For example I think of 607. This is one issue that is not disputed in the archeological community, but because of past failures, it allows the Watchtower to question all credibility.
It's the Watchtower's responsibility to examine the data of archelogical findings and then form an opinion. That's the Watchtower's MO: Preconceived notions.
I also would not call it Archelogical failures, but rather just a matter of jumping the gun :)
Big difference between the Archelogical Community and the Jehovah's Witnesses: Archeology doesn't perport to be God's mouthpeice... it's ok, and admitingly frustrating, for Archeology to run ahead of themselves.
Your response makes me think of personal responsibility in general as well. Unlike the Watchtower, Archeology has all their data (for their conclusions) available to all who asks. So if we disagree with some findings we should look into the raw evidence and draw our own conclusion... also if our conclusion is drastically different than the offical explanation then it would be prudent to write them about it.
Such a different process than with the Watchtower... can you imagine if the Archeology Community just asked everyone to "wait on God" as an excuse for when their explanations for their findings don't make sense.