NYT: King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says

[Caleb]

King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: August 5, 2005

JERUSALEM, Aug. 4 - 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.

The discovery is likely to be a new salvo in a major dispute in biblical archaeology: whether the kingdom of David was of some historical magnitude, or whether the kings were more like small tribal chieftains, reigning over another dusty hilltop.

The find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem - whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation.

Full story

[babylonsister]

1. Thanks, Caleb, and welcome to DU! I'm sad

that this will cause more of a religious rift, but, if validated, is quite a find-what a buzz for the archaeologist!

[barb162]

2. This seems to be a very major find and a treasure

[fighttheevilempire]

3. "The find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem..

"The find will also be used in the broad political battle over Jerusalem - whether the Jews have their origins here and thus have some special hold on the place, or whether, as many Palestinians have said, including the late Yasir Arafat, the idea of a Jewish origin in Jerusalem is a myth used to justify conquest and occupation."

I'm sorry, but I need a reality check here. Jews were living in Jerusalem for more than a thousand years before Islam was invented, yet the Arabs want to claim the Jews have unjustly occupied the land? They're joking right? How is this even being seriously debated?

That's like saying that the Pope's claim to the Vatican is a myth and an unjust occupation, even though they've been in charge there the last 1200 years. These radical Islamics are probably the only ones more crazy than the radical religous Repubs here.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. Both sides use the same denial tactics...

Each version of the past wipes the 'other' from the record in attempts to try to show that there is only one religion that has a special hold on Jerusalem and therefore has some special claim to sovereignty over the entire city. As for current day claims that Israel isn't occupying East Jerusalem because of claims that Jews were living in Jerusalem before Islam came into being, that's just crap. Religion should have zero to do with sovereignty over the city. The city is of significance to three major religions and none of those religions have any special claim over it that's more important than that of the other religions...

I found the first chapter of 'City of Stone: The Hidden History of Jerusalem' online for anyone interested in Jerusalem...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0520205219/ref=sib_rdr_ex/002-4945340-4175228?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S006&j=0#reader-page

hope that url works because it looks a bit weird...

Violet...

[eyl]

5. 'm not aware

of any significant Jewish figure who denied that the Muslims have a link to Jerusalem.

[leftynyc]

6. That's because there hasn't been

but moral relativism is big on this site.

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Same advice goes to you..

Read the chapter I linked to...

[leftynyc]

9. The fact that I think Jerusalem should be an

international city is not even the point here. I've seen a disturbing pattern of moral relativism here. The fact is that when Jordan had control of Jerusalem, Jews weren't allowed to pray at what they consider their holiest site. Do you consider that pertinent to how the Israeli's feel?

[Violet_Crumble]

10. What's Jordan got to do with it?

Go back and read what I originally said and if you get the urge to discuss what I said, then go for it. Oh, and read the chapter of 'City of Stone' that I linked to if you get the urge....

Violet...

[leftynyc]

11. I did read it

My response is "so?"

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Oh-kay...

Silly me for posting a link to something that's not discussing Jerusalem and the way the history of the city is cleansed of mention of Arabs or Jews, depending on the version being listened to. Maybe next time I should post something more relevant that's written by someone like a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, I guess :shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Read the thing I linked to...

[bemildred]

13. Yeah, then again it might be the first Mickey D's in Jerusalem.

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.

The discovery is nice, the attempt to use it to make political points is tacky.