In 1971, Leslie Alcock claimed to "demonstrate that there is acceptable historical evidence that Arthur was a genuine historical figure, not a mere figment of myth or romance". Also in 1971, while conceding that Gildas does not mention Arthur, Frank Stenton says that this "may suggest that the Arthur of history was a less imposing figure than the Arthur of legend" but then argues that "it should not be allowed to remove him from the sphere of history." In 1977, John Morris argued in favour, but his work was widely criticised at the time as having "grave methodological flaws". David Dumville took the opposite position in the same year: "The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."