more and more courses now offering an optional or even compulsory placement for students. It isn’t just smaller companies who aren’t paying people on placement either, even well-known, large companies have been found to be using unpaid interns.

Universities to some extent have acknowledged these extra outgoings and do provide small amounts of funding – for example to purchase an interview suit.
They can also provide grants to help offset these costs and may also grant bursaries to help students. But other sources of funding are limited, and student loans are only available up to £1,850 for the placement year.

Financial headaches

But for students with savings, or those from wealthier families, the picture is quite different. These students are often better placed to do unpaid placements – and through connections can sometimes even find ones that pay quite well.

This is creating a two tired system, and means that those students from less fortunate backgrounds may opt out of the work placement simply because they can’t afford it. It also means that firms also miss out on the unique talents and skills students from diverse but poorer backgrounds may offer.

Students should be paid for their work, not paying to work. Shutterstock

Going back into your final year of university with a load of debt and financial worries on your mind is of course not a great place to be – and will undoubtedly impact students in their critical year of study.

It’s not surprising then that studies into student well-being have shown poor mental health is often linked to financial problems. And in some cases, these financial problems can even result in students abandoning their university study altogether. It is clear then that this is something that needs to change, because ultimately during placement, students should be working to develop their careers, and not simply working up their debt.

Julie Robson, Senior Principal Acdemic (Marketing), Bournemouth University and Jillian Dawes Farquhar, Professor of Marketing, Southampton Solent University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.