🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <432@h-sc1.UUCP> friedman@h-sc1.UUCP (dawn friedman) writes:
>  
>I've been plowing through a small percentage of the various versions
>of the Arthur legend(s) from Malory on -- say, about twenty books in
>the past couple of months.  One idea that modern writers have picked
>up on is that Arthur may have been an actual king of the Celts in 
>England, around the time that Rome gave up on maintaining a presence
>in Britain and the Saxons were able to move in (the Celts having
>leaned on Roman protection too long) -- that would be around 400 AD,
>I think?  But I don't know anything about the evidence they used; [...]

?? I thought that the "Angles" were under protection from the Romans, and that
Hadrian's wall (and another, further north, I think, I can't remember what it
was called) was built as a defence to keep the Celts and the Picts out.

Other than that, I can't argue. It certainly doesn't seem like a Germanic
legend.

I vaguely remember reading something about 8 to 10 years back, I think, in
a newspaper (no, I don't believe all that I read in the newspapers) that some
archaelogists had uncovered a grave that for some reason they thought might
have belonged to the real king upon which the legend was based. Did anybody
else see this? Does anyone remember any details?
-- 
Bill Swan 	{ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill