Umayyads as Nabataean Arabs

by Damien F. Mackey “Although [Leen] Ritmeyer knows that the Umayyads have built directly on Jerusalem ruins of 70 AD, he believes that they have been waiting for over 600 years to do so. That is why the Temple Mount is said to have remained empty (“abandoned”) until the 7th century. After all, no building of the 130s AD attributed to Hadrian has ever been found”. Professor Gunnar Heinsohn Nor should we expect to find any “buildings of the 130s AD attributed to Hadrian” if I am correct in my quite non-conventional conclusions that: (i) the Grecophilic emperor, Hadrian, was none other than the Seleucid Greek tyrant, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ of the Maccabean era; and (ii) the reign of the tyrant Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ approximated to the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Regarding (i), see e.g. my article: Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian (4) Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Emperor Hadrian And, regarding (ii), see e.g. my article: Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” (2) Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain” Also, the absolutely shocking archaeological finding that the Umayyads – supposedly Islamic successors of the prophet Mohammed in the C7th and C8th ’s AD – belonged archaeologically to the Roman era at the approximate time of Jesus Christ: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (2) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology annihilates, in one breath, Mohammed, the Rashidun, and the Umayyad caliphates. For more on this, see e.g. my article: Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate (4) Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate That the Umayyads have been archaeologically misplaced to a terrible degree is apparent from what the late professor Gunnar Hesinohn has written about them and the Nabataeans: …. If one asks Israeli scholars where Umayyads built in other regions of Israel, they know very well, for example for Beth Yerah, that they built directly, without intervening windblown layers, on Hellenistic structures of the 1st c. BC/AD. Thus, they know that Umayyad Arabs, centered around Damascus, built stratigraphically at the time of the blossoming of Nabataean Arabs that were centered in Damascus, too. They also know that Umayyad coins of the 7th/8th c. AD constitute, including the menorahs with five or seven branches, a direct evolution of Hasmonean coins from the 1st c. BC. And, furthermore, they claim that Nabataean and Umayyad art and architecture are indistinguishable because the latter were intent wanted to copy the former 700 years later, down to the pigments of glass coloring. Therefore, the Umayyads would not have needed any art of their own. However, Israeli glass specialists have dropped the term "Byzantine-Islamic glass" because they can no longer hide that Islamic glass, supposedly from the 8th c., is made like Roman glass from the 1st c. AD. The same scholars also know that Arab Nabataean soldiers, not men from Italy, conquered Jerusalem for Titus in 70 AD. However, Arabs as such, i.e. those Nabataean-like Umayyads, would have waited more than 600 years to settle Jerusalem. And yet there are no newly built residential quarters for these alleged new settlers of the 7th/8th century, although they left behind magnificent palaces as well as Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.