Misplaced Pages

Talk:City of David (archaeological site)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Selfstudier (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 29 July 2021 (→Material temp removed form article as probably out of date). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:59, 29 July 2021 by Selfstudier (talk | contribs) (→Material temp removed form article as probably out of date)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!


WikiProject iconIsrael B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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)

Not a modern neighborhood

Its the name of a biblical place and an archaeological site turned national park:

The name was used for the western hill of Jerusalem for a time (the one known today as Mount Zion):

The national park/archaeological site is located within the Arab village of Silwan in the Wadi el-Hilwe neighborhood:

The archaeological remains from that site indicate that the Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure were built in the 9th century BCE, meaning that they could not have been built by David or Solomon (even Eilat Mazar does not dispute this chronology, contrary to what our articles say on this subject):

Anyone interested in helping to make this clearer to the reader? Tiamut 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Add a picture showing the landscape from there?

I have been there about 2 years ago and I remember that there was a nice landscape from there (in the place with the archaeological excavations), can somebody please put a picture of it in the article? Or maybe a panorama?-- Someone35 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 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)

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 Israeli planning authorities have approved plans to relocate inhabitants to turn the area into an archaeological park." 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 . 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." 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

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)
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)
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)

Supposed

I have restored the "supposed" in "For the supposed city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem." Something that is not an established fact cannot be expressed as an established fact using the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this. Nearly all of the early historical material is not secured as an established fact, but scholarly shorthand usually ascribes things according to tradition, even for legendary figures: Abraham of Ur etc. The legends concerning David (who in reality may have been a local bandit) at least in Samuel are unanimous in associating him with Bethlehem. By logic, if supposed here, I guess one should write also that Bethlehem is the supposed birthplace of Jesus, if only because it is mentioned as such only in the birth myth passages of three gospels but generally ignored thereon in. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the birthplace of Jesus is considered Nazareth, not Bethlehem. This is the majority view among historians and Bible scholars and Pope Benedict XVI also subscribed to it in a book published during his papacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is how the sentence should be structured on Misplaced Pages: The supposed Jesus was supposedly born Nazareth and the supposed David was supposedly born in Bethlehem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Your 'Nazerath', sounds like Nasser's wrath, so have, without prejudice, corrected.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, the sentence doesn't mention Jesus, and sarcasm often indicates lack of a reasoned argument. The sentence is not part of the article, it is pointing readers to another article. Sean is correct, Misplaced Pages should not be stating "This article is about a neighborhood in Jerusalem. For the city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem" as fact. Material within an article often has enough context so that we do not have to continually repeat that the material isn't historical fact. Do we really have to take this to NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Doug. It's not a problem that worries me. I'm just not certain. Use an adjective like 'supposed' and you signal to the reader more than simple 'factual' prose requires. The 'supposed' is 'neutral' from one perspective but, from another, it takes a stance. This was my original instinctive reaction. IN Jewish tradition, the term 'city of David' means the Jebusite capital David conquered. In Christian tradition, the 'city of David' means Bethlehem, and also, since they revere the OT, Jerusalem.
Further, if we now concentrate on the sentence, one could easily created problems for the first part. 'Ir David' is not a 'neighbourhood in Jerusalem' in either the accepted meaning of neighbourhood in English and the specific colour it has taken on in Israeli English (reflected in wiki), a residential (Jewish) area. It is the site of an archaeological dig in a restricted area around the 'stronghold of Zion' of the Biblical Jerusalem within the 'neighbourhood of Silwan'. Thus that too is not a statement of fact, but a POV, which happens to be that of the people behind the Elad operation. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good points. Some of them refer to the title of the article and to the first part, right? So we need to separate them out. What I think we can say is "For the city traditionally considered to be King David's birthplace, see Bethlehem." If we can agree on that, I'd suggest starting a separate section for the other issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So now we are resorting to calling King David a bandit, are we? That description actually more aptly fits Mohammed, who looted Mecca and massacred its Jewish population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.137.180 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC) (MO fits banned user User:JarlaxleArtemis)
You need to read some books about David by Baruch Halpern, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
or, if you are in a hurry, I Samuel 27:9,11; but where is David refered to as a bandit in this aricle? A Georgian (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to mention it here. It's about an archaeological dig, not 'David'.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As Augustine recalled a captured pirate telling Alexander the Great, all great creators of new states are thugs, pirates, mass murderers, etc. David's probable origins are not exceptional. Things haven't changed much (robber barons etc), it's just tht algorithms function as swords these days.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's just ignore this IP, given their other edits and block and the need to oversight one personal attack, he/she will be blocked again shortly, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked a CU, Alison, who confirmed the IP was a sock of JarlaxleArtemis. Now blocked of course along with some accounts. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 14 June 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."

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:

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

checkY 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] is mentioned in this era in the biblical story of ] ({{Bibleref2|Genesis 14:18–20}}), which may have been Jerusalem. ===In the King David narrative=== The Bible says Jerusalem was a ] city, which was captured by troops under ]. 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 ] climbed up first into the city by using the ancient water system at the ]. The Bible then says that the Israelites continued to use the Jebusite walls, repairing them where needed, and extended the city northward, under ], 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°46′17″N 35°14′10″E / 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: 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 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 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 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 (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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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)

Name?

This article name appears non-NPOV and not in a small way.

"Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."

Finding Jerusalem Archaeology between Science and Ideology Katharina Galor 2017

Not to mention that the whole thing is in occupied East Jerusalem and all Israeli activities there are null and void/illegal including settlements, archaeological park, digs and all the rest. Maybe there is a place for an article about the multiple excavations in the area (each one has a name, Givati, Kenyon, E, G, whatever) discussed from a strictly archaeological viewpoint.

Called something like "Archaeological sites in Silwan" since that's where they are? Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from being non-NPOV, it does not even exist, certainly not now and the evidence for it having existed in the past is suspect. There is a legal structure (Israeli) called City of David archaeological park under the auspices of the INPA, then subject of a management contract with a settler organization. It is not clear which areas are included in this park/management contract. CoD is an ideological based marketing tool for archaeological tourism, the sites exist but have nothing to do with any CoD other than in the minds of zealots seeking any excuse to demolish Palestinian homes and install settlers. Another possibility is to merge this with List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem and treat it apolitically.Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The article, "City of David," should not be politicized (IMHO). The site is a historical site, whether the name has change umpteen times since King David once settled in the city. It's like the article Canaan, which describes the country from a historical perspective, rather than from a political perspective, although its name, too, has changed many times since the Canaanites first settled in the country.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am complaining because it HAS been politicized. There is no such site, there are a bunch of sites (10 to 12 depending on what you include) hiding under a POV label (used for marketing purposes by a settler organization).Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, after reviewing this article, I can see just how much it has been politicized. The real article is in the archaeological section. Hmmm. The article needs "doctoring."22:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The history bits belong in Silwan, this article should just be on the group that has attempted to take over the neighborhood and the associated controversy. nableezy - 22:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Silwan has an interesting history of its own. I would suggest going back to the time this article was created and see the original edits and what was the focal point in his article. What exactly was he trying to portray in this article?Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
You can see just how far this article has gone from its more neutral theme here and where it stands today. Hmmm. If editors can agree, perhaps the aricle should be limited to only its ancient history when that part of the city was known specifically by that name, and, in this way, we can remove all the more recent edits that are non-related.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
There isnt anything here that isnt a part of the history of Silwan. I think the inclusion of it here is a pretty basic WP:POVFORK in that it attempts to include the same material under a different framing. nableezy - 23:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As in many Misplaced Pages articles, we find, both, a site's historical Arabic name and its historical Hebrew name, with slightly different takes on each article. While they are somewhat similar to a fork, they do not really fit into the same category as WP:POVFORK. They're different in scope. Just to name a few: Dura vs. Adurim; Nablus vs. Shechem; Qila vs. Keilah; Yibna vs. Yavne; al-Karmil vs. Carmel; Hawsha vs. Usha; Battir vs. Betar; Az-Zakariyya vs. Zekharia. And there are many, many more. Even Canaan vs. Palestine - which two articles speak about the same country - are not your usual "fork." I would prefer to see the political mess removed from this article, since it distracts from the historical site in its purest and truest form. While Silwan is the current name of a place in Jerusalem, it was formerly called Accra, and long before that it was called the "City of David." Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
"its historical Hebrew name"?? It was not called CoD until recently. It's even explained in the article "First suggested in 1920 for this particular area, the term "City of David" was used officially from the 1970s onward, following the capture of East Jerusalem by Israel, but today the name with its biblical and political connotations is questioned by some in the archaeological academic community." Too right it is.Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The page should be called City of David National Park (I think that's the official name given to it by the INPA but I might be wrong) and it should be clarified which of the actual sites are under management by the settler organization (is Givati included?).Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. Historical geographers have simply applied the old name, "City of David," to the old site, just as it appears in 1 Kings 11:27, and just as it is explicitly stated in 2 Samuel 5:9. You may also wish to read Smith, G.A. (1907). Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. Vol. 1. London. pp. 156–160.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), where on page 157 the author, George Adam Smith, writes: "In 168 BC the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, after sacking and burning Jerusalem, fortified the City of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers, and it became unto them an Akra or citadel" (END QUOTE). The name of the site has changed throughout the many centuries. Again, since the title speaks about a specific time-frame in which the city was so-named, the article's scope ought to be limited to that particular era.Davidbena (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem with that suggestion, in which case the recent digs and all that ought to go in List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem which is just sitting there waiting for it, and Silwan stuff can go in Silwan.Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, like all other archaeological sites, where digs were made to discover the city's past, there is nothing amiss about having verifiable, archaeological evidence in the article which directly treats on the site. We have done this for almost every archaeological site (e.g. Gezer, Lachish, etc.) The List of archaeological excavations is only a general overview, without the detail that is more commonly placed in specific archaeological sites.Davidbena (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The digs are a fact, that they are anything to with a biblical CoD is not accepted fact, per the source above (and there are others) "Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I have not looked into the archaeological data. Where the archaeological finds relate specifically to the era of King David, these, I would think, should be used. By the way, the IAA has conducted scores of archaeological digs around this ancient site. Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Locations of archaeological digs in Slwan

That's the problem, the whole City of David thing is seen just as the settler promotional thing and not a biblical CoD thing (that's just the cover). In case you haven't figured it out, all this bears directly on the Sheikh Jarrah/Silwan evictions.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we must remove any references to "settler promotion" as it relates to this historic site - be they Japanese or German, since here we're talking only about a historic place mentioned in historical and academic records.Davidbena (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
I still think we are talking at cross purposes here, https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/39_Pullan_City_of_David_0.pdf Note how it is referred to as "City of David archaeological park" that's what it is, that's how everybody sees it, not the way you are speaking about it. More nonsense at Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01811-w

"Mizrachi and other researchers point to a site called the City of David, located in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem. An organization called the Ir David Foundation (El-Ad) is authorized by the government to sponsor excavations there and run the City of David National Park. El-Ad claims that the biblical King David built a palace in the City of David 3,000 years ago and says it is “dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David”. But there is serious disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the large structure that El-Ad identified as King David’s palace was actually from the era in which the biblical king supposedly lived, and whether this ancient stone structure can be linked to him. “El-Ad’s narrative is based on biblical history, not archaeology. They are content as long as archaeology doesn’t contradict their reading,” says Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. He argues that El-Ad is “supported by the Israeli administration, that uses archaeology selectively to market its ideology”. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the sources used, you can find a review of the Modern Park, itself, or you can find relative and vital information on the ancient biblical site known as the "City of David." There is already an article entitled City of David National Park, which, if I'm not mistaken, incorporates both this place, among others, in its general purview. This article, however, is different, as it speaks specifically about the biblical site aforementioned. I see the situation as being like the Adullam-France Park, for which there are other articles that specifically speak about the places within the Park, such as Hurvat Itri, etc.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The article City of David National Park is a redirect to the article I just pointed you to above..the Jerusalem Walls baloney, did you even read it? Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the other article that you've mentioned (Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park) is more broad in its scope. Our article here is more specific. There's no need to conflate the two.Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Both of these articles are ideological in content and this one dismally so. This convo is serving no useful purpose since it is now clear from your commentary that you are quite happy with that situation.Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

10 reasons the “City of David” is not the wholesome tourist site you thought it was Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, we have been discussing very useful things. I totally agree with you that the current article is not quite up to par, because of its overt ideological (political) stance. We have already discussed what must be done, namely, to remove the ideological (political) content, and to restore this article to its neutral and historic format. As for the other article, you are free to start a discussion about it on its Talk Page.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't decided on the best way to proceed as yet, I am in the process of putting together all the sources, it is clear that the "City of David" is just an invention in the given context, one could write an article about the debate over it's existence/location but that is not this article. Most serious sources put "City of David" (ElAd version) in scare quotes for just this reason. It's also IN the Jerusalem Walls park according to Israel itself and if you go to the INPA site, they only really talk about the City of David component.(tourist $ for IsGov/Elad/settlers, yummy). Anyway, I need to collect together all the sources so we can do something about this mess.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Invention? We have shown you the biblical sources, and there are many academic sources, as well, that speak about the "City of David" in its historical context. Are you trying to rewrite history, or, perhaps, interject Original Research?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
As I said , this conversation is not going anywhere at present. I just said in my previous comment there is room for an article about existence/location (including unverified biblical fairy stories if it makes you happy) but this article is not it. I also said the Elad version is an invention, which it is.Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to a discussion based around actual sources so I have pasted an (incomplete) set of these to be going on with in the section below, add biblical sources in their own section if you like but afaik that type of sourcing is not acceptable RS (unverifiable). Btw, I am assuming you are no longer tbanned, is that the case? Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

1) Where and what is "City of David"?

Since the beginning of Israeli settlement in the area in the 1990s, Israeli officials and media have widely used the name “City of David” to describe part of Silwan. In the narrow sense, the name City of David refers to the hill upon which stood ancient Jerusalem, bordered by the Temple Mount to the north, by Wadi Hilweh Street (or its Israeli name, Ma’alot Ir David, or City of David Ascent) to the west, and by the Kidron Valley and the Gihon Spring to the east. For the Palestinians, the City of David area is a part of the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood, which is part of greater Silwan. In the second half of the 19th century, archaeological missions began excavating this hill, which slopes down from the Dung Gate toward the Gihon Spring and the Siloam Pool. Shady Dealings in Silwan 2009

"One of the most important sites in the Jerusalem Walls National Park is the City of David (ancient Jerusalem)." & "The national park surrounds the Old City of Jerusalem. The main area that has been arranged for visitors is the City of David, on the south side of the Old City near the Dung Gate (in the area that used to be the Giv'ati parking lot). Israeli Nature and Parks Authority Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park

"The sites in Silwan/City of David are under the overall management of the Nature and Parks Authority (Silwan is part of the Jerusalem Walls National Park ) and the Elad Foundation." [https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/DestructionHeritage/NGOS/EmekShaveh.pdf Israeli Activities in Archaeological Sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank: Five Case Studies]

"Mizrachi and other researchers point to a site called the City of David, located in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem. An organization called the Ir David Foundation (El-Ad) is authorized by the government to sponsor excavations there and run the City of David National Park. El-Ad claims that the biblical King David built a palace in the City of David 3,000 years ago and says it is “dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David”. But there is serious disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the large structure that El-Ad identified as King David’s palace was actually from the era in which the biblical king supposedly lived, and whether this ancient stone structure can be linked to him. “El-Ad’s narrative is based on biblical history, not archaeology. They are content as long as archaeology doesn’t contradict their reading,” says Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. He argues that El-Ad is “supported by the Israeli administration, that uses archaeology selectively to market its ideology”." Nature News Feature 24 June 2020

"Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."Finding Jerusalem Archaeology between Science and Ideology Katharina Galor 2017 p.120

The site known as “The City of David” is the location of ancient Jerusalem and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country. The ancient remains discovered at the site are presented to the public as proof of the accuracy of the biblical depiction of Jerusalem under the rule of King David during the 10th century BCE. This claim, however, is highly contested within the archaeological community. The following paper presents the leading interpretations for the find known as “the Large Stone Structure (LSS)”, and popularly referred to as the “King David’s Palace.” The Debate Over “King David’s Palace” 2020

"'David’s City’ archaeological park and its associated religious settlements present one the leading arenas of religious–nationalist advances in the Holy Basin today. David’s City is situated on a steep and narrow spit of land that extends southward from Dung Gate in the Old City wall, within the borders of the Jerusalem Walls National Park." Wendy Pullan; Maximilian Sternberg; Lefkos Kyriacou; Craig Larkin; Michael Dumper (20 November 2013). "4.David's City in Palestinian Silwan". The Struggle for Jerusalem's Holy Places. Routledge. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-1-317-97556-4.(p 76)


2) History

"In October 1991, settlers turned the City of David into a site of political confrontation between archaeologists and national-religious Jews who, with the financial and political backing of the Likud-led national government, sought to revive modern Jewish settlement on this ancient site. Through the organization of El-Ad, not only did the settlers take over several Palestinian houses in the village of Silwan, they also sought to build houses over the ancient archaeological remains. Following the architectural model of the rebuilt Jewish Quarter, they intended to preserve the archaeological remains at the basement level of contemporary housing units. 24 While some archaeologists did not take this move seriously ("It is just a publicity stunt on part of El-Ad to raise money"), others were outraged." Nadia Abu El-Haj (24 June 2008). Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-00215-6.Facts on the Ground

This article addresses the continuously shifting politicization of archaeological heritage on two distinct levels. Firstly it focuses specifically on the growing influence of ultranationalist religious settler associations in ongoing settlement and urban redesign of East Jerusalem. Secondly it draws attention to the importance of the spatial design strategies mobilized to this end, leading to a distinctive form of what has recently been termed ‘heritage manufacturing’.4 A previous article published in this journal revealed the exclusionary narrative propagated by ultranationalist settlers at the City of David. In this article we explore the ways in which this nationalist, neo-biblical narrative has been developed into an urban design and landscaping strategy, charting the dramatic physical transformation of the site in the past ten years. Jerusalem Quarterly 39, 2009 ‘City of David’: Urban Design and Frontier Heritage

Sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan: Report by the Secretary-General, A/69/348, 25 August 2014

33. Archaeological excavations and parks are also used as a way to control land for settlements, mainly through the funding, participation and endorsement by the Government of Israel of archaeological projects led by settler organizations. Observer organizations report that several archaeological projects in the Old City of Jerusalem are being used as a means to consolidate the presence of settlements and settlers in the area. On 3 April 2014, despite several objections presented by Palestinian residents of the Silwan neighbourhood, a Palestinian community with a population of 45,000, located around the southern Old City wall in East Jerusalem, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee approved a project known as the Kedem Compound. The Kedem Compound includes a museum, a visitors centre, and a parking lot covering around 16,000 square metres. The plan was presented by Israel’s Nature and Parks Authority and the Ir David Foundation, also known as Elad, which works to strengthen the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, notably the Silwan area. The Kedem Compound would constitute a gateway to the City of David National Park, a touristic archaeological site controlled by the same organization.
34. Furthermore, Elad presented plans, covering an estimated area of 1,200 square metres for the construction of another tourist compound above a site known as the spring house in Silwan, an ancient structure built above the main spring. Palestinians in the area have been prevented from accessing one of their main sources of water, since Elad has blocked the entrance to the spring by walls and fences. According to the Ir Amim archaeological organization, the plan was submitted for objections in February 2014. According to Emek Shaveh, an organization of archaeologists, an examination of the placement of the excavations and the planned tourist centres (the Kedem Compound, the City of David Visitors Centre, and the Spring House tourist centre) shows that a contiguous line of Israeli settler presence along the entire northern boundary of the Silwan area is being created.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, To solve all the confusion, the first two paragraphs should be moved further down in the article and put within a separate section of its own. The section should be called: The site's status today. In this new section, all the other "intricacies" involving modern-day disputes can be added, and the "Archaeology" section can be expanded. I can also help fill-in material related to its history and archaeology.
With that, the lede paragraph should be changed to read:
  • The City of David is the location of ancient Jerusalem. It is located on a narrow ridge running south from the Temple Mount. The area now called the Old City lies to the west of the Temple Mount. It was built as an expansion of the earlier city in the Herodian era. In ancient times, Jerusalem's original site, the City of David was separated from the Temple Mount by the the Ophel (Template:Lang-he, perhaps meaning "fortified hill"), an open area in the Jebusite, and the site of large government buildings under the Israelites. The city was naturally defended by the Tyropoeon Valley (valley of the cheesemakers) on its west, the Hinnom valley to the south, and the Kidron Valley on the east. Today the archaeological dig and visitor center are one of the major tourist destinations in Israel. (END QUOTE).

References

  1. Mazar, Eilat, Excavations at the Summit of the City of David, Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007, Shoham, Jerusalem and New York, 2009, p. 21.

Davidbena (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"The woman's name is Eilat Mazar. Munching and gazing, she is the picture of equanimity—until a tour guide shows up. He's a young Israeli man accompanied by a half dozen tourists who assemble in front of the bench so they can view the building. The moment he opens his mouth, Mazar knows what's coming. The tour guide is a former archaeology student of hers. She's heard how he brings tourists to this spot and informs them that this is NOT the palace of David and that all the archaeological work at the City of David is a way for right-wing Israelis to expand the country's territorial claims and displace Palestinians." Kings of Controversy Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on which archaeologist you ask. 2010

Oh, I asked you up above whether you were still tbanned, are you? Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am permitted to make edits on all Misplaced Pages pages. And, it is without question that Misplaced Pages articles ought to be based on reliable, non-POV sources.Davidbena (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
And your idea of a reliable independent rs (your one and only offering so far) is one of the architects of the controversy, Eilat Mazar? Try again.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I can assure you that if I research this matter, I will bring down many verifiable and reliable academic sources; nothing fringe. There is actually much that can be said about this ancient biblical site - without interjecting politics, beginning with research conducted by Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Encyclopedia Judaica. The important thing here is collaborative editing, with the good of all "lovers of knowledge" in our minds.Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Good idea, you do that because that is what I am doing. To repeat, the base problem here is that the City of David does not exist so we need some kind of rename here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Now where were we, 2009, 2010 so now lets go to 2013 again

"For a site presented by its current management as one of Jerusalem’s most significant and oldest biblical locales, namely the capital of the united monarchy established by King David according to scripture ,it is rather remarkable that David’s City only joined Jerusalem’s long-established collection of venerated holy places and heritage sites in the last few years. Excavation of the area began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century and, since then, there has been a steadily growing scholarly consensus that significant parts of contemporary Wadi Hilweh constitute Jerusalem’s most ancient area of settlement, home to urban or proto-urban material remains going back as far as c.4000BCE.3 However, right into the early twentieth century only the Virgin’s Fount (Ain Ummel-Daraj) and the Waters of Siloam (Ain Silwan) had any known historic or religious significance and the area had virtually no specific meaning for Judaism or local Jewish religious practice.4 In1920,a French archaeologist first suggested renaming Wadi Hilweh ‘La Cité de David’, explicitly privileging this specific, speculative biblical tie as the narrative leitmotif of the successive excavations,5 which have revealed extremely varied findings, both in type and chronological attribution.6 It was only in the 1970s, when a major Israeli excavation project was conducted there that ‘David’s City’ became the official Israeli designation, initially having no particular religious connotation ;today,the term itself is increasingly questioned in the archaeological academic community. Wendy Pullan; Maximilian Sternberg; Lefkos Kyriacou (20 November 2013). The Struggle for Jerusalem's Holy Places. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-97556-4. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As we all know, the title "City of David" appears in 1 Kings 11:27, and in 2 Samuel 5:9, and is discussed by a horde of academic scholars. Of course, this fact is independent of what "other" writers may or may not have written about the site, as one opinion is NOT bound by the opinion of another. We can, however, include all divergent opinions in this article as just that, i.e. "an opinion." What matters here is that there is a wealth of scholarly research on this site from recognized scholars, whether archaeologists or historical geographers.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Bible is not rs and it anyway does not address the fact of today's non-existence even if it did exist at some point in the past.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The Bible is a primary source. Of course, we will also bring down secondary sources. Just look at the multiple opinions that exist on the identification of the biblical site Beth-Anath! This, here, is a lot more easy, as there is no one who suggests that the City of David was outside of Jerusalem, while the limits of the city at that time were considerably smaller than what they are today. Moreover, you stand to be corrected. A change of name does not necessarily mean a change of place. Even the name of Jerusalem has changed over the years, as has the name of many other cities. Jerusalem was once called Aelia Capitolina, and the people eventually restored its former name. Long before that, Jerusalem was once called Salem and also the "City of the Jebusites" (Joshua 18:28). You can also take Al-Azariya (Bethany) for an example. Davidbena (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I will continue to provide sources, you can continue to provide your personal opinions if you wish to but they won't count for much in an rm.Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
You are free to add your sources. We will do the same, when the time is relevant, as this is a collaborative effort.Davidbena (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

On to 2014 "The claim by Eli Shukron, like many such claims in the field of biblical archaeology, has run into criticism. It joins a string of announcements by Israeli archaeologists saying they have unearthed palaces of the legendary biblical king, who is revered in Jewish religious tradition for establishing Jerusalem as its central holy city — but who has long eluded historians looking for clear-cut evidence of his existence and reign." /AP Israeli Archaeologist Says He Has Found King David's Citadel 2014 Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate material

@Selfstudier:, Can you please list here for me the "duplicate material" that you thought might be unnecessary in this article? If you will do this for me, I will work on it. Otherwise, much of the material added is actually novice, insofar that it has not yet been mentioned in this article. So, too, the section "Background" is of utmost importance, as it gives our readers an introduction into the subject matter.Davidbena (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davidbena: See below. I have not yet deleted anything (at least I don't think I did, I will check), merely rearranged what was already in the article together with the material you added.Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I did accidentally delete some stuff, not your stuff, stuff that was there before, I put it back now.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The edits should be restored in their entirety, until we can get the input of our fellow editors and contributors. There is, without question, vital information to be had in that new section.Davidbena (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I just explained that nothing has been deleted, only rearranged, the material you added is still there, it is in the section biblical archaeology (it is not "background") together with the material that was already in the article on that subject so there is some duplication that needs fixing.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
As for input of other editors we will get that in the rm, no doubt (coming soon).Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent editing

@Davidbena: I can't say I blame you for trying to write an article about the "historical City of David" but as I already have pointed out above, that is not this article, one could be created for that once this one is suitably renamed. This article was plainly always about the "existing City of David" (the entity described in the lead). The two are connected (I will provide sourcing for this) only in the sense of the controversy created by the use of a historeligious Israeli naming for the current enterprise.Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. I see no real difference between the "existing City of David" and the "historical City of David," except perhaps in semantics. In my most humble opinion, this article is specifically about the historical City of David, with a view to what is happening in that area today. We can submit a RfC to get a broader view of the public. Just look again at how this article is connected to the site by the name "City of David." Even the current article makes passing remarks as to the accuracy of its "historical nature," and attests to that fact.
Background
The "City of David" is the name applied to the city of Jerusalem in ca. 1000 BCE, and is not to be confused with the modern organisation by the same name and which showcases a relatively small excavated portion of the larger city. The ancient city is first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in 1 Kings 11:27, in 2 Samuel 5:9, and in Nehemiah 3:15–16, being the name given to Jerusalem after it had been conquered by King David and who is said to have ruled in the city for 33 years.
One of the stated objectives of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) since its establishment in 1865 was to search for the true location of the biblical "City of David" and to report on its findings. However, after 130 years of research, surveys, and excavations in Jerusalem, only a few of the targets relating to the area of the City of David have been achieved and neither the location of the tombs of David and Solomon or the Ophel are known.
The prevailing view of archaeologists is that the ancient site of the City of David lay on an elongated spur facing north-south, extending outside the wall of the Old City, south of its southeastern corner, in the southern part of the eastern ridge next to the Gihon Spring. The City of David was the ancient epicenter of Jerusalem and whose boundaries stretched from the Temple Mount in the north, thence southward to the Pool of Siloam, including the area marking the Kidron brook in the east and the adjacent dale in the west. Its area is about 50 dunams (ca. 12.3 acres). The beginning of its settlement dates back to the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age, largely built-up around the natural spring, although not known then by the name City of David. Instead, the city of ancient Jerusalem was called Jebus, whose name was changed to the "City of David" after it was captured by King David. His son, Solomon, extended the wall to the north and added to it the area of the Temple Mount whereon he built an edifice (Temple) to the God of his fathers. From the eighth century BCE, the city began to expand westward beyond the dale.
The City of David is one of the most excavated archaeological sites in the country and one of the first to be excavated. Many researchers of Near Eastern history often took part in digs within the City of David, among whom were: C. Warren - 1867-1870; H. Guthe - in 1881; F.J. Bliss and A.C. Dickie - 1894–1897; R. Weill - 1913–1914 and 1923–1924; M. Parker and L. Vincent - 1909–1911, in which they documented the location of tunnels and artifacts discovered in and on the bedrock in the areas around Warren's Shaft on the eastern slopes of the mountain above the Gihon Spring; R.A.S. Macalister and J. G. Duncan - 1923–1925, who discovered the Ophel ostracon in Wadi Hilweh of the City of David; J.W. Crowfoot and G.M. Fitzgerald - 1927-1928; K.M. Kenyon - in the years 1961–1967; Y. Shilo - from 1978 onwards and more.
More recent excavations (2000–2008) were conducted by R. Reich and E. Shukron on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and where they detailed Iron Age II findings in a rock-cut pool near the Gihon spring. In the "City of David Visitors' Center," before it was opened to the public, excavations were conducted in and around the general area of that site by a team of IAA archaeologists, again confirming the existence of a city dating back to the Iron Age II, and continiuing unabated to the Early Roman period, and which, when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, they continued to call the immediate area surrounding the Pool of Siloam by the name "City of David," although this name was eventually replaced by the name Accra (חקרא‎).
A countervailing view held by Finkelstein, Koch & Lipschits (2011) that the City of David is to be placed on the Temple Mount has largely been rejected by scholars of historical geography. (END QUOTE)

Our job here is to work collaboratively on this noble project, and, therefore, with the input of our fellow editors perhaps we can reach a consensus whether or not this section is important to this article and should be added.

References

  1. Rubenstein, Chaim (1980). "Chronological table of Jerusalem". Israel Guide - Jerusalem (A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country) (in Hebrew). Vol. 10. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. p. 8. OCLC 745203905.
  2. 1 Kings 2:11
  3. Gibson, Shimon. "The Palestine Exploration Fund and the Search for the "City of David"" (PDF). University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved 26 July 2021.
  4. Geva, Hillel ; De Groot, Alon (2017). "The City of David Is Not on the Temple Mount After All". Israel Exploration Journal. 67 (1). Israel Exploration Society: 32–49. JSTOR 44474016.
  5. ^ Yitzhaki, Arieh (1980). "City of David (עיר דוד)". In Chaim Rubenstein (ed.). Israel Guide - Jerusalem (A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country) (in Hebrew). Vol. 10. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. pp. 164–172. OCLC 745203905.
  8. Weill, R. (1947), La Cité de David, --- published in J. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, Leiden 1952. Mentioned by: Avigad, N. (1952). "The Fortification of the City of David". Israel Exploration Journal. 2 (4). Israel Exploration Society: 230–236. JSTOR 27924494.
  9. R.A.S. Macalister and J.G. Duncan (1926), “Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem 1923-1925”, Palestine Exploration Fund Annual 4, p. 182-185
  10. Kenyon, K.M. (1967). Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 Years of History. London: Thames and Hudson. OCLC 610329044.
  11. Reich, Ronny; Shukron, Eli (2003). "Jerusalem, City of David". Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel. 115. Israel Antiquities Authority: 51–53. JSTOR 23485357., on a Rock-cut pool near the Gihon spring, and the ancient wall in the City of David; Reich, Ronny; Shukron, Eli; Lernau, Omri (2007). "Recent Discoveries in the City of David, Jerusalem". Israel Exploration Journal. 57 (2). Israel Exploration Society: 153–169. JSTOR 27927171., findings from the Iron Age II from the rock-cut pool near the spring.
  12. Jerusalem, City of David, Shalem Slopes, Moran Hagbi and Joe Uziel (2017), Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel (IAA)
  13. Smith, G.A. (1907). Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. Vol. 1. London. p. 156. OCLC 832328756.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  14. Smith, G.A. (1907). Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. Vol. 1. London. OCLC 832328756.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), p. 156–157.
  15. Geva, Hillel ; De Groot, Alon (2017). "The City of David Is Not on the Temple Mount After All". Israel Exploration Journal. 67 (1). Israel Exploration Society: 34. JSTOR 44474016.

--Davidbena (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not preventing any editor from working on this article, are you? As mentioned above, an rm is inbound, we will get lots of input at that point, I imagine. After all, you were not that interested in it either until I commented in talk. And to repeat, all that material above is right there in the biblical archaeolgy section (you could perhaps call it something else but it is clearly not just "backgound", it is a major contributor to the controversy around this operation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Where we might disagree is that if, indeed, the material already exists in this article (not all of which does), it ought to be consolidated into one historical section, which gives a general overview of the site, which we have done until it was deleted by you. As I said, the things discussed are of vital importance to our understanding of this historical site.Davidbena (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The material was not deleted, it has been consolidated under a different heading ("Biblical archaeology" rather than "Background") with other similar material that was already present in the article. The resultant duplication needs fixing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment

WITHDRAWN Consensus to close, nfa Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



There is a debate between contributing editors whether or not this article relates to the "Historical City of David," based on the comments in the previous section of this Talk-Page. Comments welcome.Davidbena (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not true, as anyone can see. And where there are occasional overlaps, for greater clarity, everything should be consolidated into one historical section detailing the ancient history of the site. Even the biblical references were NOT all cited.Davidbena (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Let me be clear, I have no objection to the above material being included in the article and so this RFC is pointless unless it is the case that you are instigating an RFC merely to ask whether it should go into it's own section entitled "Background". On that point, we do disagree but that is not what this RFC is purportedly about.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I have now copy pasted the entire text above into the article just to make sure that nothing was lost in prior editing (apparently not).Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, this RfC is closed.Davidbena (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Archaeological finds section

What, if anything do these finds have to with the historical "City of David". I agree they have been found in a site with "City of David" as a name, but other than that, what exactly?

eg We have a section, Early Bronze Age (3500–2350 BCE), in which it says "Pieces of pottery have been found." Is that supposed to be meaningful in any way? Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Material temp removed form article as probably out of date

The right to control both the archaeological and the residential aspects of the City of David is hotly contested by Israelis and Palestinians. There is a proposal to turn most of the area into an archaeological park, and to transform a part of the Kidron Valley currently inhabited by Arabs into a park to be called the King's Garden.

References

  1. Soueif, Ahdaf (2010-05-26). "The dig dividing Jerusalem | World news | The Guardian". The Guardian.
  2. "The Jerusalem Archaeological Park – about". www.archpark.org.il. Archived from the original on 2016-12-24. Retrieved 2016-08-01.
  3. Abe Selig, Gan Hamelech residents wary of Barkat's redevelopment plan, Feb. 16, 2010, Jerusalem Post. Accessed August 1, 2016

I already included up to date material about King's Garden in Parks section and not sure about the other material, might be out of date/superseded.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, For Your Information: the book "Israel Guide - Jerusalem (A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country)", vol. 10, pp. 166–167 mentions the King's Garden (Jerusalem) as being one of the places relevant to the historical "City of David," and is described there as "an area that is at the confluence of the dale (Template:Lang-he) Tyropoeon and the Kidron Valley, in which there have been planted many fruit trees that are nourished by the water run-off of the Pool of Siloam." The author goes on to cite its recollection in Jeremiah 39:4. According to the same author, the road that traverses the garden is built over a thick wall that dates back to the Second Temple period, and it is what actually created the dam-like structure that formed the ancient Pool of Siloam, known as Birket al-Ḥamrah. Remnants of this ancient wall were unearthed during the excavations conducted by Bliss and Dickie (1894–1897), as well as other more ancient finds dating back to the Bronze Age. The gardens are watered, he says, by a conduit carved at the bottom of the southern ravine belonging to the "City of David."Davidbena (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This just tends to confirm in my mind the blending or blurring of current activity with historical, the historical beiing that KG is (part of) a supposed historical/biblical CoD, whereas the current situation is an extension of dispossession activity via settlement and park declarations spearheaded by settler orgs/government.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. The record speaks for itself. The general area may have been a garden area directly outside the settled portion of the City of David, yet still belonged to the city. We can only rely on our sources. According to our academic source, the road that traverses the garden was next to the Old Pool of Siloam, that is to say, the Lower Pool. When you go to the Misplaced Pages page Pool of Siloam you can see a map of both the Upper and Lower pools of Siloam, which are in relatively close proximity. The Lower Pool was the place of the King's Garden, which would mean a "green area" directly outside and belonging to the City of David. Here, one of our main commissions as faithful editors is to avoid Original Research. Let us stick to the sources.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, happy to do so, I will mainly be going with Galor, p125 et seq.for the scholarly consensus and the blurring ("Archaeology, religion and politics entangled") p 127 on. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

JAP/Davidson

OK, we have https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-elad-wins-right-to-run-jlem-archaeology-park-after-appeal-1.5408359 so it seems that Elad also runs the Jerusalem Archaeological Park (no WP article but a stub on simple WP https://simple.wikipedia.org/Jerusalem_Archaeological_Park).Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

https://madainproject.com/jerusalem_archaeological_park seems to think that JAP includes City of David among other things? Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-right-wing-group-to-lose-control-over-jerusalem-archaeological-park-1.10048780 Settler Group Loses Control Over Jerusalem Archaeological Park So yes, Elad was running JAP/Davidson Center but their contract has not been renewed as of this July.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Re name

Here we have..... The City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David).

At Ir David Foundation it says..... Ir David Foundation, commonly known as Elad (Hebrew: אלע"ד‎, an acronym for "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David")

Someone clarify for me, Idk Hebrew, City of David = Ir David = Ir David Foundation is that it? I want to add into the lead something like the park is managed/operated by.... so does "..managed by Ir David Foundation( "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David"), commonly known as Elad(either עיר דוד or אלע"ד) work?Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but, in the Hebrew language, the words "City of David" are written in this way → עיר דוד‎ = ʻIr David. The Foundation by that name is different, and uses an acronym El'ad. The last two English letters, a - d, represent the Hebrew consonants ע‎ and ד‎ (ʻayin and dalet), and which Hebrew characters can be transliterated either as i - d, or a - d, depending if one wishes to make use of the Hebrew vowel "i" which is automatically read into the text following the letter ʻayin (ע‎). As for the first two letters "el," they are simply the Hebrew word for "To," as if to say, "To City David." It is merely the name given to that non-profit organisation.Davidbena (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Givati

Anyone who knows can confirm?

As best as I can figure it out, the Givati Parking Lot dig which the article says is adjacent to CoD is also the site of the Kedem visitor center to be/being built, is that right? (ie the building would be built over the dig? When people say the Givati parking lot, do they mean the dig site?) Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Categories: