ANCIENT INQUIRY
AT-1658

Digging Up Armageddon: The Search for the Lost City of Solomon

DOI · Claim origin / tracking

verifiedRetraction / correction review1 usage record

Source record

This is one canonical bibliographic record with topic-scoped research-use entries. It does not reproduce the paper, book, text, dataset, image, or manuscript and does not imply that full text was reviewed.
Canonical source ID
AT-1658
Accepted usage IDs
AT-1658
Types
DOI
Roles
Claim origin / tracking
Verification
verified
Archive state
unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Access
unavailable-through-registered-public-or-tdm-routes
Rights
not identified; not cleared
Public reproduction
Not cleared; citation and link only.
Correction / retraction
no retraction flag in checked Crossref/OpenAlex metadata

Recorded research uses

AT-1658

Megiddo / Armageddon

Why Ancient Inquiry uses this citation here

Eric H. Cline's archaeological and archival history of excavation at Megiddo; use to distinguish changing site interpretations from prophecy reception and to contextualize older Solomonic attributions.

What this usage does not establish

Bibliographic verification does not by itself establish that the full text was read.
Open topic

Topics citing it and claims using it

Topic citing this source

Megiddo / Armageddon

Open topic
Supporting citation for public claim

Older 'Solomonic' attributions at Megiddo have been reassessed through stratigraphy, radiocarbon chronology, and regional comparison; specific redatings remain debated.

Answer / theory: Older excavators linked some structures to Solomon, but later scholarship has debated and redated parts of the Iron Age sequence. What supports it: Biblical memory of royal building and earlier excavation interpretation. What is weak or disputed: Stratigraphy and chronology remain debated. Evidence level: Mixed Evidence.
Open claim topic
Supporting citation for public claim

At Megiddo, stratigraphy and dated occupation phases support long-term settlement accumulation rather than a single mud-flood or reset event.

Answer / theory: No. A tel forms through repeated human occupation, rebuilding, collapse, debris accumulation, and erosion over long periods. What supports it: Standard archaeological stratigraphy at tells across the Near East. What is weak or disputed: Mud-flood interpretations usually ignore excavation methods and layer-by-layer dating. Evidence level: Debunked or Very Unlikely for mud-flood claims.
Open claim topic

Access and actions

Digging Up Armageddon: The Search for the Lost City of Solomon

Open original

Search Ancient Inquiry

Open complete search

Visual theme

Theme intensity changes decoration only. Evidence and relationship semantics never change.

Prepare an issue report

This static site cannot transmit a correction by itself. It prepares a complete report with page and build provenance for the published corrections channel.

Open corrections instructions