Then they found actual evidence. I'm happy to change my mind if there is something convincing beyond "hey this fits our expected timeline"; there are extremely convincing textual clues matching the location of Troy. We don't even have that with King Arthur.
The excavation of Troy also destroyed a lot of evidence in the dude's eagerness to find the "original" Troy, so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths.
To be fair, The Bosporus isn't short of possible archaeological digs. I would hate being a developer anywhere around there.
>so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths.
I wouldn't read to far into the article, I don't think they are digging around looking for myths so much as excavating a undocumented, historic site and using the King Arthur story for media coverage or interest.
Note how everything related to King Arthur is simply added by the author of the article and all the quotes from the individuals involved in the project don't mention a thing about Arthur, but limited to: items located, potential origins of the items recovered, possible dates etc...
The excavation of Troy also destroyed a lot of evidence in the dude's eagerness to find the "original" Troy, so if anything it's a good argument against eagerly digging around looking for myths.
To be fair, The Bosporus isn't short of possible archaeological digs. I would hate being a developer anywhere around there.