Israeli Archeologist Claims to Find King David's Palace

[Toto]

King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/international/middleeast/05jerusalem.html)

An Israeli archaeologist says she has uncovered in East Jerusalem what may be the fabled palace of the biblical King David. Her work has been sponsored by a conservative Israeli research institute and financed by an American Jewish investment banker who would like to prove that Jerusalem was indeed the capital of the Jewish kingdom described in the Bible.

Other scholars are skeptical that the foundation walls discovered by the archaeologist, Eilat Mazar, are David's palace. But they acknowledge that what she has uncovered is rare and important: a major public building from around the 10th century B.C., with pottery shards that date to the time of David and Solomon and a government seal of an official mentioned in the book of Jeremiah.

. . .

Hani Nur el-Din, a Palestinian professor of archaeology at Al Quds University, said he and his colleagues considered biblical archaeology an effort by Israelis "to fit historical evidence into a biblical context." . . .

Even Israeli archaeologists are not so sure that Ms. Mazar has found the palace - the house that Hiram, king of Tyre, built for the victorious king, at least as Samuel 2:5 describes it. It may also be the Fortress of Zion that David conquered from the Jebusites, who ruled Jerusalem before him, or some other structure about which the Bible is silent.



The bulla, (governmental seal) is of Jehucal (or Jucal), son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi - who is mentioned at least twice in the Book of Jeremiah.

The dig, which has cost about $500,000, has been sponsored by Roger Hertog, a New York financier who is vice chairman of Alliance Capital Management and chairman of the board of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, founded as Israel's first "neoconservative think-tank."

another article (http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw112323762061B226)

[Toto]

Another story, without the King David Palace claim:

Royal seal unearthed (http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=86939)

A royal seal dating to the period of the First Temple has been found in an archeological dig in the City of David, adjacent to the Old City of Jerusalem. The seal’s inscription has the name of Jehudi, son of Shelemiah, one of the top officials in the court of the last Judean king prior to the destruction of the First Temple, King Zedekiah.. . .

. . . . Several years ago, another circa-580 B.C.E. royal seal was found in the same site. It had the name of Gemaryahu, son of Shafan, who is also mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah, and was a top official in the court of King Zedekiah's predecessor, King Yehoyachim.

[yalla]

What jumps out at me ,reading all the articles, is that the seal is dated 580bce and that is not the alleged time of Dave.
Somehow, unexplained, the claim is then transferred to the palace being centuries earlier.
What have I missed?

[Toto]

The seal is not dated to the time of David. It is the large building which is dated to around the 10th c. BCE. There is actually nothing to connect that building to David except a press release.

[yalla]

So at this stage we have nothing?

[Toto]

We have a building dating to about when King David would have been King, with some broken pieces of pottery.

[Naruto]

We have a building dating to about when King David would have been King, with some broken pieces of pottery.

Well, I'm convinced.

Hey, look at it this way, we went to war in Iraq with less!

[yalla]

Just a quicky...T.Thompson "the Mythic Past'' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006221/internetinfidels) pub. 1999 p.164.."Jerusalem was not known to be occupied during the tenth century [bce]".
It would seem that a building, with pottery, would contradict Thompson's statement and thus be a significant find if correctly dated.

[badger3k]

Just a quicky...T.Thompson "the Mythic Past''pub. 1999 p.164.."Jerusalem was not known to be occupied during the tenth century [bce]".
It would seem that a building, with pottery, would contradict Thompson's statement and thus be a significant find if correctly dated.

That's weird - from what I understand, Jerusalem was occupied, but it was a small village. I thought it's occupation went back a few hundred more years. I may not be recalling it correctly, but that claim is just odd.
:huh:

[andrewcriddle]

That's weird - from what I understand, Jerusalem was occupied, but it was a small village. I thought it's occupation went back a few hundred more years. I may not be recalling it correctly, but that claim is just odd.
:huh:
Jerusalem was certainly occupied in the late Bronze Age.

However, IIUC some 'minimalists' have argued that Jerusalem was abandoned for a period of a century or so in the early Iron Age including the traditional dates of David and Solomon and reoccupied around 900 BCE or slightly later.

Andrew Criddle

[yalla]

Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point.
He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town.
During the Mycenaean drought, which ended c1050 he describes the region's population as ''severely stressed and [in] diminished circumstances".
He then describes the recovery period and says Lachish was the regional centre and that Jerusalem only develops the political and economic structures of a city after the destruction of Lachish in 701bce.
He does not seem to be denying it's existence in some form but only that it is ''not known'' to have been occupied at this time..he states 10th centurybce.
Which verifies what you said.

So does this make the "David building'' in the report above pretty important, even if it has nothing to do with a David?
Or rather the prescence of pottery and therefore occupation?

[badger3k]

Jerusalem was certainly occupied in the late Bronze Age.

However, IIUC some 'minimalists' have argued that Jerusalem was abandoned for a period of a century or so in the early Iron Age including the traditional dates of David and Solomon and reoccupied around 900 BCE or slightly later.

Andrew Criddle

Thanks - I hadn't been aware of that.

[Wayne P]

What jumps out at me, at least from the little I've read here, is that finds have been made that, just coincidentally, confirm what the sponsors of the dig want to find. And that out of all the hundreds, or thousands if you believe the OT, of servants of the king of Judah, they find seals for two that are MENTIONED in the bible.

Has not the ossuary debacle taught these people to be a little more skeptical of such convienent claims?

[howzat]

Andrew: I re-read Thompson to clarify the point.
He refers to Jerusalem prior to 1050bce as a village/town.

At the risk of getting a chuckle...Who is Thompson? I'm new to the list and interested but not (yet) well informed. So far I have just been lurking. Who elso writes early history that might be interesting to read? :wave:

[yalla]

Howzat.
No chuckle.
I'm new at this also.
See post #8 above for Thompson.

More directly related to "biblical archaeology [sic]" and generally regarded as an excellent, authoritive, easy to read book is "The Bible Unearthed (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=651)" by I.Finkelstein and N.A Silberman, pub. Simon and Schuster NY 2002.

I prefer "Archaeology and the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415159946/internetinfidels)", John Laughlin, pub Routledge, London 2000.

Celsus at the EvC forum has a great intro to all this.

Doubtless some people who do know what they are talking about can give you better info.

[badger3k]

Secrets of the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1578261724/internetinfidels), from Archaeolog Magazine (ISBN: 1-57826-172-4) is an easily accessible book that covers a variety of topics from a variety of authors. It's another good place to start.

[Toto]

This article from the Jerusalem Post has more details: Shards of Evidence (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1123640629316)

But it is the piles of pottery found in and around the building that is of the most critical importance to archeologists, since it is through the pottery that the building can be dated.

The pottery found under the building dated back to the last phase of the Iron Age I, 12th-11th century BC, just before David conquered Jerusalem, and predates the construction of the building.

In one of the rooms, Mazar's team also found pottery from Iron Age II of the 10th-9th century BC, leading her to conclude that the building was in use at the time, roughly the period of David?s reign in Jerusalem.

"It is obvious that whoever constructed this building not only built a monumental structure in and of itself, but was creating and initiating a whole new concept relating to the planning of the ancient city," she said.

Mazar's team did not find any construction predating the 11th century BC at the site, leading her to exclude the possibility that the building served as a Jebusite citadel, such as the Fortress of Zion that David captured from the Jebusites, as recounted in Samuel II 5:7.

"It is unrealistic to assume that the Fortress of Zion was built in the very last days before King David captured the city," she said.

OTHER ARCHEOLOGISTS, in spite of the attention they have heaped on the find, are not convinced that Mazar has truly stumbled upon the fabled palace of King David, with some voicing guarded optimism over the discovery and others downright skeptical.

[rob117]

I think the immediate association of the building with a palace mentioned in the Bible is pretty irresponsible- for all we know, it could simply be a public building or an administrative building.

Regardless of that, it does provide evidence of urban development in Jerusalem long before the fall of Samaria, so the extent to which Judah could be considered a "rural backwater" before then may have to be reexamined.

[spin]

It might be better not to follow Mazar in jumping the gun.


spin

[Toto]

The Washington Post has discovered the story:

A Dig Into Jerusalem's Past Fuels Present-Day Debates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101944.html) Mazar's find is emerging at the nexus of history, religion and politics, volatile forces that have guided building, biblical scholarship and war in this city for millennia. Even before the findings have been assembled in a scientific paper, the discovery is prompting new thinking about when Jerusalem rose to prominence, the nature of the early Jewish kingdom, and whether the Bible can be used as a reliable map to archaeological discovery.

. . .

Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology said Mazar's interpretation should be understood as the latest in a series of "messianic eruptions" designed to bolster the image of David as a ruler of an important civilization, an idea that has lost currency in recent years in part because of Finkelstein's writing against it.

"That is why you are seeing this interpretation, to counter that momentum against it," said Finkelstein, co-author of the book "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts."

"It's an important find, and I'm not underestimating it," he said. "But from what she has found to the palace of David is a big distance."

. . .

But Finkelstein said Mazar's find appeared to show that Jerusalem, while perhaps not important during David's time, began emerging as an important city earlier than he previously believed.

"This is the missing link we have been looking for. It represents the first step in the rise of Jerusalem to prominence in the 9th century," he said. "Why does it have to be the palace of David? Once you bring that in you sound like something of a lunatic."

[praxeus]

The Washington Post has discovered the story:

A Dig Into Jerusalem's Past Fuels Present-Day Debates (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101944.html)If Finkelstein iis giving even a grudging acknowledgment, that is really something.

A while back I was in touch with the org of the late Ernest Martin , Askelm, and I was told that they would be some digging in the City of David/Silwan area. As I understand, there are some who actually place the 2nd Temple there, and consider the western wall and Temple Mount area to be part of Fort Antonio, not the 2nd Temple (very controversial view, of course). I think thats the area of this dig, and the likely prime spot for new archaelogical discoveries.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

[yalla]

Praxeus "If Finkelstein iis giving even a grudging acknowledgment, that is really something."

But there is a big step between what is acknowledged [ Jerusalem beginning, note beginning, ie "first step", to be an important city earlier than expected , c9cbce,] and jumping to Dave 100 years plus earlier...note ''big distance"/ ''lunatic''.
Finkelstein:
"This is the missing link we have been looking for. It represents the first step in the rise of Jerusalem to prominence in the 9th century," he said. "Why does it have to be the palace of David? Once you bring that in you sound like something of a lunatic."

Wait and see seems appropriate.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If Finkelstein is giving even a grudging acknowledgment, that is really something.
What do you think he's acknowledging? At the most he's acknowldging that Jerusalem may have existed as a city (albeit an unimportant one) in the 9th century BCE. As Finkelstein himself says, that's a long, long way from claiming this building has anything to do with the Biblical David.

And for the record, the possibility of a Davidic kingdom is not something that was ever ruled out by Finkelstein and Silberman anyway. They don't say David couldn't have existed, only that if he did exist, he would have been a much less significant figure than what the Bible portrays- essentially he would have been a minor tribal chieftain, not anything like the powerful king of legend.