Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology

by Damien F. Mackey “I was lookin' for love in all the wrong places Lookin' for love in too many faces”. Johnny Lee Sounds a bit like the modern archaeologist! Aligned to, and burdened by, a chronological timetable (Sothic) that can be anything from hundreds to thousands of years out of kilter with reality, they can invariably find themselves digging “in all the wrong places” at all the right times, or vice versa. I have described Israeli archaeologists searching for the stratigraphical level of kings David and Solomon as, metaphorically, standing in it, whilst looking about elsewhere. When a shock archaeological situation arises, as arise it inevitably will, and often, they do not know how to process it. Their timetable would never have allowed them to have anticipated it. A classic case in point to which I have referred in recent articles is this one. Professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP) wrote about this shock to convention: “… Haaretz reported that during a dig in Tiberias, archaeologist Moshe Hartal “noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation — two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side,’ says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded”.” ‘Simply dumbfounded’ is a reasonable first reaction, I guess, from one who has been schooled in the Sothic chronology. A revisionist such as professor Heinsohn, on the other hand, might have anticipated it. For he knew that the Umayyads were contemporaneous with – likely the same as – the Nabateans of Petra fame. See: https://heinsohn-gunnar.eu/mt-content/uploads/2021/08/arab-coinage-hiatus-between-nabataean-1st-c-and-jewish-style-of-umayyad-8th-c-heinsohn-21-august-2021.pdf Israeli archaeologist in Jerusalem, Eli Shukron, is in a somewhat similar position. He is being amicably questioned by Christian researchers such as Dr. Frank Turek and Bob Cornuke to provide a satisfactory answer about the apparent: Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem (4) Evidence found of the Temple of Yahweh that King Solomon built in Jerusalem | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But how can he? Israeli archaeologists are Sothically committed to King Solomon (presumably he ever even existed) inhabiting the Iron Age. The recent finds pertaining to the Temple of Yahweh built by King Solomon, on the other hand, are of the much earlier (late) Middle Bronze era. For the conventional archaeologist, King Solomon and Middle Bronze do not compute. To think so would be for them like … lookin' for [data] in all the wrong places …. Still, Dr. Turek asks the relevant question: So why isn’t Shukron suggesting his site is where the temple was? If true, it would be the greatest archaeological discovery of all time! I had dinner with Eli, Bob and a couple of others to discuss that question. Dr. Turek then answers his question, whilst showing respect for the situation in which one like Eli Shukron finds himself: First, there is the weight of the consensus site. If the true site is actually in the City of David, just how did the Temple Mount become the dominant site in the first place? Cornuke provides some plausible historical answers in his book. He also shows the text of the Bible and other historical witnesses seem to point to the City of David. Nevertheless, maybe the general consensus in favor of the Temple Mount is correct. Second, as a noted Israeli archaeologist, Shukron would need to evaluate more of the evidence and the opinions of his colleagues before he would ever entertain making a shift on such a monumental question. The Temple Mount is so entrenched in tradition, politics, and Jewish identity—the Western Wall being the holiest Jewish site for prayer—that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. Eli Shukron, for his part, is - as one might have anticipated (that word again) - holding out like a good poker player: However, Shukron is open to the possibility. He told us that the location of the Temple is certainly a topic worthy of debate. That debate could be ratcheted up when he presents his findings to a group of archaeologists at a conference in Jerusalem at the end of July. If it’s not Solomon’s Temple, then whose Temple did Shukron discover? When I asked him that question, he just said, “we’ll see.” …. Dumbfounded archaeologists ‘ratchet’ downwards to dumb level when, faced with a shock such as the one Moshe Hartal encountered in Tiberias, leave the matter there. The stratigraphical data at Tiberias had revealed that the Romans at roughly the time of Jesus Christ were contemporaneous with the Umayyads, supposedly succeeding Mohammed in the mid-600’s AD. A discrepancy of more than half a millennium! That means that the prophet Mohammed could not have existed in the C7th AD. Nor could the Umayyads have been what the history books tell us they were. Dumb archaeology fails to take the matter any further? Why? As Dr. Frank Turek has explained: … the opinions of … colleagues before … ever entertain[ing] making a shift on such a monumental question … so entrenched in tradition, politics … that any shift in opinion would be met with great resistance. It’s not a shift one should make overnight. Not “overnight”, or, probably, ever – unless one is Truth driven. “we’ll see.” ….