Nothing recent that I can think of. They may be referring to Leslie Alcock's
1960s/1970s excavations at Cadbury which was interpreted as a war lord's
fort of this period. The Arthuran context was played up but there was no
real assocaition with Arthur. The feeling 30 years ago when I had to study
all this in great detail from a very antiseptic perspective was there may
have been an Arthur who may have fought the Saxons at the battle of Badon
(and even that wasn't certain) but that was about as far as one could
stretch the eveidence. There was some stuff in my paper today arguing Merlin
was derived from a well attested Pictish prince called Myrddin who fought
the Irish.

paul courtney
Leicester
UK


----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron May" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: King Arthur


> I just returned from watching the latest version of King Arthur. The
opening
> starts with the statement new archaeological evidence supports revised
> thinking on the legend. What is that new evidence? Does anyone out there
know what
> they meant?
>
> Ron May
> Legacy 106, Inc.