Sunday, April 28, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Archaeology & History > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Archaeology & History

Archaeologists uncover King David's Palace

By T.K. Randall
July 21, 2013 · Comment icon 14 comments

Image Credit: sxc.hu
The remains of two buildings thought to be the site of King David's palace have been found in Jerusalem.
The discovery was made at the site of what archaeologists believe to be the Judean city of Shaarayim where the Biblical clash between David and Goliath was said to have taken place. Some experts are skeptical however, questioning whether this is the actual site or if King David was even a king at all.

"The ruins are the best example to date of the uncovered fortress city of King David," said professors Yossi Garfinkel and Saar Ganor who lead the excavations. "This is indisputable proof of the existence of a central authority in Judah during the time of King David."
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.


Source: Fox News | Comments (14)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #5 Posted by kannin 11 years ago
indeed please post updates in the future if you can find them stills very very good post!
Comment icon #6 Posted by docyabut2 11 years 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. What on earth is a two cow capital?
Comment icon #7 Posted by ShadowSot 11 years ago
What on earth is a two cow capital? Means it was a poor, unimportant area.
Comment icon #8 Posted by kmt_sesh 11 years ago
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 backwate... [More]
Comment icon #9 Posted by questionmark 11 years ago
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.
Comment icon #10 Posted by Eldorado 11 years ago
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.
Comment icon #11 Posted by Taun 11 years ago
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... [More]
Comment icon #12 Posted by questionmark 11 years ago
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 s... [More]
Comment icon #13 Posted by Taun 11 years ago
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...
Comment icon #14 Posted by brlesq1 11 years ago
This is pretty cool. Bears watching.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles