https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/was-king-david-a-nomad-new-theory-sparks-storm-in-archaeology-1.10035052
Thanks for that one Duncan
It's a cut above most of news articles we usually see.
I'd assume that nomad is standing in for people who followed the grazing in a regular cycle according to the season. I'd be inclined to think the iconoclast might be onto something. One to watch maybe.
Of course, Peter James and David Rohl would suggest that the architectural remains are there, it is just that the archaeologists are looking in the wrong centuries...
I am not wholly convinced by the new chronology arguments, certainly not Rohl's version, but I am sympathetic to the original arguments by James et al that the current mainstream assumptions are potentially deeply flawed. I think their analysis of the problem is good, not necessarily the alternatives elaborated by Rohl.