A6, Thursday 10/30/08
By Ethan Bronner
This article discusses the discovery and excavation of a "3,000-year-old fortified city" in the Valley of Elah, the biblical region where David fought Goliath, located near Jerusalem.
This archeological study has such great "symbolic value" according to Bronner because the State of Israel "considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David." What makes this finding even more important, as the author writes, is that the archeological record of the Kingdom of David is "exceedingly sparse — in fact almost nonexistent."
Consequently, this five-acre archeological site could be key in determining the period of rule and scope of this biblical Kingdom, the implications of which have become part of a "contentious and often politicized debate" regarding the historical basis of Israel.
On the one hand, there are those archeologists that are using the evidence provided by the site to further prove the significance and chronology of David's rule. On the other, there are those more skeptical archeologists that downplay "Bible-based historical chronology," such as Tel Aviv University archeologist Israel Finklestein.
In his straw man argument, he essentially undermines the academic basis of the whole excavation, arguing that "some of us [the archeologists and those that fund this project] look at things in a very ethnocentric way — everything is Israelite or Judahite." And in order cover himeslf in the case the findings do in fact corroborate the importance of the kingdom: "And even if it belongs to Jerusalem, fine. So there is a late 10th-century fortified structure there. I don’t believe that any archaeologist can revolutionize our entire understanding of Judah and Jerusalem by a single site." Regardless of what the evidence ultimately indicates, this archeologist seems keen on downplaying the Jewish presence and connection to the land.
And regardless of the political implications, the article concludes that this could be a revolutionary finding that alters or confirms the historical understanding of the Kingdom of David.
This archeological study has such great "symbolic value" according to Bronner because the State of Israel "considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David." What makes this finding even more important, as the author writes, is that the archeological record of the Kingdom of David is "exceedingly sparse — in fact almost nonexistent."
Consequently, this five-acre archeological site could be key in determining the period of rule and scope of this biblical Kingdom, the implications of which have become part of a "contentious and often politicized debate" regarding the historical basis of Israel.
On the one hand, there are those archeologists that are using the evidence provided by the site to further prove the significance and chronology of David's rule. On the other, there are those more skeptical archeologists that downplay "Bible-based historical chronology," such as Tel Aviv University archeologist Israel Finklestein.
In his straw man argument, he essentially undermines the academic basis of the whole excavation, arguing that "some of us [the archeologists and those that fund this project] look at things in a very ethnocentric way — everything is Israelite or Judahite." And in order cover himeslf in the case the findings do in fact corroborate the importance of the kingdom: "And even if it belongs to Jerusalem, fine. So there is a late 10th-century fortified structure there. I don’t believe that any archaeologist can revolutionize our entire understanding of Judah and Jerusalem by a single site." Regardless of what the evidence ultimately indicates, this archeologist seems keen on downplaying the Jewish presence and connection to the land.
And regardless of the political implications, the article concludes that this could be a revolutionary finding that alters or confirms the historical understanding of the Kingdom of David.
Posts
You write:
ReplyDeleteThis archeological study has such great "symbolic value" according to Bronner because the State of Israel "considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David." At the same time though, he describes the archaelogical record of the Kingdom of David as "exceedinly sparse — in fact almost nonexistent."
I don’t understand what ilicits "At the same time, though…" Wouldn’t it make sense that if Israel considers itself to be a reclamation of the state begun by David, and the archeological record is nonexistent, this finding bears great symbolic value?
But to what extent does Israel – its culture, its establishment – consider itself a reclamation of the state begun by David? Is that what its establishment markets its legitimacy on. Or is it others who do that?
2. Third paragraph, it should be lower-case kingdom.
3. Last paragraph, "the article concludes that is could be" ("is" should be "this")
Good post. Short, made a point and it was appropriately short.