That you think that Cassuto's "use" of archaeology drove his argument shows your ignorance of his work and your willingness to ignore his literary bent. I have the book open. On what page does he "use" archaeology? I have a 2005 edition, 117 pages long. The word "archaeology" doesn't appear at all in the text of the lectures or the notes. He does approach it in his commentary on Genesis, but he does so to support his understanding. If you dismiss his "use" of archaeology because it disagrees with you then you are left with his literary analysis (which you cannot counter, being out of your depth). If you accept it then you have a problem because then archaeology "proves" you are wrong. But anyway, based on what you have said, that point is moot. Was Cassuto an archaeologist? No, so you reject him outright anyway...
He does not need to use the word... His research his based on texts which were confirmed, corrected and/or have additions based on cross-references of older texts like the Aleppo and Leningrad Codecs along with cross-referencing other Latin and Greek versions. Let not pretend in his own biography are not full of authors which used this as well. Let also not pretend that the Aleppo Codex was flawless since the Dead Sea scrolls showed this was not the case. Lets not pretend various manuscripts were never found by archaeologists.
Now when it comes to his books many of his arguments are guilty of the very claim he throws at DH. On page 16-17 he states the DH regarding the Divine Names and that there was a redacting. His counter is that that the author changed these name for a subjective reason the reader is unable to comprehend. Apparently only Cassuto is able to comprehend this change despite his claims of lack of comprehension. Thus this becomes nothing more than an assertion and special pleading. This is evident when he provides the reasons for doing so based on, /drum roll, the same text along with the cultural shift he sites as Kings which would make it an anachronism. This is further emphasized by his reliance on later texts regarding Jersulem. A major problem is that Kings is at 5 centuries later .He is ignorant of boths names uses in the Canaanite religion so only assume the shift is based on Jerusalem and the evolution from Hebrews to Israelite which as pointed out is to read anachronism into the text. He continues with his anachronisms only reinforcing the view that DH is correct since his first basis is that of special pleading. On page 23 he finishes countering his own argument by reinforcing the anachronism while also refuting his earlier argument for YWHW in Genesis by identifying the name as strictly within the Israelite character but the context of Genesis is of the Hebrew character. This, again, only reinforces the anachronism within the text and contradicts his own claims. If you wish I can go into more detail but it will have to be later tonight.
Your single minded adherence to some vain belief that archaeology can definitively prove or disprove every historical claim is another example of the blinders you choose to wear. Your are a fundamentalist of the worst kind -- arrogant in both your attitude towards your field and to the place of your field in a broader intellectual construct. It is just plain sad to watch you try to spin everything to conform to some limited world view instead of seeing that there are fields that simply aren't part of your purview. You are a joke.
Archaeology is the study of history and your text is a part of history as are it's content. Considering archaeology has refuted much of the Exodus and Conquest narratives you reliance on a text as which is not accurate is absurd to say the least. Archaeology only reinforces the anachronisms with the Bible making your view untenable and strictly ideological motivated which is based on your religion. Unlike yourself archaeology takes textual evidence and uses it to create an accurate representation of history. While you only use your text as evidence while ignoring archaeology completely. You have isolated your text from any source which contradicts it. While for Cassuto he can not be guilty of ignoring evidence he was not aware of since it was not discovered during his time I can not extend this to you. Keep your religious fundamentalism going, it shows you willingly ignore evidence for the sake of your ideology.