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.

Advanced Trade from "Primitive" Ancestors

I'm always amused by how little credit we give our ancestors when it comes to ingenuity and mobility. The article below from Der Spiegel points this out well:

Bronze Age Espionage: Did Ancient Germans Steal the Pharaoh's Chair Design?: 

Roughly 3,500 years ago, folding chairs remarkably similar to ones found in Egypt suddenly became must-have items in parts of northern Europe. Scholars are now looking into this potential case of ancient industrial espionage.

The notion that man evolved from other lesser creatures forces us to think that man several thousand years ago could not have been capable of major technological feats, complex trade networks, and bluntly, thinking the way we think. Evolution (not adaptation within species) has handicapped us in understanding and appreciating the accomplishments of past civilizations. These blinders leave us with very limited theories on how great achievements from past civilizations were accomplished.

Since I believe in a God who created man in His image, I don't have these conundrums to deal with. I accept that from the beginning, man had the capability for all sorts of great accomplishments, and with the cumulation of technological advances over the millennia, he has been able to build on these advances to develop the advanced civilization we live in today. Disasters, such as the destruction of the Library of Alexandria and the collapses of ancient cultures, have taken away much of our ability to provide proper attribution where it was due.