King David's Palace Found

No you didn't, that's good. As to bias, well, isn't every archaeological dig based at least partially on some sort of bias? Archaeologist don't just go out into the desert and dig at random locations. There is usually an expectation of finding something to confirm a hypothesis. Hoping and wishing to confirm a hypothesis. Dr. Mazar's dig is not any different in this regard.And yes, I'm sure there will be peer review.

That ossurary was demonstrated to be a modern forgery.The ossurary was from the proper time period, but the inscription on it was modern.

so was the tablet from solomon's temple. sort of the point, i think.people are over-zealous to "prove" the bible, often for very modern political reasons and not just faith ones. validating the jewish-israeli claim to jerusalem is a BIG one.now, don't get me wrong. no matter what this turns out to be it's a very significant find. i'm not aware of any other hebrew architecture from the period, and it pre-dates some of the estimates for when they were in jerusalem (if it's indeed even hebrew).but let's not jump to conclusions. we don't know yet that:

• it's a palace
• it's king david's palace
• king david existed
• it's from the exact time king david would have existed
• the real king david was anything like the bible describes him

the find, at best, can only prove some of these, if any. let's not jump to conclusions just because of our various religions.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

people are over-zealous to "prove" the bible, often for very modern political reasons and not just faith ones.

---

Although it does take some kind of faith to be able to claim that events 3000 years ago should have any relevance to current events.

well, alot of it has to do with claims to the holy land. as it is, there is relatively little hebrew history found in the archaeology. their story of their origins in the area (pre-egypt, i mean) are what they cite as part of their right to own land. they also cite the post-exodus verses about their promised land.if the history were to actually back that up, their claims could be seen as legitimized. and so jewish-israelis of course want that. it's sort of a "we were here first, so it's our land" kind of thing.claiming something to be king david's palace legitimizes king david, and the biblical history to some degree -- more fuel to the fire. at best it's politically and religiously biased. at worst, it's outright political.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

it's sort of a "we were here first, so it's our land" kind of thing.

---

Yeah, I understand what the argument is. As a white guy in North America, I am very interested in the validity of that kind of reasoning.

"manifest destiny."

---

אָרַח

Hi,Tal guess that irony implant didn`t take.

Good point

The point with the hypothetical Tablets that I was trying to make was that many archaeologists have, in the first flush of discovery (or maybe when funds are running low),jumped to conclusions that they may later have regretted. And the improving quality of forged artifacts makes it imperative all tests are done to verify before the celebrations begin.
Thus, Qumran, Jericho, the Tall-al-Duwayr ostraca (aka the Lachish ostraca),the Hezekiah tunnel at Siloam and others point to enthusiasm getting the upper hand over the evidence.

Hi, Chiro, you followed the fortunes of the Kennewick Man? One book covering the saga is 'No Bone Unturned', the tale of Doug Owsley`s battle to retain the skeleton of an ancient not related to native Americans. There are a few websites covering the court battles.

Lots of interesting side topics here but it's sorta like trying to herd kittens.

T.Thompson in "The Mythic Past" page 202, describes how, as a junior member of an archaeological team in 1967, the team "found" a "Solomonic gate" .."before we broke ground"...but..."This fabrication began to come apart when.....".It is too early to tell and it may be just the weird workings of media presentation but ascribing a building to David is just a bit too coincidental for my taste.
But, if verified, then it is important because it is considered probable by some that Jerusalem in the 10c bce was either uninhabited or a very minor place. And this find would contradict such a view it seems.
So it is a development to follow carefully.

It will help to have it accurately dated too. It sounded to me from the intial news release that a lot of the needed leg work was not done.

At best it is true. At worst, it is false.

---

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill