[grey_whiskers]

I explicitly said in so many words that I was not defending the Glastonbury legends, as I have never heard of them.

Anyone reading the thread can go up a couple of posts and see that.

My point is that your arguments from lack of corroborating stories are plainly insufficient as *proof* one way or another; although they are consistent with your allegations.

I then gave *plausible* mechanisms by which the Glastonbury legends might *happen* to be true, while by no means insisting that they were.

And bolstered this with an analogous historical situation (Troy) in which the historical elements were known to be mixed in with a lot of embellishments, etc.

I was critiquing the soundness of your chain of reasoning, rather than disputing your conclusions.

Cheers!

[SpringheelJack]

My point is that your arguments from lack of corroborating stories are plainly insufficient as *proof* one way or another; although they are consistent with your allegations.

If someone wants to hold onto the principle that "anything's possible," no matter how fatuous or improbable, then yes, but in the nitty gritty of history the objections I laid out are pretty unanswerable. The situation with Troy is not analogous.