Talk:Large Stone Structure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Discovery

There are still uncharted or undiscovered lands in this world? I wouldn't be surprised if dinosaur bones or hidden treasure was found buried underground, but for a palace that is exposed and not underground to be "discovered" sounds strange to me.

  • It's the ruined foundations that were found, not a luxurious intact palace (or fortress or whatever). It was found underground (of course originally it was on the surface).--Pharos 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny how everything in the Middle East instantly becomes "The Palace of King David" or "The Mines of Solomon" or "Evidence of the Exodus." Deluded fools. 68.77.28.62

What if it's labeled? Triped 14:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be equally deluded to automatically assume that everything mentioned in the Torah is false? It's one of the only documents we have from the time period. Surely it's better to base finds on a skewed propagandistic document that may have basis in fact than on nothing at all. Indeed, as you must be aware, much of the later portions of the Torah are absolutely based on fact, although nobody would argue that they are not written from a very specific and biased perspective. Junjk 14:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Nah, it's not deluded. This is a major structure from the 10th century, built Phoenician style on territory that fits the description of the David's temple. It will be interesting to find out exactly what this is if it isn't related to the Davidic monarchy in some way. Either way, an exciting find, let's not be bitter  :P FranksValli 08:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm an unregistered newcomer passing by. Wondered how an archeologist can find a 3000 year old seal, then determine the name of the person to be the same name possessed by a specific person, mentioned in a writing of that era. It seems to me that one couldn't fit "Son of __________, Son of ___________,Son of__________" into a little seal. I can't seem to find a photo of it anywhere, despite it being the main device on which the "allegation" seems to rest. A picture would be worth a 1000 words here. It's always frustrating to read a "news item" that forces questions rather than answering them. Anybody care to explain it to me? Ralph

You can fit "x son of y son of z" into a little seal in archaic Hebrew script, because they didn't use vowels or spaces. For example, "son of" is only two letters. You can find a picture of the seal online at http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/photo/2005/08/06/2005040242
I too am frustrated about the lack of detail in the news item. Here is another seal found previously that is even older than the one they just found: [1]. The seal isn't the big deal here, since it is quite a bit more recent than the time of David. Pfalstad 18:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

�

[edit] Article name

Can we think of something better than "alleged Palace of David" for this archeological dig? Uncle Ed 14:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

What sort of thing to you have in mind? At the moment, I can't think of anything. I'm sure a better name (or a more official name) will crop up in the next week or so, but until more studies are done, it would be hard to assign it a different name, and probably unwise to just call it the palace of David. Junjk 14:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I started this article, and wracked my mind a bit to think of the proper, concise name. It is important to know that most archaeologists are rather skeptical of the Palace of David identification. If a consensus doesn't emerge on its function, the site may become standardly described by the neighborhhod it was found in (surely there's something more specific than "East Jerusalem"?), or maybe it will be called the "Jehucal site" or something. But for now, the site is best known to the popular world by the "Palace of David" identification, so I suggest we keep the current name until a new name emerges in the media or archaeological literature.--Pharos 23:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I hate to introduce the idea into such a potentially touchy article, but I think that the word alleged is POV. The definition of alleged is said but not proved, pretty much, but its usage as a legal term gives it a weaselly quality that's unencyclopedic. Perhaps more important, "alleged" implies, like the US legal system, an adversarial binary quality of "is so, is not". A thesaurus gives a number of words, several of them with better neutral connotations, such as presumptive (which leans toward certainty), conjectural (which is to my mind the most neutral), hypothetical (which is scientific-sounding, but leans slightly more toward unproven), or putative (which has a little bit of the alleged problem).
That may be one way to handle the title. It could also be retitled as Pharos suggests to match some technical archaelogical designation. One other would be to restructure the article as a more general historical one titled simply Palace of David, giving an overview of what is assumed about that structure and its historical context, with a section devoted to the archaeological findings of Dr. Mazar and the debate over authenticity. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion would be "Possible" or "Potential" Palace of David---one can be skeptical and still be positive. Plus, if the goal of Wikipedia is to provide info to researchers, then until this find is shown not to be a PoD, people researching about it will be looking for PoD to be in the title somewhere.DebKatz


[edit] Article on Palace of David as described in the Bible

It occurs to me that this would be a useful article to have at this point, to compare with the recently discovered archaeological site. Is anyone up to writing something? Just click Palace of David and start. Thanks.--Pharos 23:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be detrimental to have two articles. See my comment above; the archaeological findings have no other more appropriate place than a general Palace of David article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that the site is of major significance whether or not it actually is the Palace of David; it's a distinct topic.--Pharos 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Pharos is right, there needs to be a distinct article for the Palace of David. I vote for moving this page to "Palace of David" and put recent archaeological findings in a subcategory. FranksValli 08:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving This Page

I want to move this page to Palace of David and have the current archaeological information in a subcategory. Anyone have any objections? FranksValli 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I object, because it is far from certain that the site is the Palace of David, and it is still of major archaeological importance even if it has no connection to him whatsoever.--Pharos 06:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, oh - I misunderstood your comments above. Ok, let's not move this article. But instead create the Palace of David main article as you suggest, and use info from this Alleged Palace of David article for a small conjectural subsection. FranksValli 09:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King David?

Since when have neutral historians confirmed the historicity of the King David found in the Jewish tribal lore? I don't think that this is entirely a scientific, archeologic study, as far as the reported conclusions of the finding go. --Zeno of Elea 06:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is his historicity in doubt? FranksValli 09:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
It is "doubted" in the sense that the essence of science is to doubt a hypothesis until actual verifiable proof is presented and confirmed by others, thus bolstering the hypothesis. Since we don't have his actual body with a burial headstone that says "King David of Israel Lies Here", dateable documents written by him, contemporary written historical documents (on a media that dates from his purported lifespan), etc. - only the "hearsay" evidence of biblical texts, it remains in "doubt". Of course, this has nothing to do per se with "religious knowledge" or belief. --NightMonkey 10:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that is incorrect. The point of Archaeology(This is a social science which is based upon different things than say Physics) is to find artifacts of human past thereby proving its authenticity. If this is really "David's palace" then that would support the existance of David.(Besides my understanding is most believe he existed at least as a tribal chief). So basically what I am saying is that you don't need "King David of Israel Lies Here" to prove he exists. Thats completely unnecesary. They just need evidence of his work, infact there is more evidence supporting David from my understanding than Gilgamesh yet I've never heard objections against existance because that is not the point of a social science but to understand the culture of the civilization. Sorry, if I'm nitpicking. Falphin 22:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

-->All evidence here is "heresay" unless God really speaks to you in the literal sense. What we have are reasonable belief and conclusions, along the odds of each theory being true based on the tradition of oral history, consolidation of old sources, contemporary events, editorial changes, changes in interpretion, etc. --Noitall 19:43, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and by serendipity was referred here by a friend. I just finished reading 2001's BIBLE UNEARTHED--which you all here may already be familiar with---and I found it to be an eye-opening and fascinating treatise on when, where and to what extent archaeology supports biblical history. From my new-found understanding, I would say that there isn't real doubt that David existed (i.e. there was a Judean monarch at that time) but the questions are around the extent and power of his kingdom. The archeaologists need time now to do their thing, but when sufficient evidence comes in, they will be able to date the find with enough accuracy to say if it was built in Davidic times or not. Either way, it cannot help but expand our understanding of what "really" happened in the 9th-10th century era.DebKatz


I also read the The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman, as well as What Did the Biblical Authors Know and When Did They Know It? by Dever. IMO, both books give good evidence for their respective positions on the United Monarchy- whether it existed (as Dever claims) or not (as Finkelstein and Silberman claim). It should be noted that archaeologists like Dever who accept the United Monarchy tend to restrict it to the the areas later occupied by the kingdoms of Israel and Judah; the biblical claim that it also included Edom, Moab, Ammon, and Syria is generally taken as a huge exaggeration. Likewise, the Finkelstein camp still accepts David as a historical king of Judah, just not over "All Israel." Conflicting radiocarbon dates have been produced; some seem to support the Finkelstein chronology (which dates monumental construction in northern Israel to the time of Ahab in the 9th century BC), others the traditional chronology (which dates the northern constructions to the time of Solomon in the 10th century BC). Pottery sequences have been interpreted differently by the different camps to support their respective chronologies. The whole archaeological sequence of this period is very complicated (despite how confident both sides sound), and this discovery will likely add to the debate rather than resolve it.

From what I've heard, many archaeologists, even if they date the Jerusalem remains to the 10th century BC, do not necessarily believe it is the palace of David. Amihai Mazar has suggested that it is an administrative building instead, but he still dates it to the 10th century. Either way, the structure is evidence of urban development in Jerusalem at least as early as the 9th century BC, and perhaps in the 10th.--Rob117 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King David's palace?

This find certainly deserves enormous inspection and research, as it has some potential of becoming a significant biblical discovery (perhaps the greatest yet). But I think it is quite a stretch to identify it as king David's palace so far, considering only one tenth of the place has been reliably uncovered.

There were many different palaces and temples built during this time period, and just because you find one, it doesn't mean it is King David's. Similarly, if archaeologists hypotheticaly uncovered the skeleton of a 10th century 7 ft Canaanite warrior, it doesn't mean this was Goliath.

I What is equally as interesting to me is the Jehucal seal finding, if this can indeed be identified with the same character mentioned in the bible.--207.225.65.89 09:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seal of Jehucal

I think the seal of Jehucal might deserve its own article as it is sort of independent and different from the general building. It is also a very significant artifact. Does anyone else agree or disagree? Basar 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think that would depend on how much could reasonably be written independently on the topic. I also note that Jehucal is an exceedingly short article and it might be appropriate to put some of the details there.--Pharos 22:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I'm thinking that we should probably move this to Large-Stone Structure, as that is what Mazar has now decided to call it. I would feel better, of course, if we could also have a Palace of David article on traditional ideas to complement it.--Pharos 02:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to make an article about David's Palace called King David's Palace and then include this possible find as a section. Any objections ? Amoruso 00:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/r/Talk%7ELarge_Stone_Structure_ce78.html"