"unequivocal evidence"Interesting, to be certain, but
"unequivocal"? Not really.
As I learned watching raiders of the lost ark..."Archaeology is not an exact
science". It appears they've found ruins that suggest people existed
there in the past. That's all.
Hutt - "It appears they've found ruins that suggest people existed
there in the past. That's all."A little too obvious - what
ruins do not suggest people existed there in the past? I believe there is much
more data than people simply existed there. The art of archaeology is
interpreting the whole from little evidence and I appreciate the attempt even
though many interpretations are likely to be incorrect.
Did Garfinkel hear the sounds of silence?
Denial is not a river Egypt, there are none so blind as those who will not see!
They could find a name plaque stating "King David's Palace" and
most would still deny it existed. ie: RanchHand, Kralon, and Hutterite look away
nothing to see here!
@Befuddled;If they found a name plate stating that "King David
Lived Here", that would be "unequivocal evidence", and it would be
quite convincing.But they didn't find such a plaque, did they?
No, they simply found some ancient ruins, and those ruins could have been the
habitation of just about anyone of authority. King David was only one of many
rulers who happened to live in the area long, long, long, long, long ago.