Still Waters Posted July 20, 2013 #1 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Archaeologists in Jerusalem claim to have uncovered two large buildings fit for a king -- Biblical King David, that is. But not all historians agree; one group even argues that King David was no king at all. Over the past year, archaeologists have excavated a site that they believe to be the fortified Judean city of Shaarayim, where David smote Goliath as described in the Bible. http://www.foxnews.c...g-david-palace/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted July 21, 2013 #2 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I'm going to keep watching this. Hopefully it is not just a scheme to make money. Looking at the picture, it is hard to believe this was just discovered, as the ruins are plain to see on the hill. It is remarkable that they were not cleared off centuries ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 21, 2013 #3 Share Posted July 21, 2013 I'm going to keep watching this. Hopefully it is not just a scheme to make money. Looking at the picture, it is hard to believe this was just discovered, as the ruins are plain to see on the hill. It is remarkable that they were not cleared off centuries ago. Sorry, but the palace on the temple mount was discovered quite a while ago... I tend to believe that if you want to find the legendary temples and palaces J'lem is the wrong place to look for them. J'lem was a two cow capital until ~700 BC while Samaria was quite a potentate residence. Digging there will lead to better results. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kannin Posted July 23, 2013 #4 Share Posted July 23, 2013 oh wow this is really cool if its legit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted July 23, 2013 #5 Share Posted July 23, 2013 Looking forward to hearing more about this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kannin Posted July 23, 2013 #6 Share Posted July 23, 2013 indeed please post updates in the future if you can find them stills very very good post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docyabut2 Posted July 24, 2013 #7 Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Sorry, but the palace on the temple mount was discovered quite a while ago... I tend to believe that if you want to find the legendary temples and palaces J'lem is the wrong place to look for them. J'lem was a two cow capital until ~700 BC while Samaria was quite a potentate residence. Digging there will lead to better results. What on earth is a two cow capital? Edited July 24, 2013 by docyabut2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowSot Posted July 24, 2013 #8 Share Posted July 24, 2013 What on earth is a two cow capital? Means it was a poor, unimportant area. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted July 24, 2013 #9 Share Posted July 24, 2013 In reality, if David was indeed historically linked with Jerusalem, he may have been more of a warlord who was successful in uniting numerous tribes in the highlands of Judah. Jerusalem as a city predates the Hebrews, so David may have taken up residence there after having driven out the resident Canaanites. Questionmark is correct and his statement is corroborated by long decades of archaeological evidence: until the Assyrian conquests of the early eighth century BCE, the true power in what's now Israel was the Northern Kingdom of Samaria. Jerusalem itself, in the south, was likely a backwater village until that point in time. As far as that goes, the media likes to paint a pretty picture for the sake of readership: these structures they've been excavating might just as easily have been Canaanite in origin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted July 24, 2013 #10 Share Posted July 24, 2013 As far as that goes, the media likes to paint a pretty picture for the sake of readership: these structures they've been excavating might just as easily have been Canaanite in origin. Well, from what I see the whole thing is not so impressive, a stable and a larger hut. Hardly a palace. The Ponderosa Ranch house was bigger. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted August 19, 2013 #11 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Well, from what I see the whole thing is not so impressive, a stable and a larger hut. Hardly a palace. The Ponderosa Ranch house was bigger. LOL With a Big Hoss tied-up in the stable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted August 19, 2013 #12 Share Posted August 19, 2013 (edited) Well, from what I see the whole thing is not so impressive, a stable and a larger hut. Hardly a palace. The Ponderosa Ranch house was bigger. We tend to think of "palaces" like Versaille or Buckingham or even Cinderella's castle at Disneyland... In reality this was set in the Bronze age (early Bronze age most likely) and an Impressive building back then was more along the lines of one that had solid walls, not just daub and wattle - or mud... Here is a pic of the Royal Palace at Ur from (very roughly) the same period of history (perhaps a bit earlier in time but not technology): As you can see it's just a blocky, mud-brick building that was probably roofed over with palm fronds and danged dim inside... Not too impressive by modern standards but probably quite the place back then... Edited August 19, 2013 by Taun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted August 19, 2013 #13 Share Posted August 19, 2013 We tend to think of "palaces" like Versaille or Buckingham or even Cinderella's castle at Disneyland... In reality this was set in the Bronze age (early Bronze age most likely) and an Impressive building back then was more along the lines of one that had solid walls, not just daub and wattle - or mud... Here is a pic of the Royal Palace at Ur from (very roughly) the same period of history (perhaps a bit earlier in time but not technology): As you can see it's just a blocky, mud-brick building that was probably roofed over with palm fronds and danged dim inside... Not too impressive by modern standards but probably quite the place back then... Take 1/8 of that and you will have the J'lem "palace", including stable of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted August 19, 2013 #14 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Take 1/8 of that and you will have the J'lem "palace", including stable of course. Most of those rooms were for scribes and storage... The Sumerians were fanatics about having lots of scribes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brlesq1 Posted August 20, 2013 #15 Share Posted August 20, 2013 This is pretty cool. Bears watching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now