This approach has been deepened (pun intended) by other archeologists and broadened by Arab and pro-Pal. proagandists. Israeli use of archaeology is worthless, but Arabs can do the same thing and "prove" non-supportable claims. See here and this one too although I seem to recal that Glock was killed by a Pal.
Anyone, here's Broshi's take on her Jerusalem dig:
The final site excavated by Kenyon was Jerusalem, and here she was not so lucky. In effect, the digs there, as they are described in the book, were post-climactic. Despite the huge investment - seven digging seasons between 1961 and 1967 - with up to six sites operating simultaneously, employing hundreds of workers, the results were small in number and also unimportant. One reason for this is that while Jordan was still in charge of the old city, Kenyon was not permitted to work in the areas where other archaeologists - like Benjamin Mazar, who excavated south and southeast of the Temple Mount, and Nahman Avigad, who worked in the Jewish Quarter - later discovered many important finds. (Kenyon's work was restricted because the Waqf Muslim religious trust was opposed to excavations in the Jewish Quarter, since there were Palestinian refugees living there).
The second reason is related to the limitations of her modus operandi, the Wheeler-Kenyon method, which relied on examinations in a limited zone and refrained from exposing a horizontal area. Careful examinations in pits, as meticulous as they may be, are likely to lead to a result similar to that of the Indian fable about the three blind men who fell on an elephant but were unable to identify it correctly: The person who fell on the tail shouted "ropes," the one who encountered the legs declared "planks," and the third, who climbed on the tusks, yelled "swords." Only a dig that exposes a horizontal area is likely to take in the whole "elephant."
(Kippah tip: Tod Bolen)