Talk:City of David (archaeological site)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

City of David rediredts here

why is that? The city of David and the ophel are two different places, adjacent, but not the same. The city of David is just south of the ophel.--ArnoldPettybone 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

old Testment?

"Silwan has a significant historical value, and was mentioned in the Old Testament, " ---Where? I have done several searches... not under that spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.246.108 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ophel has four references:

  1. Neh. 3: 26-27

Moreover the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel, unto the place over against the bwater gate toward the east, and the tower that lieth out. After them the Tekoites repaired another piece, over against the great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Ophel.

  2. 2 Chr. 27: 3

He built the high agate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he built much.

  3. 2 Chr. 33: 14

Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish agate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.

  4. Neh. 11: 21

But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gispa were over the Nethinims.

If these are the refereces to "Silwan" in the old testament, there should be something added about when and where the name was changed from "ophel" to "silwan" Hey. since this page is controversial because of the Jewish and Palestinian identity conflict, why not find out what the Bible and the Quran agree upon in the story of Abraham in Genesis and write that down?

Silwan, Ophel and the City of David

The nonsense on this page is becoming a nuisance. I am attempting to calm the waters (pun on gihon and siloam) by separating Silwan form the the City of David/Ophel, each to retain its historic meaning.

Silwan - for material about the Arab farming village that spread into a modern neighborhood of Jerusalem.

City of David/ Ophel - for the ridge from Siloach/siloam going uphill and encompassing all of the built structures thereon ( including the Meyuchas family home ) and all ancient structures, Jebusite, Israelite, Hellenistic - if anyone finds one, Hasmonean - Herodian, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic.

All material on the City of David on this page was recently vandalized by Kool dood1. It won't undo. I am looking for an appropriate curse for vandals who with a keystroke eliminate entire pages of material. I'm sure that the Jebusites had some apt ones. wish I spoke Jebusite Elan26 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Vandalism

I have just incorporated much of the vandalizec material, incorporating it into a version edited with a good-faith effort at attaining some sembalnce of balance. It needs work. I'll try to get back to it. Elan26 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Structure

I have added subheads for each archaeological period. I will work at filling them in.03:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talk • contribs) I moved all archaeological and historical material on the page into the appropriate section.Broad Wall (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1099 to 1853??

Did nothing happen in this period?? This seems decidedly strange. I added something about the 1948-1967 period. I hope this is of some help. 82.0.66.100 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Found this article after reading about Silwan, and I came here to post exactly the same thing! Surely someone must have information on the missing three-quarters of a millennia. Very odd indeed. 82.17.238.199 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I will in about two months or so :p I'm an ultra-Zionist and a student of Israeli Archaeology, I'll just say that right now, but I'll try to be objective and of course use reputable sources (scholarly books and articles mind you, not websites). Currently taking a Jerusalem: Through the Ages course. Anyone have a problem with that or do you want that period to lay barren? :p Hpelgrift (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Eric H. Cline, this area fell into diuse during the period from 1099 to 1853, mostly because the focus was on expansion to the West. I don't have a written source for it sadly. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed POV text.

The removed text might support the claim that there was a real King David, and that he ruled a large kingdom, but it did not refer to the claim about the dating of the structures that were mentioned. Therefore it should not be used to support the previous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.9.238 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I do not follow your reasoning; the paragraph appears to balance the previous paragraph and appears to be properly cited. A Georgian (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AG, I agree that the paragraph was sourced, but it does not directly relate to Mazar's claim about the wall. It relates to another structure, and another site. It could be used as evidence of a Kingdom of David with an organised centre, but it can not be used as evidence of the City of David, or a wall there. I have removed the preceeding section which suffered from the same problem. Both are synthesis or WP:OR in the way that they are used in this article. Regards.195.27.17.3 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One-sided POV text

The following text:

"Though largely inhabited by Arabs, with some Jewish homes in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Arab homes, reportedly causing damage[5] Israeli planning authorities have approved plans to relocate inhabitants to turn the area into an archaeological park.[6]" is one sided and POV. Archaeological digs in urban areas always excavate under resident's homes. To claim that damage has occurred to the houses, it's not enough to quote a partisan website (IMEMC) that quotes unnamed residents claiming their houses were damaged. Also it is partial to claim that Israel plans to raze houses without mentioning that these houses were built without a permit and that the municipality offered to legalize most of the buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.232.71 (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The archaeological digs are wholly anomalous, being conducted by a private group, not a public authority, under roads, and houses and schools without consultation, as Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater attests. The damage is widely reported or complained of; even excavations kept on running beyond their permits, without sanction (2004-2007); all sources in this area, even Haaretz and Ynet have lots of partisan reportage; that Israel razes houses, the law is used to seize 'absentee propertee,' and hand it over to settlers, that housing permits for high-rises continue, while no Palestinian resident can build legally or make extensions; that evictions occur on the basis of dubious muncipal law that is invalid for an occupied territory; that all muncipal deliberations about that territory are instruments of an occupying authority in favour of transforming such key historical areas into sites that privilege one version of history; all of this is amply documented, and it is a key part of the reality covered in this article.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect. The digs are being conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and funded by the Ir David Foundation [1][2]. This is also spelled out in the Israel Antiquities Authority website - "...archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is currently conducting in the “Walls Around Jerusalem" National Park in the City of David, with funding provided by the ‘Ir David' Foundation."[3] [4] I see no outside confirmations of the damage caused other than partisan claims - how about posting pictures or independent, non-activist journalist confirmation of the alleged damage? Finally, you ignore the comment on the fact that the proposed renovation plan legalizes most of the illegally built houses. So it's not just "raze Palestinian homes to make the area into an archaeological park"

134.191.232.70 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is syntactically incorrect: "Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage". "Though" is used to connect contrasting clauses. "Excavating under many Muslim homes" does not contradict "largely a Palestinian township". It actually follows that if most residents are Palestinian, excavations will be under their houses, doesn't it? Also - why refer to the religion of the residents? Would it make a difference if they were Christian Arabs? This definitely needs cleanup134.191.232.68 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect.

You didn’t read the link, which is to Don Futterman the nationalist stink rising from the City of David,' Haaretz Feb. 27, 2013

• (1)For almost 15 years, one of our most important national parks and archaeological sites, the City of David, has been managed by a right-wing NGO. The City of David, an archaeological site immediately south of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, is one of Israel's only national parks to be run by a private entity, and considering that it is located smack in the middle of a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, there could not be a worse choice than Elad.Elad is a 27 year-old private organization that works to strengthen exclusively Jewish ties to Jerusalem. Now that the District Court of Jerusalem has canceled Elad’s management contract with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Authority has an historic opportunity to fully return the City of David to its own control. The decision to grant Elad responsibility for running the City of David in the first place was most likely intended to promote Elad’s Judaizing agenda, and our outgoing national government and the Jerusalem municipality didn’t object to ramming Jewish settlers down the throats of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian population, whether actively collaborating or signaling approval with a wink and a nod.

Dafna Laskin, Shake-up at City of David Jerusalem Post 04/14/2013

• (2)Elad’s founding and goals are based on the assertion that the Biblical land on which modern Silwan was built, must be re-inhabited by Jewish families. To that end, they have been bankrolling excavations in the village for decades, and the main finds can be seen today at the City of David, a national archeological park that was privatized and given to Elad, and which attracts some half a million visitors annually. The archeologists digging at the site were hired by the AA, but paid by Elad. The controversy stems from the fact that the AA, which oversees all archeological work and certainly at the City of David, is essentially in partnership with and funded by a private organization with clear ideological goals – chiefly, to utilize the archaeological finds as a means of promoting the self-described “Judaization of east Jerusalem.”

As to the reported damage which the IP/Daniel Cohn team deny, on spurious grounds, see now

• (4) Silwan: Collapses near the archaeological excavations', Emek Shaveh

The snowstorm that hit Jerusalem last week caused collapses and severe damage in areas near and above some of the archaeological excavations taking place in the village of Silwan. Collapses of the ground-level have become routine in Silwan, recurring annually with the first rainstorm. Most of these occur near the southern part of the tunnel, connecting the Shiloah Pool with the Givati parking lot (see map, near No. 12). This section has an earth filling several meters deep. It seems that, the ground-works in the tunnel affected the ground stability in the region. A similar occurrence was evidenced past years. More substantial collapse occurred in an area adjacent to the excavation commenced in 2013 (see Emek Shaveh’s new publication:Remaking the City, Chap. 5 and in the attached map between no. 7 and 6). The storm crushed a significant part of the side steps and fill adjacent to it. (Attached photo shows detached iron staircase.)Shortly after the yearly collapses, the Jerusalem Municipality, the Parks Authorities, Elad and the Antiquities Authority( IAA) hasten to patch up repair the damage. Undoubtedly, this will be the case this time too.It is our opinion that the land collapse is the result of several causes: 1. The village of Silwan is constructed on landfill and not on stable bedrock. In the case of a storm, the ground break through and undermines the stability of the structures above it. 2. The fact that year by year the collapses occur near the archeological excavations of the tunnels, points at the excavations as one of the major factors in this severe damage.The responsibility at this site is held by several organizations: 1. The Nature and Parks Authorities - for the national park. 2. IAA – as conducting the excavations . 3. Elad organization – as the sponsors of the excavations. 4. The Municipality of Jerusalem. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the lead needs tinkering further, but the reverts so far are a POV pushing 'cleaning up' of the factual mess. Israel is the occupying power, its laws are systematically opposed to Palestinian residency, and the lead cannot allow in wiki's neutral voice language suggesting that Palestinian housing there is 'illegal'. It has to be phrased to show that this determination is an Israeli POV.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage

The syntactical criticism above is correct. So the line can be adjusted along these lines:

Archaeological digs sponsored by the private Elad group in this predominantly Palestinian township are excavating under many Muslim homes, repèortedly causing damage to the area. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Several objections to this:

1) Not clear what is a "Muslim home". Do homes have religion? If you already wrote that this is a predominantly Arab neighborhood, why mention this again? To the reader, it would appear like the archaeologists are singling out Arab residents to dig under their houses 2) I went over the links you provided (most if not all by partial sources with a clear agenda) and I don't see any evidence of reported damage (one would think pictures would be easy to provide). 3) In those links I also could not find even claims, let alone evidence, of digging under homes. I can only see (unsubstantiated) claims of structures caving in due to nearby digs.

If you cannot provide RS substantiating the "excavating under homes" claim, I think it should be removed or at least rephrased to reflect this. By the way, the Haaretz link doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcohn (talk • contribs) 08:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR

'All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.'

Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he is consistently advising editors like me to 'take it to the talk page' (where the banner has this rule) while he himself has never deigned to take his perspective to this page.

I did, as 134.191.232.71 (yes, I forgot to login) on 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcohn (talk • contribs)

• Please take discussion to talk page
• take up in Talk page rather than edit war

I was not aware of this rule. I don't see how advising an editor to take it to the talk page is proof that I knew the rule - this is a general advice I've seen used in many edit summaries.Danielcohn (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Two breaks IR) so I expect this has to be reverted, since the editor is in fault, and refuses to take, further, his own advice.

Not correct - I did post my objections to existing text in the talk page prior to reverting the edit as you can see if you check the undo date vs the talk entry dateDanielcohn (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• cf(3) take it to the talk page Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see he was blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for proof that you knew the rule. As it says at the top of this page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." In other words, you are expected to have read the large message at the top of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely and that's why I didn't complain about the block. I was simply refuting Nishidani's "Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he..." which is trying to prove the false remark that I knew the rule. That's all.Danielcohn (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology section

Does anyone else agree that the "Archaeology" section in this article is a total mess, needing a significant overhaul? It looks like someone has tried to create a tourist guide to the site than write an encyclopaedia article. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wadi Hilweh and City of David are two differnet things in the same site.

Hello, I am new to this page, yet I have noticed something that seems to be incorrect. The opening pasgae state that:

The City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the Israeli name for the neighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan.

In the bible, "City of David" is a biblical term to the city that King David built. Today, the name City of David refers to the archaeological site of what is thought, by some archaeologists, to be Jerusalem of the pre-Babylonian exile.

Wadi Hilweh is a Palestinian village that was built upon the archaeological site, during the 19th century. They are two different things. How can I change it without causing quarrel?

Can I change the sentence to:

" City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the name for archaeological site, that some evidences suggest to be ancient Jerusalem. It is located under the nighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan.[2]"

Thanks, Talyaron (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will take the silence as a yes :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talyaron (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Court rule?

Hi, in accordance to the spirit of consulting before changing the text, I want to consult again. I have checked the claimed in this page that says:

"Ongoing archeological digs by the private Israeli settlement group Elad will eventually be excavating under some Muslim homes, possibly causing damage".

The claim of damage was brought before the Israeli court of justice, and where fund to be unfunded. The court ruled that no evidence for damage was proved, and that the excavations stand in every legal demand and they were checked and found to be safe and undamaging (here is the court rule in Hebrew).

My dilemma is whether to add this comment about the court rule, or remove the text in accordance what the court found after investigating the matter? Talyaron (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm removing it. Talyaron (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bullae

I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK no problem but we can still write that it might suggest it. There is no reason to delete it entirely. Lets try to slow down here and try to write objectively. Sadya goan (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OK so instead of crediting to King David lets just say it reflects "a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been appreciated recently" Sadya goan (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This seems neutral

In 2012 and 2014 six bullae were found at Khirbet Summeily suggesting a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been acknowledged by many recent scholars who tend to dismiss trends toward political complexity occurring prior to the arrival of the Assyrians in the region in the later eighth century b.c.e

Sadya goan (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That scholarly article simply does not state anything about David, so it does not support your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, it does not mention anything about the City of David, so it is not germane to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite requested

The 10th century BCE is considered the century during which the Bible describes the reign of King Solomon.

This sentence suggests that the Bible is being written in the 10th century contemporaneously with the putative events. etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714074915/http://www.ir-amim.org.il:80/eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf to http://www.ir-amim.org.il/Eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Vice news report

An interesting report from Vice News on this situation: https://news.vice.com/video/a-city-divided-jerusalems-most-contested-neighborhood

One person they interviewed called the area "the core of the volcano" of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

It feels like our article is underplaying the controversial nature of this area.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi @Poliocretes: is it not correct that the Jewish population living in the area run by the Ir David Foundation have their local amenities run by them? This article and others like it, suggest that this is the case. Just because it is not a formal municipality, places such as unincorporated areas still deserve to be treated equally on Wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

CoD is not technically any sort of municipal unit, it's the name of a hill within Silwan, which is governed by the Jerusalem municipality. Elad is an extremely powerful and proactive NGO promoting Jewish settlement in the City of David. It has secured the rights to run the national park which it uses to further promote its political agenda, but even it has to go through the Jerusalem municipality to get things done (see this for instance with its reference to the local planning commission). Describing CoD as a municipality or an "unincorporated area" or Elad chairm Be'eri as holding a municipal role are pure WP:OR. These words have meaning, they are not applicable here. I don't see how this article "suggests" otherwise, and "suggests" is not good enough for Wikipedia anyway. If you think the site is not being treated equally on wikipedia, that can be fixed, sources are not lacking, but the solution is not shoehorning it into something it is not. Besides, Israel Hayom? Seriously? You disappoint me, Once. Poliocretes (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508143755/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/king-davids-palace.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/king-davids-palace.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Section "New Testament references for the City of David being Bethlehem"

Entirely unsourced, apparently OR and fairly irrelevant. I don't think anyone would dispute that Bethlehem was also once known as the City of David. He was, of course, from the tribe of Judah, whose land Bethlehem is in. Perhaps a brief hatnote to the Bethlehem article would be useful, but this section should be removed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Comment struck - I see we have a good hatnote already. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. That's not the way to use primary sources in any case, and we've got the hatnote. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC) who is not dweller

Thanks, Doug.  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801001643/http://archpark.org.il/waterStudies2.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/waterStudies2.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161224003103/http://www.archpark.org.il/about_gen.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/about_gen.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143153/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1b.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1b.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143202/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1c.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1c.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143214/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1d.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1d.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Archaeological-find-in-Jerusalems-City-of-David-may-answer-100-year-old-mystery-43189
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207062814/http://www.cityofdavid.org/ to http://www.cityofdavid.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Any Jews there 1939-47/48?

A (possibly unsourced) line claims that after 1948 war "its Jewish population was expelled." As far as I know, after 1929 riots or at the latest aduring1936-30 Arab revolt, all the Jews were expelled from Silwan, including Wadi Hilweh, by the British authorities who didn't feel they can offer them security. Were there any Jews left thrte in 1948 to be expelled? I guess not. Please clarify, if proven wrong remove the false claim. Arminden (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The word "speculation" is out of date and context and does not reflect the facts

The first sentence claims the archaeological site is "speculated" to compose the original urban core. Hillel Geva in Jerusalem’s Population in Antiquity: A Minimalist View explains the significant variation in population density coefficients used by several archaeologists. Much confusion exist as to the time frame for each of the density coefficients especially spanning Middle Bronze II to Iron I: 18th–11th centuries BCE. Geva claims the Middle Bronze Age area of the city can be estimated at 40–50 dunams on the lower-southern section of Mount Moriah. Steiner proposed that the fortified MB II city had a population of only 1,000 (2001: 22), while Lipiński’s estimate is 880–1,100 (2007: 4). Geva takes into consideration the city’s role as a royal stronghold, proposing that the number of inhabitants in Jerusalem in the Middle Bronze Age was at most 500–700. Garstang, Wilkinson, Steiner, Lipinski, Ussishkin, Mazar and Finkelstien are some of the many archaeologists and historians who attest to the development of the urban core of Jerusalem. The word "speculate" denigrates the academic effort and research that preceded this Wikipedia article. "Speculate" is unnecessary, it is politically loaded to reduce the significant proof and development of urbanization covering paleolithic, chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron age discoveries within the 40-50 dunam area of the original urban core. The words "is speculated to" needs to be removed and sentence worded "...the archaeological site which composes the original urban core..." Copytopic1 (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible

This section appears to be WP:OR

==In the Hebrew Bible== ===In the Abraham narrative=== A town called [[Salem (Bible)|Shalem]] is mentioned in this era in the biblical story of [[Melchizedek]] ({{Bibleref2|Genesis 14:18–20}}), which may have been Jerusalem. ===In the King David narrative=== The Bible says Jerusalem was a [[Jebusite]] city, which was captured by troops under [[King David]]. The biblical description is very brief ({{Bibleref2|II Samuel 5:6–8}} and {{Bibleref2|1 Chronicles 114–116}}), leaving space for speculation about how exactly the town was conquered, also due to the lost meaning of the ancient Hebrew word "tzinor". It is inferred from {{Bibleref2|I Kings 11:27}} that he breached the walls, and if the "tzinor" in {{Bibleref2|II Samuel 5:8}} is understood as 'water shaft', then [[Joab]] climbed up first into the city by using the ancient water system at the [[Gihon Spring]]. The Bible then says that the Israelites continued to use the Jebusite walls, repairing them where needed, and extended the city northward, under [[King Solomon]], to include the Temple Mount ({{Bibleref2|I Kings 9:15}}).

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

1873 bird's-eye view: explain or remove!

Current caption of the bird's-eye view of Jerusalem by Illés István (Stephen Illes), 1873: "A single property had been built on the hill facing the houses of Silwan by 1873...."
Really? Please point it out on the 3D map! I can make out several houses on the west side of the Qidron riverbed. None on the ridge. There is a "single house" near David's Tomb--that means: on the wrong hill, Mt Zion. Please explain. Maybe Illés was inaccurate, or worked on older data, not including the Meyouhas house. Or that house was further south (right), outside the frame; I don't know, but neither do 99% of the users (not to say: all of them).
Please either clarify, amend the caption in a relevant manner, or remove the picture as irrelevant. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It says “single property”, not single house. It is likely a house plus outbuildings. We have to stick to the source, which says only one family lived there at the time. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: As far as I know, Meyouchas built on the ridge and, I think, close to the saddle. Not at the eastern foot of the ridge. I don't believe the map contains this property - at all. That's my point. There seems to be no connection between illustration and caption. The connection necessarily needs to be made by an acceptable source, not by any of us, poor ole' editors. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: Google maps shows it at 31.7714°N 35.236°E / 31.7714; 35.236. That seems consistent with the small building here, no? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I now read this: http://m.cityofdavid.org.il/en/virtual_tour/meyuchas-house-city-david This seems to mean that

• A. The Meyuchas house is gone
• B. It was over the T1 and T2 structures and the finding place of the Theodotus inscription, on the eastern slope of the ridge.

Still: A. If Illés drew his map before Meyuchas built his home, or based ot on previous sketches, then the house cannot pe there and the caption is wrong. B. We need to check if those buildings are indeed at the T1 & T2 site, which is much easyer, since T1 & T2 are important features, marked on most plans. All else is speculation (for instance I'm pretty sure Rabbi Meyuchas didn't build more than one house in the first year, and I think that's when the Illés drawing is from; etc). Cheers,

I looked up the drawing again. There are two clusters of buildings immediately west of the road that follovs the valley floor, with over two dozen structures. That can't possibly be the Meyuchas house. Maybe the upper (northern) cluster, which still means: he wasn't alone. Also, for all I know, T1 and T2 are further up the slope. So we're back to zero. Arminden (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So far, the ill. and the (vague, since not pointing at where the Meyouchas house is) caption are disconnected and seemingly contradict each other. Arminden (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: I have fixed this with a better image and description. FYI the house is towards the bottom of the ridge - it can be seen here (see the Israeli flag). This is also confirmed by this image showing the location. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: that's great, thank you, I was really intrigued by it and the area is the focal point of many things. Arminden (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Early Islamic period findings: no content yet?!

? Arminden (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Speculated / thought to be / is

@Arminden: we have a source (Pullen) who explicitly described the speculative nature of statements concluding that this was "the original core" of the city. You mentioned Palmer, Vincent and Kenyon in your edit summary, but there was actually a very heated debate amongst Biblical archaeologists on this question in the late 19th / early 20th century. It was never proven conclusively, so we should not suggest it was.

Out of interest, what elements of the archaeological evidence give you the strength of conviction here? Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: The debate is long over. Take any source you can put your hands on. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and prove with mathematical formulas that it's best when round. I'm losing it, I'm out of this Wiki BS, at least for a while. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) PS: I did waste more time on that useless text by Ms Pullen. I've read it all (have you?), and it doesn't say a single word that contradicts the archaeological consensus. It announces from the start that its topic is different from that, "it is the takeover of heritage stewardship by a radical settler group in the past fifteen years, and not the hundred fifty years of preceding archaeological work there", so invoking it in this context is misleading. Pullen might have had a reason to write it in 2008, but today her paper has nothing, zero to add to what's already known - beside of being peppered with serious factual mistakes and misunderstandings. If one sympathises with her views, one must deplore how poor she puts it across; if one doesn't, it's easy to point out the bias and mistakes. Waste of time. With no bearing on the topic you picked up: yes, this ridge is as a matter of fact the oldest inhabited part of historical Jerusalem, and it's easy to understand why: the spring and the easily defended ridge (for the time, i.e. the Bronze and Early Iron Age, when artillery and siege machinery weren't well developed). So fact + logic. Nobody who counts is contradicting that. The name "City of David", picked up from the Bible by Josephus, Weill, and Elad & Co. are indeed an issue, but not the archaeology. If "conflict-motivated" editors can't distinguish between the two, there's nothing left to say. It's like removing the term "Temple Mount" from the discussion and replacing it everywhere with Aqsa or Haram. Or the other way 'round, it doesn't matter, stupidity (when they believe in it) or hypocrisy (when it's conscious propaganda) has no single identity. I came up long ago with a tired pun, but it fits here too: the First, Second, Third International are history; the one that will always prevail is the International of Stupidity, with the most democratically spread-out membership across the world. And that's why I'm sorry I'm not in bed already. Good night, Arminden (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, thanks for this – I always enjoy reading your posts. Can I just point out one thing – saying "this ridge is as a matter of fact the oldest inhabited part of historical Jerusalem" is by definition a speculative statement, as the Old City itself has never been excavated. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: hi, and thank you. No, that's not true. Maybe you mean the Temple Mount, where little (but not absolutely some) archaeological work has been done. The entire Old City has had lots and lots of digs: in the Jewish Quarter, Citadel, Muristan, Holy Sepulchre, Antonia area, Jaffa Gate, Damascus Gate, inside and outside Zion Gate, and lots of salvage digs elewhere. Possibly fewer in the Muslim Quarter, but by no means none (think Western Wall tunnels). It's a Swiss cheese, really. Arminden (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "no" is a leftover from "by no means", sorry. Arminden (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, there’s a rough map of excavations here: [5] My guess is that less than 10% of the Old City has seen any meaningful excavation – do you think that is a reasonable estimate? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Arminden:. "Speculated" doesn't do the archeological findings any justice and is anyway needlessly inflammatory. We can never be sure 100% in archeological or historical matters (or in any other matters) but this is as good as it gets. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. "As good as it gets" is inappropriate – we cannot ignore how deeply politicized this area is, and sadly archaeology is not immune to such influences given its perennial underfunding. Also skating over the point above, that the city itself has been excavated in only limited areas, seems odd given the question is "what is the oldest part of the city". If we are going to question a source which explicitly describes the connection as speculative, we should at least apply some common sense. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not any editor's job to pass judgment on the opinions of another. "as good as it gets" is my opinion and you will have to accept that. I know that the issue is deeply politicized - that words like "speculation" are used in the article is ample proof for that. So is your attempt to police the discussion.

The City of David is pretty well excavated. You do not have to dig up an entire city to gain knowledge about it. The source on which the "speculation" language is based, has been addressed above by another editor. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

(1)”You do not have to dig up an entire city to gain knowledge about it." The sentence we are discussing is about the wider history of Jerusalem.

(2) Arminden commented on Pullan’s 2008 paper rather than her (and others’) well-reviewed 2013 Routledge-published book; the latter is the relevant citation here.

(3) Please bring sources to support your position. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

(1) I stand by my statement, to which you have offered no rebuttal.

(2) As his comment further down indicates, this distinction is without merit.

(3) I think there are already quite a few sources here. Apparently your preferred wording rests on only one author, Pullan. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

On (1), I too agree with your statement, but it does not address the issue at the heart of this discussion. On (2) it’s worth noting that Arminden’s decision to throw contempt and disdain at a highly regarded Cambridge professor is disappointing – when one needs to resort to ad hominems, that tells you something. On (3) if there are really so many, please point them out. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: hi! We're getting along very well, so as a wikifriend I'd like to whisper to you: read more carefully. Pullen is worthless in this whole discussion. I had written a page-long comment yesterday while riding on a bus, but made a mistake and all went down the drain. So: she's not dealing at all with the identification of the site. Nada, zilch. She's saying in her introduction more or less that "she's not commenting the 150 years of archaeological work at the site". (She can't resist and she does throw a punch in that direction at the end, calling this work imperialistic and Eurocentric, but that's for letting off steam; zero support for it or any focus on the topic). She's only dealing with Elad & Co.'s PR and aesthetics. No contribution to our topic. Dead end. (Not to mention too evident of an agenda, major factual mistakes, and the fact that since 2013 all she's written has become commonplace and is adding nothing new to the discussion, which has constantly moved on at a breakneck pace.)

The Emek Shaveh online article-cum-map is almost the same. The map concentrates on Elad and allied institutions. MANY digs I know very well, which have Wiki articles too, btw, are not there. Jerusalem's Old City is very well documented archaeologically. A living, inhabited town (we're talking just Old City) can never be fully excavated, think Rome or Athens or Budapest. It's not Petra or Chichen Itza (in Petra the state actually did have to offer a deal to the Bedouin to move out and into a built village, and lately they've been slowly moving back into the caves; never an easy task.) That considered, a lot has been done.

Best example: the decade-long controversy about how large Jer. was during the monarchy, if it did or not cover the Western Hill. Maximalists vs. minimalists. (Btw, the minimalists said: Jerusalem consisted for many centuries of only the SE ridge/hill, what we're calling here -or not- City of David. Never disputed after the first discoveries by Warren etc.) Who won? The maximalists, and undeservedly ruined Ms Kenyon's reputation, who's done excellent work, including on the SE ridge/C.o.D., but supported too vehemently the minimalist theory. See the Broad Wall. Discussion closed.

Back to Emek Shaveh: even somebody who sides with them (as opposed to: hates their guts) must tread lightly with this online publication: it's not signed, which actually closes the discussion. It's also old. And the map is very inaccurate, like I just said, since it forgets to mention that it's not indicating ALL the digs. Which then? Why? Where are the omitted ones? No say. Worthless for this discussion. Just look up Citadel, Holy Sepulchre, Cenacle/"Tomb of David", Muristan (SE part), Via Dolorosa (Antonia area), Bethesda, and lots and lots of sites in the Jewish Quarter and the margins of it towards the Armenian Q. (Cardo), the city wall (Nea, Ayyubid tower and Crusader columned structure, all slightly S of Zion Gate)... Shall I go on? And none on the map. So useless indeed.

Please, try to refrain from going into disputes when the sources you mention are not well understood and are quite one-sided, old, and partially removed from the topic at hand. The SE ridge, whether we call it just that, or (that was the case in the 19th c.) Ophel ridge, or Jebus, or indeed City of David, is the oldest incarnation of Jerusalem. The name City of David has been used as an ideological club against political opponents by Elad & Co., but is otherwise well justified : Hebrew Bible/OT (and it's not just the oldest, easily dismissible parts) + Josephus are together quite a good base. Te opponents are quite careless with therms, too. Wadi Hilwa/Hilweh is not the same as Silwan as such. Hilwa is fast expanding, and we're only talking here about the SE ridge, not what's across the street/wadi/Wadi Hilweh/Central Valley/Tyropoeon from it. Elad is also trying to erase the boundaries towards "Givati" (across the street, so outside the CoD) and Mazar's Ophel (the saddle N of the SE ridge/CoD, and S of the Temple Mount). Carelessness with terms & definitions only leads to useless shouting games. Which I want to avoid as much as verbosity (too late for that, Arminden!!!), so bye for now & good night/morning/...! Arminden (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, thanks for your thoughtful and fulsome reply. I will respond in kind, but for now one initial thought: it would be great to build out the article List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Attached is another map showing a wider list of excavations [6] (need to zoom into the Old City). The problem is that the vast majority of these are not deep level excavations which match what has been done at the City of David. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A couple of good articles here by the same author.

• Margreet Steiner, 2016, From Jerusalem with Love, History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After “Historicity”. Changing Perspectives 6, edited by Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson, Routledge, pp. 71-84
• Margreet Steiner, 2014, One Hundred and Fifty Years of Excavating Jerusalem Bart Wagemakers (ed.), Archaeology in the Land of `Tells and Ruins’. A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer. Oxbow Books, Oxford.

This certainly suggests that real excavation in the Old City was limited in scope.

Having read this, my interpretation of the amount of the Old City which has been excavated remains at about 10% at best. Arminden, I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

As to the name, I must point out that your statement "Hebrew Bible/OT + Josephus are together quite a good base" is incorrect. I have added the relevant quotations to the article - Josephus is a carbon copy of Samuel, and neither provide any geographical information other than the existence of a wall. If you read the writings of the modern archaeologists who originally drove support for the identification of this area as the City of David, their arguments constituted no more than "this is the oldest wall we have found, so let's assume that it is the same as the wall mentioned in Samuel". Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: hi. Sorry, but I'm not a politician, and picking out the convenient bits and leaving out the rest is not acceptable. You brought up Pullen and Emek Shaveh; I discarded them as a good base for discussion - now you leave them out and pick this or that secondary sentence and contradict it.

No, again: the Old City is inhabited, you cannot excavate more, and that applies to it as to any other (densely) inhabited city. The only recent exception was the Jewish Quarter in 1967, and it has been quite extensively excavated, if you consider that people wanted to move in right away. Apply the right type of comparison - with similar towns & cities, like Cairo, Amman, the Lebanese cities, and you'll see. Tell archaeology is something totally different (and not in today's spirit either). I see nothing else to add to it. And I'll do my best to not spend as much time as I did in the first half year of Covid 19 on Wikipedia, so I won't be participating very much in a discussion that is unlikely to inform & educate me in a useful way, sorry, it's a pragmatic and vital decision I need to make.

The Deuteronomistic History, which includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, is - in the opinion of most scholars - the work of one or several authors from the time of King Josiah (r. 641–609), with some later additions and edits. Royal scribes did have access to archival material, they weren't the Brothers Grimm, only collecting folklore. Even if that is denied, they knew the city they were living in. So did Josephus, who was an aristocrat and priest from Jerusalem. The name "city of David" is quite possibly initially based on folklore, but the veneration of the royal tombs, some probably more historical than others, was a contemporary reality mentioned both by the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History (late 7th c. BCE) and by Josephus (1st c. CE), who both place them in the city once called Jebus/C.o.D. The Books of Kings (1+2) use the phrase "city/City of David" and mention a number of kings buried there: Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah. At least the later ones are historical, even the strictest minimalists wouldn't contest the existence of a more substantial Israelite kingdom around Jerusalem from the 9th c. BCE onwards, with a tribal city-state already there in the 10th. Jehoshaphat, if a king of that name did exist, was a contemporary of King Omri of Israel and King Mesha of Moab, mentioned both in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources (Mesha Stele for both, several more for the former). Ahaziah is possibly named on the Tel Dan Stele. It's a period in history where all royal chancelleries in the region kept archives for legal documents including diplomatic correspondence, we're not talking of some pre-historic area or period suffering of illiteracy. It wasn't a space free of historical documents, where any old invention would be accepted. That applies even more clearly in Josephus's time. Going to the extreme: even a Hasmonean cult would have been a good couple of centuries old by the time of Josephus.

Based on that, Weill and those to follow had a good base for adopting a term from the Bible + Josephus. I never said a word about the historicity of a king named David, only about the historicity of the term "city/City of David". Historicity doesn't mean millennia or heaps of centuries: just the reality of a fact or concept in history. And one cannot argue with the historicity of the name C.o.D. in good faith.

To recap:

• The Old City of Jerusalem cannot be considered as archaeologically insufficiently known. It's never enough, but for a densely inhabited area it's relatively well researched.
• The name "city/City of David" is a historical fact.
• The SE ridge is where the city we have been calling for a day or two "Jerusalem" has first developed, first in the Bronze Age and then in the Iron Age. The reason for the location is the Gihon Spring.

This I do care to stress out and insist on. All the rest not so much. Arminden (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: a good source for the minimalist approach on the City of David is "The Mound on the Mount: A Possible Solution to the 'Problem with Jerusalem'" by Israel Finkelstein & Oded Lipschits (2011), where the Iron Age city above Gihon is proposed to have existed only between ca. the mid-8th c. and 586 BCE. That would cover over two centuries, including the major urban expansion of Jerusalem after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. [Correction: no, not his theory. City on the Temple Mount with extension or separate citadel near the spring.] The next period of intensive habitation would be the Hellenistic/Hasmonean one. As said, another good two centuries until the informed eyewitness account of the priest Yosef ben Matatyahu aka Josephus. Arminden (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PPS: I had gone through Finkelstein's counter-proposal once and only superficially, but didn't read it thoroughly, so I did it now. It deals with the very unusual problem of having strong BA and IA sources indicating an important city at Jerusalem, but the digs on the SE ridge/CoD only coming up with fortifications around Gihon and on the eastern slope, relatively little pottery, and virtually no residential remains. So where did the powerful ruler as well as the townspeople live? He offers the Temple Mount as a solution. A typical tell settlement, for from the spring and not connected to it by fortifications, at least throughout most of the BA and IA. The theoretical construct is in large parts plausible, intelligent and a well-educated guess, as one would expect from Finkelstein. The problem is that it has no good answer to the presence of the huge spring fortifications, and that it opposes scarcity of finds with - almost none, and no chance of ever being able to test his theory. The very simple counter-argument of his opponents is: the Romans have used the SE ridge as a quarry, as can be easily seen for instance at the T1+T2 structures (Weill's famed "royal tombs"), every item predating the Romans by 5, 10, 18 centuries and still present being close to a miracle. Not a perfect argument either, but actually used by Finkelstein too in regard to the lack of findings from the relevant periods a few dozen meters from the theoretical mound (tell) hidden underneath the Herodian platform. Finkelstein has no good answer to the presence of the massive Middle Bronze spring tower(s) and the fortified access corridor, he admits that a sausage dog-like city stretching down the slope by a multiple of its length just to include the spring makes very little sense and has no precedent or parallel anywhere, and his theory is based on a total argumentum ex silentio, on the lack of findings and not on existing material. As much as I admire his general approach, here he's having a very hard time being persuasive. Maybe there are some logical Lego stones missing to make his theory stand, but for now I find it less convincing than the opponents'. And as long as it's totally based on speculation and one's readiness to accept it, it's pretty fruitless. Arminden (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. I will try to do justice to it.

With respect to your three core points above

• "The Old City of Jerusalem cannot be considered as archaeologically insufficiently known..." We both agree there has been a lot of work, we both agree that it has not been 100% excavated. So it is neither black nor white. As to whether the degree of excavation is "enough" to be highly confident of the location of the original core, I believe we can agree that the question is inherently subjective, and we would be best to agree to disagree. I note that you have avoided commenting on my 10% figure, perhaps because you consider it to be not the right question - for example, the northern half of the old city has never been part of the debate given the NT description of Calvary and the assumption that Helena got the location right three centuries later.
• "The name "city/City of David" is a historical fact." Yes but with just one source, as you rightly state. I have often found it interesting that people can acknowledge that the historicity of David himself is unproven, yet be highly confident that there was a place called the City of David. It is important to acknowledge that there are zero other sources calling the place City of David in a contemporary sense. Remove references to the story of the Deuteronomist, and we are left with 2,500 years of silence. Not compelling in my view.
• "The reason for the location is the Gihon Spring." I agree with you - that is the reason why scholars speculated that it would be logical for the original settlement to be nearby the best water source in the area. The scholars who disagree with the theory suggest that it is illogical for the settlement not to have been in the best defensive spot a little higher up, i.e. at the Temple Mount.

Overall, it is beyond doubt that there was settlement on the ridge in ancient times, but to state that was the "original core" is a fundamentally speculative judgement. Who is to say that the structures of the original "Jebusite" core were not built from wood with shallow foundations (which would have left very limited archaeological traces) underneath the Cathedral of Saint James on the Southwestern Hill, or in a small area near the Dome of the Rock.

As an aside, I personally see it as a great shame when attempts are made to shut down interesting questions like this. When tour guides take people around the "City of David" they will speak with great certainty about what was once there, perhaps because it is easier to do so. But isn't it better for humanity for the curious to be told that the question is still open, so that that young people are encouraged to wonder and investigate themselves? Onceinawhile (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That tour is just non-stop hasbara, start to finish. And it is deliberately so, what's more. David Landy (2017): The place of Palestinians in tourist and Zionist discourses in the ‘City of David’, occupied East Jerusalem, Critical Discourse Studies, DOI:10.1080/17405904.2017.1284684 Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: I was just thinking about this discussion in the context of the article which Nishidani started at Aten (city). I would venture to say that if any place in the world deserves the crown of "most excavated", it would be the Theban necropolis. Yet here we are today, watching the unearthing of a previously unknown city, right next to two major temples in a place which could hardly have been more obvious to have looked over the last two centuries. To me it shows that modern archaeology is still only scratching the surface of what is out there. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Good thoughts. We agree on many. The details (certainly no wooden Jebusite city walls, as a) not enough wood around, b) no precedent anywhere in the Early Iron Age; not under St James either, as they would have died of thirst before being bombarded to death from the top of the West Hill with date pits by hooligans passing by), but I'm sure those were just quick thoughts. The approach of all professional scholars is to state the general consensus, while giving a notion of how likely it is that this would remain the working theory for long, if not the final truth, and offering plausible alternatives. The SE Hill is the traditional identification for BA and Early IA Jerusalem, with Finkelstein making a good theoretical case for the Temple Mount.

As to a historical David, I'm also satisfied with the degree of consensus about the reading of the Tel Dan stele. David looks no less historical than Sasan, Osman, Saud and other historical chieftains who became the real or mythical founders of successful dynasties. Do you really care if a real Early Iron Age king build up the memory of a legendary forbear and called his residence after him, even if that grand-grandfather had a different name and was a nomad, rather than a settled king of the hill? What difference does it make? Besides: oral traditions aren't fairy tales, they manage to pass on a good deal of facts over astonishing periods of time. Think of Damascus Gate, called by Arabs Bab el-Amud, Column Gate, after a monumental Roman column that's been gone for the last 1000 years! How many generations is that, 1000 years? The "City of David" was mentioned as a real name by a real 1st-century historian, Josephus. Naming the Ayyubid-Mamluk castle in the Golan Nimrod Castle doesn't make Nimrod real, but Nimrod Castle certainly is a real name (and David is a whole lot more historical than Nimrod, by virtue of the Tel Dan stele). Don't forget: Josephus was a priest from a priestly family, they ran the show in Jerusalem and had access to all the archives and libraries in this former capital town, where religious and worldly power had been one and the same during the Hasmoneans and remained allied well into the Roman period. He wasn't just "quoting the Bible" - there was no canonical text yet anyway, and again, if he did bother, he could access many other sources now lost to us, before the war for sure, and possibly after that as well.

Where I disagree is the assessment of how well Jerusalem's Old City is known from excavations. Nobody, ever, has excavated every metre of an inhabited place, anywhere. Hardly ever done even with small AND uninhabited settlements. But I've written this more than once. And the "city" discovered today in Egypt was a royal palace city, basically the court and the people needed to support its needs, stuck between two known sites (a temple and smth else, I forgot). For the BA and IA one calls "city" any urban settlement, size and population don't matter much. Archaeologists have been looking for it for a long time, and Hawass knew there must be something in this area, which had never been touched before by a spade. So no way of calling that general area the "most excavated" site anywhere (and it can't be part of the necropolis; maybe near it). I read there have been several repeated attempts at finding this "city", until Hawass got lucky. Luck No. 1 is that it hasn't been covered by modern buildings, or else there'd be no scoop today in the media.

There are few ways, and thus places, of starting a city in the Ancient Near East. That's precisely why you get tells: water, defence, trade, agriculture. Always in the exact same spot, from 10.000 BCE till Alexander, 332 BCE. Between ten and three millennia of repetitive reconstruction at the same site, over and over again. Because springs, convenient hills, and valleys don't move. Nobody, not even the most entrenched minimalists, deny the general location of Iron Age Jerusalem. The exact location of IA I Jebus/Jerusalem? Only where a tell makes sense and either has left traces, or where archaeologists were never allowed to dig. This leaves us with the SE Hill and the Temple Mount. You won't get any archaeologist agreeing to Mt Zion, Silwan, the YMCA chapel's basement or whatever. I'm talking archaeologists, or historians who work with archaeological data. I'm never even mentioning the Pavlovian creatures working as Elad-employed & -trained guides at the CoD, those aren't a topic. Arminden (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Talking about scratching the surface, Italy has half the known archaeological riches so far retrieved, it is often said, but that only represents about half of what's still buried. I built the steps from one garden to another from huge well fashioned blocks of stonework I found when turning the soil to plant the area. Even this week, small pieces of burnt clay mouldings came up, not significant enough to join the bits of a sarcophagus and a variety of votive statues I have. Next door, there's a large Roman funerary slab still have buried in a wall. When the local school and carabinieri's station were built, kids were trading votive statues found a few centimetres under the topsoil in the former within days, and some mosaics were broken by bulldozers on the latter site. Friends' houses have mosaics walled up in the cantinas. There's no end to it. There's no reason to doubt David of the house of David, any more than suspect Paris/Alexander is reflected in Hittite Alaksandus, and so many other names. Of course the legendary cycles making a Bethlehem bandit into a northern Israelitic emperor, or a Greek Viking-like scion of coastal raiding and colonizing tribes into a wimpish tombeur de femmes around the Bosphorus are all cum grano salis details valuable for all sorts of interpretations not relating to historical events. It's the attempt to vindicate the historicity of the Bible or Homeric legends that get up one's nose, as I think we all agree.Nishidani (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does Givati stand in relation to the Tyropoean Valley?

I thought Wadi Hilweh (the wadi as such) is exactly where the Wadi Hilweh Street runs along and that it's following the same line as the ancient Central, or Tyropoean Valley, be it at a several metres higher level. Or that the "stepped street" (built, as we now know, in the time of Pilate, I would think as a more monumental version of a pre-existing street), would more or less follow the bottom of that valley. I couldn't find a topographic map of Givati & the Tyropoean Valley, on the very poor ones one can google, the contour lines and the elevation figures are hardly legible or fully illegible.

If the Tyropoean V. did indeed run through part of the Givati dig site, rather than east of it, then a section of the site (on the E) would still be part of the SE ridge. I'd still find it somewhat improbable that any Iron Age city walls, if there have been any, would have been built so close to the valley floor, but that's just my speculation. The ridge is narrow and the slope steep, so who knows. A good topographic map of the area showing the position of Givati in relation to the Tyropoean Valley floor would sure help to define Givati's E section as potentially part of a city on the SE ridge, or not. Arminden (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is an IAA site plan, quite confusing, as I cannot follow the logic of the contour lines (every 5 m, but seemingly jumping in a weird, inconsistent manner). Hard to make out where the ancient valley floor used to be. The article from which the plan originates places the entire Givati Parking Lot on the NW slope of the "City of David" spur, which doesn't seem right. Maybe the initial, actual parking lot was E of the valley separating the E and W Hills, and the dig has later extended W of it, across the valley floor and further? Arminden (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Finkelstein theory

The "Speculated / thought to be / is" section had lost direction and focus if it had ever had such. What does set the question on a stronger foundation is the Israel Finkelstein theory, which itself is not new anymore, but now I had more time to listen to some of his Youtube presentations and understood better what he is suggesting. He proposes that the main tell of Jerusalem could be under the Temple Mount platform. He identifies the fortifications from the Gihon spring as an isolated fortress protecting the city's water source, standing several 100 m downhill from the city tell. He never elaborated in the recorded conferences if the walled city and the spring were connected or not by a fortified or underground path, which seems important, since connecting the population to its water source was the common –and only logical thing to do– in Bronze (Gezer) and Iron Age cities (Hazor, Megiddo, Gibeon, Lachish, Be'er Sheva). Lacking a water supply made the cities an easy prey to besieging armies. Maybe he offered some speculative elaboration in written, I don't know. He readily admits that there is no way to prove the theory, since the Waqf won't ever allow any archaeological investigation on Haram grounds. Maybe one day some physical methods from above (thermal? other waves?) will allow non-invasive investigation, but for now that's SF.

So yes, the relatively meager findings, although readily explained by some with the use by Romans of the area as a stone quarry, is invoked as a counter-argument for a BA and IA city before c. 700 BCE, as does the as of now unsuccessful search for a city wall on the western side of the ridge. One N-S wall doesn't yet make a city (although less than that has been invoked at Tell es-Sultan in Jericho to postulate an "oldest city in the world"). These are acceptable arguments forming more than a fringe theory (although many would argue that's not the case), and therefore needs to be given its own paragraph in the article. Anyone willing? Me - not right now. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)