New Jerusalem finds are evidence of Babylonian siege, archaeologists say
I wonder what Watchtower will do.. oh boy.. I guess they will have to miss out on history.
When secular sources confirm what the WTS, they point to that as proof of their scriptural proof of the WTS position. When secular sources don't confirm, then these same sources are lying or have only incomplete info, so the WTS position stands.
I've been at historical dig sites but never participated, it always looks like work. Not sure if this is just a PR story given the Jewish holiday, the find seems rather meager and it seems rather tenuous to date it to the destruction because a gold earring is in the layer. But interesting find. The headline also makes the Babylonia victory sound in dispute, its not in anything I've read.
There is a more complete report here. UNC Charlotte professor of history Shimon Gibson explains the basis for identifying it with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem.
"For archaeologists, an ashen layer can mean a number of different things," Gibson said. "It could be ashy deposits removed from ovens; or it could be localized burning of garbage. However, in this case, the combination of an ashy layer full of artifacts, mixed with arrowheads, and a very special ornament indicates some kind of devastation and destruction. Nobody abandons golden jewelry and nobody has arrowheads in their domestic refuse."
"The arrowheads are known as 'Scythian arrowheads' and have been found at other archaeological conflict sites from the 7th and 6th centuries BCE. They are known at sites outside of Israel as well. They were fairly commonplace in this period and are known to be used by the Babylonian warriors. Together, this evidence points to the historical conquest of the city by Babylon because the only major destruction we have in Jerusalem for this period is the conquest of 587/586 BCE," he said.
The clay artifacts also help date the discovery. The lamps, Gibson notes, are the typical high-based pinched lamps of the period.
There is no suggestion in the account that this excavation confirmed the year of the conquest to be 587/586 BCE, but it did establish the general period.