“Nazareth.” [276]
In a passage we have already considered, Finegan goes a step farther and uses Bagatti’s indeterminate results to support the doctrine of continuous habitation:
In 1970 Bellarmino Bagatti excavated along the north wall of the Crusader church and in some of the grottoes under the wall. When the medieval church was excavated in 1892 much debris was piled here, and in the piles of debris Bagatti found in inverse order (as thrown out in the excavations) pottery fragments from the Iron Age to the Roman , Byzantine, and Crusader periods; and in the grottoes likewise he found Roman as well as Crusader pottery, thus the site was certainly inhabited in the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. as well as earlier and later . (Finegan 1992:57; emphasis added.)
Compounding error upon error, Finegan’s statement has moved levels of magnitude beyond the slim evidence, which is now used as witness of settlement “from the Iron Age to the Roman,” and as proof of habitation at and around the turn of the era. It is stunning when we recall that all these claims go back to none other than the three so-called “Hellenistic” shards discussed above. We have seen that these artefacts are by all appearances Middle to Late Roman. Even if we put aside the other compromising elements of this excavation as listed above, there is nothing recovered which demonstrates eras “from the Iron Age to the Roman.”
In summary, let us review the interesting history of this small excavation site next to the Church of St. Joseph:
• In 1892, the Franciscans excavated the area. They were primarily interested in structural remains (pre-medieval wall foundations and pavements) and, indeed, were ultimately focused on discovering evidence from the time of Christ. Despite that pre-scientific age in archaeology, these early diggers surprisingly ignored the small artefacts and simply piled them to one side.
• In 1970 Bagatti re-excavated this pile of small finds and itemized precisely one hundred of them. He noted that no stratigraphy was possible because the site had been disturbed by his predecessors, and that in the pile of debris older finds were sometimes above more recent ones (later, Bagatti claimed to detect an “inverse” order in the pile). Among these hundred artefacts the Italian claimed that three were Hellenistic—this is the key point. However, there is nothing demonstrably Hellenistic about these shards at all, and all three appear, in fact, to be Roman.
• From the non-evidence presented by the three questionable shards, Bagatti claimed evidence from the Hellenistic Age, the Roman Period, and—by inference—the time of Christ. He noises this claim in his 1971 publication and in several dictionary articles. The archaeologist also (arbitrarily, I would suggest) associates the shard-pile with the adjacent Church of St. Joseph. All this is transparently directed at one goal: to use the St. Joseph excavation as evidence for habitation at the turn of the era and, indeed, for evidence of one particular habitation: that of the Holy Family. This linking of the St. Joseph excavation with the nearby Church and with the “Roman Period” (read: the turn of the era ) occurred to the archaeologist after publication of his 1970 article, and appears in his Communication of 1971. Ultimately, however, the fact that no Hellenistic and Early Roman evidence exists in the shard-pile invalidates all of Bagatti’s conclusions.
• In 1992 Finegan (cited above) overtly stated what Bagatti had merely implied, namely, that pottery fragments from the shard-pile dated “from the Iron Age to the Roman [Period].” Thus, once again the Great Hiatus in settlement is obliterated, as later Roman evidence appears Hellenistic and also from the time of Christ. Finally, Finegan cannot refrain from stating in black and white what Christian archaeologists from the beginning have wished to state: that “the site was
In a passage we have already considered, Finegan goes a step farther and uses Bagatti’s indeterminate results to support the doctrine of continuous habitation:
In 1970 Bellarmino Bagatti excavated along the north wall of the Crusader church and in some of the grottoes under the wall. When the medieval church was excavated in 1892 much debris was piled here, and in the piles of debris Bagatti found in inverse order (as thrown out in the excavations) pottery fragments from the Iron Age to the Roman , Byzantine, and Crusader periods; and in the grottoes likewise he found Roman as well as Crusader pottery, thus the site was certainly inhabited in the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. as well as earlier and later . (Finegan 1992:57; emphasis added.)
Compounding error upon error, Finegan’s statement has moved levels of magnitude beyond the slim evidence, which is now used as witness of settlement “from the Iron Age to the Roman,” and as proof of habitation at and around the turn of the era. It is stunning when we recall that all these claims go back to none other than the three so-called “Hellenistic” shards discussed above. We have seen that these artefacts are by all appearances Middle to Late Roman. Even if we put aside the other compromising elements of this excavation as listed above, there is nothing recovered which demonstrates eras “from the Iron Age to the Roman.”
In summary, let us review the interesting history of this small excavation site next to the Church of St. Joseph:
• In 1892, the Franciscans excavated the area. They were primarily interested in structural remains (pre-medieval wall foundations and pavements) and, indeed, were ultimately focused on discovering evidence from the time of Christ. Despite that pre-scientific age in archaeology, these early diggers surprisingly ignored the small artefacts and simply piled them to one side.
• In 1970 Bagatti re-excavated this pile of small finds and itemized precisely one hundred of them. He noted that no stratigraphy was possible because the site had been disturbed by his predecessors, and that in the pile of debris older finds were sometimes above more recent ones (later, Bagatti claimed to detect an “inverse” order in the pile). Among these hundred artefacts the Italian claimed that three were Hellenistic—this is the key point. However, there is nothing demonstrably Hellenistic about these shards at all, and all three appear, in fact, to be Roman.
• From the non-evidence presented by the three questionable shards, Bagatti claimed evidence from the Hellenistic Age, the Roman Period, and—by inference—the time of Christ. He noises this claim in his 1971 publication and in several dictionary articles. The archaeologist also (arbitrarily, I would suggest) associates the shard-pile with the adjacent Church of St. Joseph. All this is transparently directed at one goal: to use the St. Joseph excavation as evidence for habitation at the turn of the era and, indeed, for evidence of one particular habitation: that of the Holy Family. This linking of the St. Joseph excavation with the nearby Church and with the “Roman Period” (read: the turn of the era ) occurred to the archaeologist after publication of his 1970 article, and appears in his Communication of 1971. Ultimately, however, the fact that no Hellenistic and Early Roman evidence exists in the shard-pile invalidates all of Bagatti’s conclusions.
• In 1992 Finegan (cited above) overtly stated what Bagatti had merely implied, namely, that pottery fragments from the shard-pile dated “from the Iron Age to the Roman [Period].” Thus, once again the Great Hiatus in settlement is obliterated, as later Roman evidence appears Hellenistic and also from the time of Christ. Finally, Finegan cannot refrain from stating in black and white what Christian archaeologists from the beginning have wished to state: that “the site was
Similar Books
