Supposed C7th-C8th AD Umayyads belong to the Roman-Nabataean era

“The Greek language, adopted by the Nabataeans in the 1st c. CE, is –– with no discernible evolution –– employed some 700 years later for Umayyad inscriptions of the 8th century.”. Gunnar Heinsohn We read at: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/arabs-8th-century-heinsohn-04-2018%20(2).pdf the late professor Gunnar Heinsohn’s piece on: … Are Nabataean and Umayyad art styles really 700 years apart? So, who was capable to place 15 m deep cement foundations under Jerusalem's Umayyad palaces in front of the Temple Hill? Whose Arabic realm was located close enough to the Holy City to built [sic] there in such a massive way? Who were the Arabs well known for alliances with Jews (e.g., Maccabees against Seleucids)? Only the Nabataeans fit that profile. The Greek language, adopted by the Nabataeans in the 1st c. CE, is –– with no discernible evolution –– employed some 700 years later for Umayyad inscriptions of the 8th century. Umayyad soldiers were dressed in Greek fashion. They used the ballista (arradah) as artillery although its technology was more than 700 years old. At Tiberias, they are on record for having been stratigraphic bedfellows of 700 years earlier Romans, blossoming right after Hellenism of the 1st c. BCE: “During the course of a dig designed to facilitate the expansion of the Galei Kinneret Hotel, Hartal noticed a mysterious phenomenon: Alongside a layer of earth from the time of the Umayyad era (638-750[CE]), and at the same depth, the archaeologists found a layer of earth from the Ancient Roman era (37 B.C.E.-132[CE]). ‘I encountered a situation for which I had no explanation - two layers of earth from hundreds of years apart lying side by side’, says Hartal. ‘I was simply dumbfounded’.” (Barkat 2003). Damien Mackey’s comment: On this, see e.g. my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (4) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology Reconstruction of several of the six Umayyad Palaces (with 15 m deep cement foundations) that were, completely unexpected, discovered in the 1970s near the Western and Southern walls of Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. Herodian, Roman, and Byzantine urban strata beneath the palaces are occasionally claimed but were never verified -- either here or anywhere else! Since no Abbasid palaces have been found super-imposed on Jerusalem’s Umayyad palaces (only Abbasid “repairs” are claimed), the two Early Medieval Arab dynasties must have overlapped in the 8th -10th century period. [http://siramuharafa.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_3.html] [http://siramuharafa.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_3.html] [Go to original article] Eventually, the Israeli scholars decided to invoke a geological miracle to obey Christian chronology and, at the same time, make sense of the stratigraphy of Tiberias. That mover of a higher order was identified as a mega-earthquake of 749 CE afflicting all the lands from Damascus to Egypt. With surgical precision that desaster [sic] had pushed the 1st c. BCE ff. Roman material upwards until it stopped precisely at the Umayyad level of the 7th/8th c. ff. CE. The Arab material, however, was kept in its position in such a wondrous manner that the Roman material was neither allowed to stop inappropriately below nor to move inappropriately above the Arab material believed to have arrived some 700 years later. Yet, all the stratigraphic evidence does really show (for the period preceding the catastrophe that drowned the 2nd/3rd. c. CE Roman theatre of Tiberias) is the contemporaneity of 7th/8th ff. c. CE Arabs and 1st c. BCE to 2nd c. CE Romans. Thus, Early Medieval Umayyads followed as directly after Late Hellenisms (=Late Roman Republic = Late Latène of the 1st c. BCE) as Roman Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c. CE). However, misled by their stern belief in textbook chronology archaeologists have, time and again, distorted the situation laid bare by excavations to match their pre-conceived dates. Yet, the time to allow stratigraphy its say may be closer than ever. A recent example for such fresh openness is provided by Bet Yerah on the southern tip of Lake Kinnereth. For decades, a large fortified enclosure on this site (sector SA on the map below) was misidentified as a synagogue from Byzantine Late Antiquity (4th6th c.). Yet fresh excavations completed in 2013 point to the Umayyad qasr (castrum) of al-Sinnabra from the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th c.). That fortress cuts through the site’s Hellenistic walls whose period is dated some 700 years earlier. Even the name of the place, Al-Sinnabra or Sinn en-Nabra (Umayyad Arabic), is still the same as in Hellenistic times (700 years earlier) when it was known as Sennabris (Greek): “Post-Hellenistic presence on Tel Bet Yeraḥ was quite limited in extent and did not produce massive deposits. Early excavators reported Roman remains, but virtually nothing of this period can be identified in the remaining collections. Byzantine occupation appears to be limited to the church excavated and published by Delougaz and Haines” (Greenberg/Tal/Da’adli 2017, 1). Contiguous Hellenistic and Early Islamic remains, supposedly 700 years apart, were excavated all over the site. In a sounding of tower four, “we found that its foundation trench cut several walls of Hellenistic and Early Bronze date”. The western wall of tower five “was founded on an earlier Hellenistic wall”. Tower six covered a “portion of a water channel that appears to have drained the fortified area. The soil inside the channel was reported to contain ‘Roman’ glass and pottery” (all quotes from Da’adli 2017 b). Such Roman remains of Imperial Antiquity (1st -3 rd c.) are, indeed, to be expected on top of Late Hellenism buildings (ending in the 1 st c. BCE). Yet, they are contemporary with the Umayyad Early Middle Ages (8th -10th c.), too. No less intriguing are the mosaics of the Umayyad audience basilica. Stratigraphically, they belong to Bet Yerah’s Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd c. CE succeeding Hellenistic 1st c. BCE). Yet, they are very similar to Late Antique mosaics from “the second half of the fifth century CE” (Lower Chapel at Khirbat al-Mukhayyat [Mount Nebo]) as well as from “535-536” (Saint George at Kh. al-Mukhayyat). Finally, they resemble Early Medieval mosaics from the “eighth century CE” (Jabalal-Akhdar chapel at Amman) as well as the “eighth/ninth centuries” (Ramla; all quotes from Da’adli 2017 b). Thus, the mosaics belong to three periods at the same time: (1) Imperial Antiquity (in stratigraphy), (2) Late Antiquity (in style), and (3) Early Middle Ages (in style). They can do this only if all three periods represent facets of the 8th-10th c. time-span. A search for Arabs of the Hellenistic period, directly preceding 700 years later Ummayads, in and around Israel/Palestine, again, lands at the Nabataeans. Though they acted as vital players between Egypt and Syria, they were suddenly and mysteriously forgotten around the 1st/2nd c. CE. No less mysteriously striking similarities between images of Nabataean and Umayyad sculptures over a 700-year period have long been seen by art historians (e.g., Avi-Jonah 1942). Indeed, there are "close relations between the art of Ahnas and the Nabataean sculptural school reflected at Khirbat et Tannur. Despite the time gap between the sites, this affinity cannot be fortuitous" (Talgam 2004,100). ….