Ha’aretz has an essay by Julia Fridman that’s must reading for all those who are following the ‘Qeiyafa is David’s Palace’ claim. Major portions of the discussion feature Israel Finkelstein’s input:
Asked about Garfinkel and Ganor’s claims [about the site], Finkelstein first affirms commonalities: “The first and most important thing for us as archaeologists to agree on the finds. And I think that regarding Qeyiafa we all agree that it is a very well fortified site which dates back to the 10th century BCE.”
Archaeologists also agree that a site that well-fortified is unique to this region at that time period. They agree that no pig bones were found at the site, a fact the excavators underscore in attributing the site to Judah. They also agree on the cultic finds, most notably of three portable shrines, common to the Levantine region at that time. Nor is there a dispute over the ceramics. The clay vessels used by the people are very much like those used by the people inhabiting nearby sites.
Ultimately archaeology is, at the end of the day, a way to reconstruct history, Finkelstein explains: “I see myself as a historian practicing archaeology.” In this case, a good starting place is to decide on the territorial affiliations of the site.
There are presently three theories for that.
“The first is Yossi Garfinkel’s – that it was a Judahite city. That’s a possibility. It is indeed close to the west of Jerusalem, and located in an area which was later a part of Judah,” says Finkelstein.
But a very different theory, from Prof. Emeritus of Jewish History at Tel Aviv University, Nadav Na’aman and Ido Koch, a Ph.D. candidate in Archaeology and Biblical History at Tel Aviv University, is that the ruins are Canaanite. Finkelstein himself generously suggests that it’s a strong possibility: a very similar layer, with almost exact pottery types and other finds hinting in this direction, was found in the nearby Canaanite dig in Bet Shemesh directed by Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University.
The third theory is his, constructed together with Alexander Fantalkin, assistant professor at Tel Aviv University, and published in 2012: They support Yossi Garfinkel in the sense that they agree the site is associated with hill country. But who were the people? Here Finkelstein and Fantalkin disagree with Garfinkel: “We think the strongest possibility is that the site is affiliated with a North Israelite entity,” he says.
A bit further in the essay:
In reality it is quite possible that this particular hilltop site had nothing to do with the Bible at all.
So what about the claim that the ruins at Khirbet Qeiyafa are King David’s palace?
“This reminds me of the fairy tale of the little girl who cried wolf,” says Finkelstein. “Yesterday they found King David’s Palace in Jerusalem, today it’s in Qeiyafa, tomorrow they’ll find it … who knows where. Such statements exhaust the public’s attention.”
A certain jadedness can be seen in responses to the spate of “King David’s Palace found” articles: even believers are starting to question all the finds ostensibly proving the bible’s veracity. For his part, Finkelstein questions how scholars, in this day and age, with so many scientific advances in the field, believe in such a literal interpretation of the Bible, an approach that had begun to go out of fashion with the skeptic philosopher Baruch Spinoza in the 17th century.
And then the views of Jacob Wright come to the fore:
So why have we been hearing such sensationalist claims?
Simple. Prof. Jacob L. Wright, a participant in recent discussions on the subject and author of a book on King David scheduled to appear this fall, observes: “The most certain way to create a buzz is to claim that you’ve found something related to the reign of King David.”
Attempts to link all kinds of finds to King David demonstrate an impoverishment of the historical imagination, as if there weren’t many other kings and warlords in the 10th century B.C.E. highlands, Wright says.
“Careful research on both the biblical materials and the archaeological record reveals a much greater diversity of polities, which gradually coalesced into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Khirbet Qeiyafah is an important site, but it is likely part of a smaller local polity,” he says.
Archaeology is a lucky discipline, in that the public is interested in it, especially in the history of the Land of Israel. Just look at how many shows there are on the subject on National Geographic television, the History Channel, Discovery and the like. People like hearing about what we find and learning about the ancient cultures that once inhabited this land as well as others.
Of course, they also yearn for finds to prove the Bible. They are fascinated that there were illicit shrines and nude female figurines in most of the sites of Judah during the late monarchic period. They want to know what implications these finds have for their understanding of the Bible. All this adds up to powerful proof that the public will continue to support archaeological research without any need to cry wolf, nor King David.
Many thanks to Jacob for mentioning this report on FB- right before, coincidentally- it also popped up on twitter from Ha’aretz. There’s more, which do read.
- What Is Tell Qeiyafa? David’s Palace? Or… (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Another Day Another Claim to a Davidic Discovery (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Peter van der Veen on the Methodological Problems of Calling the Qeiyafa Discovery ‘David’s Palace’ (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
- Khirbet Qeiyafa: Methodological Problems at An Archaeological Excavation (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)