Judging Jerusalem Funding Digs

NEWSFOCUS Hot pots. Shards from Eilat Mazar’s dig in Jerusalem are at the center of the heated debate. Hebrew University in Jerusalem, contends that the discovery bolsters the traditional view that a powerful Jewish king reigned from a substantial city around 1000 B.C.E. “The news is that this huge construction was not built by ancient Canaanites,” she says, referring to the people who lived in the region before the Jews. And she goes a step further, arguing that the site is probably that of David’s palace. Mazar says she will soon publish new radiocarbon dates to back up her claim. But other archaeologists are hes- itant to assign the building’s identity, and some question the dating. The city was “a typical highland village” until a century or so later, says Tel Aviv University archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, whose critique of ancient Jerusalem’s influence has made him a target of scholarly ire (see sidebar, p. 591). That would make the biblical accounts wildly exaggerated, at best. Academic spats about the dating of Iron Age cooking pots are not uncommon, but on March 12, 2012 this one spills over into political and religious disputes as well. “You have similar situations throughout the ancient Near East, but they don’t create the same level of emotion,” says Lawson Younger, an epigrapher at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Many nationalist Israelis and devout Chris- tians are eager to prove the accuracy of the www.sciencemag.org stories about David and Solomon, whereas some Palestinians suspect that Jewish- funded excavations aim at legitimizing Israeli control of a city that to Muslims is second only to Mecca. The tension over Jerusalem’s past was evi- dent at recent meetings at Brown University and in Washington, D.C.,* where participants Downloaded from argued—sometimes loudly and angrily— about dating pottery shards, the influence of Jerusalem 3000 years ago, and the politics of Judging Jerusalem funding digs. Resolving the contentious matter ultimately depends on refined dating tech- Has the palace of King David or Solomon been found? How big was niques and a wider array of artifacts and sites. “What took place in the 9th and 10th cen- their capital? New excavations and a bitter dispute over chronology turies B.C.E. all depends on who you talk to,” put Jerusalem in the archaeological spotlight says Anson Rainey, a Tel Aviv University archaeologist. “It’s all up in the air.” PERCHED ON A NARROW AND WINDSWEPT from which King David and his son hillside and remote from a major trade route, Solomon presided over a wealthy empire No simple site the Jerusalem of 3 millennia ago was from the Nile to the Euphrates. Jerusalem sits squarely in the center of the ignored by Mesopotamian archives and Now, new excavation of a massive build- Levant region, which connects Africa and rated only a brief mention in Egyptian ing in Jerusalem has intensified an acrimo- Asia. But most of the ancient traffic of chronicles. And despite a century and a half nious debate among archaeologists and bib- * of excavations, archaeologists have yet to lical scholars over how to date and interpret “The Jerusalem Perspective: 150 Years of Archaeological Research” at Brown University, 12–14 November 2006, uncover incontrovertible evidence of the finds from that early era. The excavating and the American Schools of Oriental Research annual impressive capital described in biblical texts team, led by archaeologist Eilat Mazar of meeting, Washington, D.C., 15–18 November 2006. OF THE SHALEM CENTER COURTESY CREDIT: 588 2 FEBRUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org Published by AAAS NEWSFOCUS merchants and armies passed to the west, palace. She announced her initial finds last Solomon, whereas others question whether hugging the flat and well-watered year, making headlines around the world. In the complex can ever be accurately dated, Mediterranean coast (see map, p. 590). 2005, her team started digging at the top of a given its poor state of preservation. “The Deep in the hills between the Judean large stepped-stone structure located at the building is in bad shape, and so far she has desert and the coast, Jerusalem is much narrowest point of the hill that makes up the not found a floor,” notes Gabriel Barkai, an younger than other sites in the region such City of David. That structure, an impressive archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University in as Megiddo or Jericho. Likely named for a 37 meters high, is made up of stone terraces Ramat Gan who recently visited the site. Syrian god, the town is mentioned as early that many archaeologists date to the 12th cen- That means “we have to rely on a chronolog- as the 19th century B.C.E. in Egyptian tury B.C.E., prior to the arrival of the Jews. ical sandwich,” adds Amihai Mazar, who writings. Excavations show that 5 cen- Mazar, whose work is largely funded by a also is familiar with the dig. turies later the site was fortified by a peo- Jewish-American investment banker, has ple called the Jebusites, who are associ- uncovered a large building on top of the Time troubles ated with the Hittites of Anatolia. structure, and she believes both structures The key, then, is dating the elaborate pottery According to biblical texts, Jewish tribes were erected at the same time. “It’s very on the top and the coarse pottery on the bot- began to infiltrate the region by that time, set- clear this is one huge construction,” she tom of that sandwich. And that is no easy ting up the southern kingdom of Judea and says. Her current excavation shows a build- matter, because no Jerusalem samples were the northern kingdom of Israel radiocarbon-dated prior to and finally conquering independ- Mazar’s recent finds. Earlier ent Jerusalem under King David archaeologists had not bothered around what textual scholars esti- to gather organic samples mate was the year 1000 B.C.E. because radiocarbon dates for David united the two kingdoms, historical time periods were and the Old Testament relates that imprecise, with error bars of his son Solomon turned the town 1 or 2 centuries. Newer calibra- into a showplace of the united tions can sometimes pinpoint monarchy, building several lavish dates to within 50 years (Science, on March 12, 2012 buildings in Jerusalem and 15 September 2006, p. 1560), nearby cities. His empire col- but it has taken time to adopt lapsed shortly after his death, them. “Using radiocarbon in his- however, and the two kingdoms torical times is quite a young split. Jerusalem remained the subject,” Amihai Mazar says. As capital of Judea for another 4 cen- a result, archaeologists here turies but was destroyed by Baby- have dated sites based solely on lon’s King Nebuchadnezzar, who pottery styles. www.sciencemag.org took many Jews into captivity. Eilat Mazar dates the com- There is, however, no direct plex to about 1000 B.C.E., a date archaeological evidence for the based both on new radiocarbon existence of the brief united data as well as her interpretation monarchy and its empire. of the pottery found at the site. Decades of excavations in the Although many others see the City of David—located just plain ware as typical of the early south of the later city and just Iron Age—that is, around the Downloaded from below what Muslims call the 12th century B.C.E.—she Harim al-Sharif and Jews dub believes it was used in Jebusite the Temple Mount—provide an David’s city. Mazar’s dig is south of the Dome of the Rock (top left) and in the Jerusalem right up to the time of intriguing glimpse into the neck of the teardrop-shaped hill that is the site of early Jerusalem. the Jews’ arrival. Mazar has also ancient town. But the data are taken three new radiocarbon difficult to interpret. “Jerusalem is not a ing that covered as much as 2000 square samples of bone and olive pits from under simple archaeological site,” explains meters. She adds that the complex appears to the building—the first samples in Jerusalem Amihai Mazar, an archaeologist at Hebrew stand outside the original Jebusite city, and to be subjected to radiocarbon dating. University. Stone was quarried and reused both the new building and more elaborate These were associated with the plain pot- over millennia, erosion has taken a toll on pottery left after the building’s construction tery, and they date from 1050 B.C.E. to the steep hillsides, and excavations since mark a clear break with the past. The site, 1000 B.C.E., give or take a half-century— the 1800s have sometimes added to the con- Mazar notes, also matches biblical verses just prior to the time of David, she says. She fusion. And some of ancient Jerusalem is that talk of King David descending from his also found a fourth sample at a later level off-limits to archaeology because of politi- palace, indicating that it was on a high place. associated with more elaborate pottery with cal and religious sensitivities. Other archaeologists, although united in Phoenician and Cypriot influence, in what Now Eilat Mazar—a cousin to Amihai their conviction that Mazar’s find is appears to be an addition to the building. Mazar in the intimate world of Israeli archae- extremely important, are skeptical. Some That material, which she believes was used ology—has wrapped up her second season of maintain that it is more likely to be a Jebusite by the early Jews in Jerusalem, dates to CREDIT: CITY OF DAVID SOCIETY CITY OF DAVID CREDIT: digging at what she argues is likely David’s citadel rather than a palace built by David or between 1050 B.C.E.

Load more