Single Combat during the Trojan War

[Dan Howard]

That said, I think that the authors of CoD are trying to do a 'Velikovsky'. It's very similar to discussing 5th c. AD Britain. Part of their ideas certainly have merit, but they are in danger of wanting a achieve too much. They, too, are restrained by a dearth of historical material, and, too, should accept that some theories just cannot be proven - because no-one can.

All they are doing is removing the so-called Dark Ages which was an artificial construct to account for the fact that the current chronology is bollocks. Centuries of Darkness was written over ten years ago and nobody has put up a credible argument against its main conclusions. Every year there are more and more papers that support James' work. As I've said there are five in the last year alone.
John Bimson and Juan Tebes applied the new chronology to the Timna site and found that only by revising the timeline by the full 250 years could the previous inconsistencies between the Egyptian and Assyrian dating systems be resolved.
Last year Chapman attempted to redate Shoshenq I by going back to the original evidence and concluded, independently of CoD, that Shoshenq must belong to Stratum V, which was 9th-century BC.
Try reading Furlong's PhD thesis, which was done completely independently of CoD yet he came up with a very similar chronology.
http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au/R/V5JSVRMVLVQ ... ndle=GUEST