Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times
Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archaeologist, stood amid the ruins of a huge public building of the 10th century B.C. that she
believes may be the remains of King David's palace in a biblical Jewish capital.
Posted on 08/05/2005 3:28:29 AM PDT by Pharmboy
Rina Castelnuovo for The New York Times
Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archaeologist, stood amid the ruins of a huge public building of the 10th century B.C. that she
believes may be the remains of King David's palace in a biblical Jewish capital.
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.
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...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
It was first printed in 1956. I keep it as a bathroom book, as it always fascinates! I am amazed at the lengths people go to to disprove the linkage of the Jews to their promised land.
Gary: thanks for the post--I will read the whole thing over the weekend. And have a great WE yourself...
No--that's where all the arabs are. LOL!
What's GGG?
Gods, Graves and Glyphs...
Refriedman ping.
But, I still do not understand the apparent dogfight over Jerusalem and Jewish origins.
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.
Apparently, I am not alone in my confusion. Found the following comment on the article at PaleoJudaica.com, a weblog on ancient Judaism and its context.
. . . we have plenty of evidence that Jerusalem was inhabited by Hebrew-speaking Judeans during the Iron Age II, especially the last century or so of it (e.g., references to biblical kings in the Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, the Hezekiah's tunnel inscription, the Siloam tomb inscription, the Ophel ostracon, etc.). There is legitimate debate about the nature of David's and Solomon's supposed empires and how reliable the biblical sources are for the Iron Age II, but that is another issue and should not be conflated with the frequently bizarre claims of the Palestinians. I don't know exactly what "origins" means here and I don't want to get into the endlessly debatable topic of the political implications of what we do know about Iron Age-II Jerusalem.
The blogger is James "Jim" Davila, a lecturer in early Jewish studies at St. Mary's College, University of Fife, Scotland. If he's uncertain what is being claimed about origins, then I'm in fair company.
From the Jewish Virtual Library:
Ever since King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago, the city has played a central role in Jewish existence. . . . By contrast, Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab entity. In fact, it was a backwater for most of Arab history. Jerusalem never served as a provincial capital under Muslim rule nor was it ever a Muslim cultural center. For Jews, the entire city is sacred, but Muslims revere a site — the Dome of the Rock — not the city. "To a Muslim," observed British writer Christopher Sykes, "there is a profound difference between Jerusalem and Mecca or Medina. The latter are holy places containing holy sites." Besides the Dome of the Rock, he noted, Jerusalem has no major Islamic significance . . . Meanwhile, Jews have been living in Jerusalem continuously for nearly two millennia.
Nothing here to dispel the confusion inflicted by Erlanger's article.
Not surprising to me, the confusion is dispelled by Daniel Pipes in The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem published in The Middle East Quarterly.
"As during the era of the Crusaders," Lazarus-Yafeh points out, Muslim leaders "began again to emphasize the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islamic tradition." In the process, they even relied on some of the same arguments (e.g., rejecting the occupying power's religious connections to the city) and some of the same hadiths to back up those allegations. Muslims began echoing the Jewish devotion to Jerusalem: Arafat declared that "Al-Quds is in the innermost of our feeling, the feeling of our people and the feeling of all Arabs, Muslims, and Christians in the world." Extravagant statements became the norm (Jerusalem was now said to be "comparable in holiness" to Mecca and Medina; or even "our most sacred place").
According to Pipes, these are the Muslim claims concerning Jerusalem:
King David was real. The First Temple existed. The Second Temple existed. The Third Temple will be built. Prophecy is real. There is most certainly a divine dimension to the universe.
"GGG" is the acronym for the Governor General of Gabon.
That's where we got the idea. ;')
Like mosques all over, the Dome of the Rock is an imperialist symbol, showing the disdain for the holy places of other faiths. That was the only reason for its construction. It should be destroyed, along with Islam itself. Luckily for us, Moslems are themselves the agency of Islam's destruction. Hence the urgency behind those many calls for jihad outside Islamic countries.
Gods Graves Glyphs Digest #55 20050806
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Thanks, Gary, for the link. Here it is again, Berosus:
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/domeofrock.html
When exactly did this become a "political battle"? Or controversial in any way?
Until relatively recently, there was an automatic and unquestioned connection between Jerusalem, Judaism and Christianity. And so it had been for millenia.
On the other hand, can we have some input as to when the "al Quds" propaganda began? What is the earliest mention of it?
Take your time, Nur el-Din...
PALESTINE, A part of Asiatic Turky, situated between thirty-sis and thirty-eight degrees of east longitude, and between thirty-one and thirty-four degrees of north latitude: it is bounded by Mt Libanus, which divides it from Syria, on the north; by Mt. Hermon, which separates it from Arabia Deseta, on the east; by the mountains of Seir and the deserts of Arabia Petraea, on the south; and by the Mediterranean Sea on the west.
It was called Palestine, from the Philistines who inhabited the sea coasts. It was also called Judea, from Judah; and the Holy Land, from our Saviour's residence and sufferings in it; and it is called Canaan and the Promised Land by the Scriptures.
It is 150 miles in length, and 80 in breadth; and in the time of solomon it seems to have extended from the Mediterranean Sea to the river Euphrates. --- Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol III, 1772
BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.