How much credence is now being given to Velikovsky's criticism of
chronology (1)in relation to Dark ages of Greece (11) Anatolian layer 
configuration ? I refer in the main to his "Ages in Chaos " but not
only that. Are any substantial Archeologists considering the
desirability of revising the chronology of these times.

---

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 15 May 2004 00:32 PDT

1) Are you still interested in an answer?

2) The question is hard since it contains the qualifier
  "substantial"  Archeologists... 

 The chronology is a currently an open issue, and there are people who 
 support Velikovski's ideas and people who opose them. The 'establishment
 concensus' is often changed slowly, often by people whoe not 'substantial'
 at the time.
 

I  could not pass judgement on 'who is substantial' and who is 'right',
but can give you $10 worth of references, such as 
http://www.pibburns.com/catastro/cochran2.htm
who discuss the issue critically.

see e.g.:

(1) evolution in the wake of catastrophic extinctions;

This idea was not original with Velikovsky...

Do you want that as an answer?

No credence whatsoever......on either (i) or (ii). There are no
"substantial" archaeologists considering revisions along the lines of
Velikovsky.

This doesn't mean that accepted chronologies are correct - only that
Velikovsky was, definitely and spectacularly, wrong.