<HTML>Your methodology and logic is still that of Hancock's.
Troy was originally a myth/legend - Schliemann found <i>a</i> series of cities by following the account. Whether any of them is <i>the</i> Troy is uncertain.
Therefore we <i>might</i> find confirmation of other myths/legends.
Therefore there might have been Hancock's <i>LC</i>.....
In the <i>real</i> world of <i>facts</i> and <i>evidence</i> you can have as many myths/legends as you like but until there is some sort of archaeological confirmation they are just that - myths/legends, fairy stories....
That's why I quoted the Devil's Dyke and the Giant's Causeway. These are both totally natural features which those in the past with a more superstitious nature could only explain by supernatural means. What about things like dragons, sea sepents, unicorns, etc, etc, etc.
Just because something can move from myth to history gives absolutely no basis for considering that <i>anything</i> else can, or will.
That is the difference between history and pseudo-history.
John</HTML>
