Ancient and Archaeology permalink
About king David and Solomon's palace.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2011
From a French thread about the difficulties to fit archaeologic research with history in Israel.
The controversy as I understand it would go over a period between the 10th and the 9th century BC. And in literature they would be called "maximalists" and "minimalists"
I saw the ITV series from John McCarthy, but unfortunatley I only saw it in French dubbed and I don't know for what reasons it seems not to exist in English.
I give first the URLs to comment it tomorrow:
Some obscure site: pre-islamic Persia based at London look at the "home" Persia started it all?
And how difficult it is to do excavations in Israel and even before in Ottoman Turkey:
.
Kind regards, Paul. -
Message 2
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 6th November 2011
Addendum to previous mesage:
I wanted to highlight the difficulty to write history, when some are guided by for instance the narrative of the bible.
From the national Geographic article I mentioned:
"During David's time, as Finkelstein cast it, Jerusalem was little more than a "hill-country village", David himself a raggedy upstart akin to Pancho Villa and his legion of followers more like "500 people with sticks in their hands...
"Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo not constructed in David and Solomon's time, he says, and so must have been built by kings of the ninth-century BC's Omride dynasty, well after David and Solomon's reign...
About the Omri dynasty:
But from the other side some other archaeologue has found copper mines from the, he says, tenth century BC, which could only have been supported by a higher level population organisation as a kingdom, as from the 10th century such one of David, Solomon...Read it in my different URL's from my previous message.
Some highbrow site which enlightens about the controversies:
About the Liverani controversy, if you read the sites I mentioned there are some from American biblical studying schools. One asks if they can give unbiased comments?
Liverani believes that most of the history of Israel found in the Old Testament is a creation of the post-exile community written to justify the resettlement of the people who returned from exile in Babylon during the Persian period...
Kind regards, Paul. -
Message 3
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 12th November 2011
Paul
No-one seems to be taking up your thread... Presumably you know the classic book "The Bible as History" written some time.
Cass -
Message 4
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 12th November 2011
Cass,
thank you very much for the reply, but the discussion is much, much more in depth than that. I am afraid that most of the contributors are a bit afraid to enter such a discussion.
Cheers, Paul.
PS: if you read the discussion...and even more on the French history site: Passion Histoire.... -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 12th November 2011
Paul
I think that you may be right ...
But in my case I feel that schemes to try to produce historical versions of "Holy Books" are based upon flawed ideas of what History is about- as well as misunderstanding what books that provide "guiding lights" are about too.
Hence Xavier Leon-Dufour's "The Gospels and the Jesus of History" makes the point that the four Gospels would appear to have inconsistencies that make it impossible to write a definitive account that joins them together.
But then about 30 years ago when I had a project to write a musical version of the Easter Story inspired by George Rude's "The Crowd in the French Revolution"- I was happy to combine the elements of the Gospels in songs which reflected the way that onlookers might have perceived what they witnessed on the basis of their own observation and understanding.. We are all of us unique, and each of us is capable of grasping an "atom" of truth.
But my "atom" consistently proves unpallatable to MB members, or just too big to swallow.. Now that I have posted my "Modern Lessons" it is probably time to get back to music. I have written too much history in recent years and neglected my "art".
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 13th November 2011
Personally, I have few thoughts to offer on the subject. The mapping of archeological remains to biblical accounts seems an exercise too fraught with danger. There appears to be a distinct difference between the archeology of Israel and that of the large empires of the near east: The rulers of the large states were eager to carve their names into stone and have themselves portrayed, enabling us to link archeological remains with persons and kingdoms. Most what the ground of Israel and Palestine has to offer, it seems, are nameless remains that can be dated to "about the time of X", with chronology as uncertain as attribution. A void that allows people to project their own expectations into it.
Probably those who focus on the bible as a source, are too much inclined to regard the region in isolation, while in reality it appears to have been a perpetual buffer zone, always good for an entertaining campaign season. The bible does contain some traces of the uneasy, unequal alliances between local rulers and the big empires. IF we were able to write the history of the region, it might look a lot like that of Italy in the early renaissance: Little kingdoms eternally feuding, ruled by men with some wealth and big pretensions, maneouvering anxiously every time a really big invasion descends on the region. Relying on the bible could be much like relying on a history of Italy, written exclusively by and for the citizens of, say, Milan. Of course it is retrospectively embellished -- all old historical writings are.
Digging in the hope finding solid evidence for the kingdoms of David and Solomon is probably a waste of time. The best hope might be to find diplomatic letters in some surviving archive in one of the large capitals in the wider regions. -
Message 7
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Sunday, 13th November 2011
I think that the book 'The Bible as History' is considered a bit dated now.
David's 'kingdom', if it existed occurred during the 10th C BC, in what could be considered a ‘dark age’ period following the decline of the main powers of the Bronze Age. The Hittite Empire had collapsed. Egypt was in a period of decline and Assyria was weak. I am not aware of any written documents from the period covering Canaan or Israel nor am I aware that there any surviving writings from the Canaanites, the Philistines or the Phoenicians for that period. There is nothing unlikely about a successful soldier making himself king and exercising power over surrounding kaqreas. It happened in England after the fall of Roman Britain and more recently in France with Napoleon.
Tim -
Message 8
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 13th November 2011
I'm afraid that the archaeology of Israel is so utterly bound up with politics and national identity/legitimacy as well as competing religious and secular interests that trying to unpick it is exceedingly difficult, viz
The controversy over Tel Dan stele and the ramifications of the proposed rebuilding of the Mughrabi ramp are good examples of how heritage is deployed as a weapon in that country. -
Message 9
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 13th November 2011
I would have thought that one of the problems of Archaeology related to Jews/ Israelites is that, according to the Bible, Abram/Abraham- the great founding father- in taking his extended family/tribe from Ur of Chaldea turned his back on "the great works of man" in the belief that his One God would look after his people through his Creation.
It was something repeated by Moses, who had learned to "live off the land" during his period as an escapee after he had killed the overseer..He then persuaded the Israelites to leave the greatness of Egypt and the constant "slaving away" that was needed to support such a Civilization in which the State was absorbing 40% of GDP. And it was hard for them to adapt to a life as "Old Age Travellers".
But the popular history of Archaeology that I read not so long ago was entitled "Great Excavations"- and the title really points to that tradition that so closely connected early Archaeology to the search for the kind of treasures that rich societies could afford to build in their permanent settlements, where they staked a claim.
Thus traditionally Ur was seen as just one more example of the importance of great river valleys in the growth of Civilzation, whereas the African continent, where "living off the land"- and moving around in accordance with the land and Nature, as the Bible has the Jews doing, tended to produce circumstances in which very few permanent and enduring structures were made.
A moving target is always more difficult to pin down.
Cass -
Message 10
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 14th November 2011
Mutatis Mutandis,
thank you very much for this reply, which summarize nearly the whole question. And yes the best way to describe any kingdoms of the 10th century BC at that particular area are from written sources from surrounding empires as the Egyptian one. While the lack of it perhaps hints at the non existence of "exuberant" structures of glorious dynasties?
That's a new approach for me. Will try to investigate the sources from that perspective.
Kind regards and with high esteem,
Paul. -
Message 11
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 14th November 2011
Tim,
"There is nothing unlikely about a successful soldier making himself king and exercising power over surrounding areas."
That's quite right, but if it was "influential" then I suppose we have to find "data" from the surrounding empires about it?
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 12
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 14th November 2011
Ferval,
yes that's right. In the ITV documentary from John McCarthy that I mentioned in my first message I saw in one episode an Israeli historian saying to John Mc Carthy that he was afraid of physical assault for proning certain of his statements. But all by all I find it still, if you compare with other Middle-East countries, very democratic what so called "left wing" historians and archaeologues can say and prove about the question without government interference.
For instance about the serious historical book of the Italian historian Liverani that I mentioned I found a lot of triumphant even Arabian government backed sites which claim victory in the trend as "see those Jews...."
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 13
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Thursday, 17th November 2011
Hi Paul
very nice to be in communication again, i am afraid that for a long time I have only been on the BBc pages very infrequently. the problem with writing about David is, as one of the other posters said, the political and religious controversy attached to it. But added to that is the lack of contemporary written sources for 10th C BC Canaan.
very best regards
Tim
ps the jiglu world history site on googlegroups continues and that is where I mainly post -
Message 14
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
There was a programme on the Beeb, I think, which also argued Paul's point that the Israel of Omri was a bigger, more powerful kingdom than that of David, and that the latter was given a good spin job by later Bible writers....
It was a pretty good programme, with pretty strong arguments, and I'm convinced! -
Message 15
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 1st December 2011
Shivfan,
yes indeed, from David there is only some indirect mentioning on "one" stele, if I recall it well. And from the Omri dynasty there are plenty of indices both archaeological and indirect mentioning. But as with the Fisher controversy about the Wilhelminian Germany, there is still honest! new discussion. (I am preparing a thread for a French messageboard with a lot of English texts. Perhaps I can "reignite" the thread about that subject on these boards).
If they find something more archaeological on the Solomon kingdom and by that more on the David kingdom? But I have to say and many say it with me: why, if these kingdoms were "illustrious" and had some influence, is there no mentioning by the important contemporaneous cultures, which had written sources?
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 16
Posted by David James Wall (U14752090) on Friday, 2nd December 2011
Friday 2nd December, 2011. GMT:1149
Re: TEXT
With respect: as far as I am aware from my childhood, the 'king DAVID' popularised in ancient texts from the 'near EAST' was sometimes refered to as K. Dav_i_DA. This can be translated into contemporary English (bizzarely enough) as 'SATAN lives in me'; a reference to the fact that a 'MARTIAL _a' or 'military character' of the historic 'LEVANT' does not abide by the 'eternal command order': 'Thou shall not kill'. What the modern 'IDF' (Israeli Defence Force) makes of this is a moot point...
As for myself; with the forename 'David': it should be noted that my mother's family are related to the 'WELSH' - 'Macauly' or 'MORGAN'. Apparently I'm related in some way to 'David Lloyd George'!
ps. 'David' in 'WELSH' stands for 'beloved son'. -
Message 17
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 3rd December 2011
Hi Paul
"But I have to say and many say it with me: why, if these kingdoms were "illustrious" and had some influence, is there no mentioning by the important contemporaneous cultures, which had written sources?"
Specifically, what written sources are there from 'important contemporaneous cultures' that date to the period asigned to David and Solomon that refer to the land of Canaan and therefore might be expected to refer to them?
regards
Tim -
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 5th December 2011
Tim,
"Specifically, what written sources are there from 'important contemporaneous cultures' that date to the period asigned to David and Solomon that refer to the land of Canaan and therefore might be expected to refer to them?"
Did this evening again some research about the David and Solomon question especially for written sources from important contemporaneous cultures referring to a kingdom in Canaan in the 10th century BC and there seems to be only the stele about David that I already mentioned. So, my reasoning and that from others is that if that kingdom was that "illustrious", it is strange that there is no more mentioning in written sources from other areas as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia...
Some more or less moderate opponent:
Some proponent: Israel Finkelstein:
I mentioned already Hershel Shanks and BAR in my former messages.
Tim, for me the difficulty is that one if you do research on internet and perhaps also in a library, one can't find one single book or review about the subject of the 10th century Canaan based on independent sources. They seems always to be mixed in some way as with Bible histories. And BTW I am not familiar with the Bible as I was on a Roman-Catholic school in Belgium, where there was more about the New Testament, if I recall it well, and less about the Old, apart, and in an indirect way, from the more exalted stories as from Abraham and his son and all that...
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 19
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 10th December 2011
Hi Paul
'if that kingdom was that "illustrious", it is strange that there is no more mentioning in written sources from other areas as Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia..'
But my point is that nothing survives and so we do not know what they wrote about at the time. There are no Carthaginian records of Hannibal Barca, does that mean he did not exist or that he was not that illustrious?
The earliest prophets in the Hewbrew bible (Amos and Hosea) both deal with the northern kingdom of israel (Amos came from Judah and Hosea from Israel) both mention David and both imply a common link between Israel and Judah.
the david Kingdom was actually fairly small in size, even if one accepts the biblical claims.
The Deutoromic history, which is the main sourse for David, claims to have used earlier documents and includes all the kings that are listed in external sources such as Omri, Ahab and hezekiah so is hardly completely made up.
regards
Tim -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 11th December 2011
Tim,
"But my point is that nothing survives and so we do not know what they wrote about at the time. "
Yes, you can be right
"There are no Carthaginian records of Hannibal Barca, does that mean he did not exist or that he was not that illustrious?"
But there are a lot from contemporaneous sources? And it is not the tenth century BC...already more written sources...
And about Hannibal I remember a 1,000 messages' thread meanly between you and Nordmann. And there was a long discussion about Hannibal too.
BTW on the new site that Haesten joined I saw also Nordmann as one of the bit more than 100 members.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Monday, 12th December 2011
Hi Paul
there are no contemporary sourses for Hannibal Barca. The earliest full acount is Livy written about 200 years after the event. The date of the Tel Dan Stele is disputed but could be earlier. Polybius is earlier but less of it survives and it is still 60 years after the event. Polybius and Livy contradict each other over such things as the route taken by Hannibal across the Alps.
Obviously if there were a Philistine account of the period to which David is normally dated and it made on mention of his then it would be strong evidence against his existance, but there is none.
The Succession history contained within the Deuteromic history does not read like an act of fiction to me.
I will remain on jiglu world history on the google groups and say a sad farewell to the BBc pages.
best regards as always
Tim -
Message 22
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 12th December 2011
Tim,
yes you can be right, but it goes not about the existence of king David. There are sources and even Finkelstein agrees about his existence, but it goes about the "illustriousness" of that kingdom that is not obvious yet from all the excavations till now. And most of the bible defenders say: yes of course while they can't dig where they want due to those Palestinians.....
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul.
PS: Have you read the whole thread? -
Message 23
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 17th December 2011
Hi Paul
yes I have read the whole thread. I had a quick skim through 2 Samuel and I do not think that David is creditted with much building, he is after all specifically not creditted with building the temple. He is said to have had a palace built but that might not be that large. The Solomonic temple, based on the dimensions given in 1 Kings is actually quite small.
I entirely agree that Jerusalem was quite small at this time, in fact I can remember reading that when I was a teenager but it would have made an excellent base from which to exercise military control over the surrounding area and for tribute to flow in.
best wishes
Tim -
Message 24
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 17th December 2011
Tim,
Are you going to join us on Historum?
T -
Message 25
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Saturday, 17th December 2011
Hi Tric
I must admit I had not really thought that much about it. I am still on the world history group (smartgroups then jiglu then on googlegroups) that was formed by some disgruntled members of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã pages when it was formed.
Do I need an invite or can I get information from the thread on the closure of the Ö÷²¥´óÐã pages. I have been reading through the thread but without really taking in the details.
Sad thing was that I used to be a regular poster on the Ö÷²¥´óÐã pages then became very irregular for various reasons and had just started to pick up a bit when the pages go and close down.
regards
Tim -
Message 26
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Saturday, 17th December 2011
Tim,
Anyone can join Historum. Some of us have formed our own social group for which you will need an invite, which you'll receive.
There is also another site called Englistory,which a few of the posters here have joined.
T -
Message 27
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 17th December 2011
Tim,
thank you very much for the reply.
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.