" 

David Rohl himself claims that . I did not say one scholar looked at it. As to what the rest who looked at it thought, it is not reported that they called it rubbish  well, then why the hell is the only academic we can cite on the matter the very man who called it ""rubbish""?  ""It is not reportedthat they called it rubbish"" is a non-starter. Do you, or do you not, have scholarly reviews of this thing that reflect more favourably on it than Kitchen? If you do, why do you not point us to them already? I do not know if there are favourable reviews, but your consistent refusal to produce any make me very suspicious that there may not, in fact, be any."