In the Eye of Jerusalem’s Archaeological Storm [No olho do furacão arqueológico de Jerusalém]
The City of David, Beyond the Politics and Propaganda
By Israel Finkelstein
Forward – April 26, 2011
Archaeological activity in Jerusalem has been sucked into a whirlwind of conflicting political agendas, and the site commonly referred to as “the City of David” is in the eye of the storm. At issue is a place of seminal importance for the Jewish people and indeed for anyone who cherishes the heritage of Western civilization. When dealing with archaeology in Jerusalem, one must first know the facts. Otherwise it is easy to be led astray by unfounded historical interpretations or to succumb to misinformation from those pursuing their own political agendas. The City of David is a long and narrow six-hectare ridge that stretches to the south of the Temple Mount, outside the Old City of Jerusalem. It is the subject of an explosive mix of territorial disputes, political propaganda and conspiracy theories. But it is first and foremost a remarkable archaeological site that has been intensively explored by British, French, German and Israeli archaeologists starting as far back as the mid-19th century (…) From the outset of modern exploration, the City of David produced exciting discoveries. Truly thrilling finds include the Siloam Inscription, a late-8th-century BCE Hebrew inscription that commemorates the hewing of a water tunnel under the ridge. Other important recent discoveries are the Pool of Siloam, dating from the Roman period, and the monumental street that connected it with the Temple Mount — places that were frequented by thousands during the three pilgrimage festivals each year. But is the ridge south of the Temple Mount the location of the actual city of King David? This is one of the most excavated spots on the face of the earth, but so far fieldwork has not yielded any monuments from the 10th century BCE, the time of King David. Recent claims by an archaeologist working at the site regarding the supposed discovery of the palace of King David and the city-wall built by King Solomon are based on literal, simplistic readings of the biblical text and are not supported by archaeological facts. The supposed “palace” features walls from different periods, none dating — as far as I can judge — from the 10th century BCE. And the “wall” of Solomon cannot be considered a true fortification and cannot be dated as early as the 10th century BCE. In light of this context, some scholars think that the remains of the Jerusalem of King David’s time are located under the surface of today’s Temple Mount. This, however, does not diminish the tremendous importance of the City of David ridge. Scholars agree that starting in the late 8th century BCE, it was part of the enlarged city of Jerusalem. Illustrious biblical figures, such as Kings Hezekiah and Josiah and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, probably strolled here at that time. Monuments unearthed here include impressive fortifications from the Bronze Age, the Kingdom of Judah and the period of the Hasmoneans, as well as water installations associated with the nearby Gihon Spring, ancient Jerusalem’s main water source. The Pool of Siloam is associated with the New Testament story of Jesus’ healing of a man who was blind from birth. This site should be revered as one of humanity’s great landmarks. Were it not for the political controversy surrounding the site, it would doubtless be high on the list of world heritage sites. Allegations are sometimes heard in the media that work in the City of David is unlawful and not executed to the standards of modern archaeology. This is untrue. Fieldwork there is carried out according to law and — taking into account the difficulties of excavating in a built-up area — using sound field methods. All excavation projects are directed by seasoned archaeologists and inspected by the Israel Antiquities Authority (…) The City of David’s monuments and antiquities — some yet to be discovered — are too important to be allowed to fall victim to politics or neglect. Whatever our political views, we need to be vigilant in maintaining this place as a tangible link to a rich past and as a site of honest historical inquiry.
Leia o texto completo.
