Casting aside Arthur in search of fact

An interesting read from the Oxford University Press: Ten ways to rethink ‘Arthur’s Britain’:

1. Stop looking for ‘King Arthur’. 
2. Forget the characters, artefacts, and places of legend. 
3. Abandon the written sources.
4. It’s not just about the South — get some context!
5. ‘Arthur’ was not the defender of the Romans.
6. ‘Arthur’ did not fight against the Saxon invasion.
7. Britain wasn’t united — fifth-century factions.
8. Stop looking for Saxons or Britons.
9. There were no ‘knights’.
10. Start thinking in terms of a mess.

Well, this list sure takes the fun out of the matter. I suppose number one is a bit of contradictory advice for a gentleman trying to sell a book on the topic. We live in a stale, matter-of-fact world where if there is not room for conjecture or speculation. If a particular subject does not stand up to the scrutiny of whatever scientific or archaeologic application of a given period, it is discarded as false. Until it isn't, as was the case with Troy. There wasn't a Troy until the right person came along and dug in the right place. A fair amount of Homer's account of the Trojan was was vindicated, allowing for embellishment through oral tradition over generations. I'll stick with my probably-embellished-possibly-false accounts and enjoy the story.

So to be fair in my rant, I need to actually read the book and then comment back intelligently.