Archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel Announces Discovery of King David’s Palace at Khirbet Qeiyafa.

Khirbet Qeiyafa, a Judahite fortress in the Elah Valley, where the Bible says David slew Goliath. Excavations by Yosef Garfinkel unearthed a multichambered gate, artifacts, and now a palace dating to David’s time in the early 10th Century BC. Greg Girard/National Geographic.

King David’s Palace at Khirbet Qeiyafa? By Noah Wiener. Bible History Daily, July 18, 2013.

Excavations uncover 3,000-year-old palace, believed to be that of King David. By Nir Hasson. Haaretz, July 18, 2013.

King David’s Palace was Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah. Israel Antiquities Authority, July 2013.

Archaeologists say they’ve found one of King David’s palaces. By Lazar Berman. The Times of Israel, July 18, 2013.

Archaeological claims that King David’s palace was discovered may be overstated, prof says. By Erin Roach. Baptist Press, July 19, 2013.

King David’s Palace Discovered? Archaeologists Find Huge Palace, Storeroom At Khirbet Qeiyafa Site. By Meredith Bennett-Smith. The Huffington Post, July 19, 2013.

3,000-year-old palace in Israel linked to biblical King David. By Alan Boyle. NBC News, July 19, 2013.

Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation. By Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin. Tel Aviv, Vol. 39, No. 1 (May 2012).

The Birth and Death of Biblical Minimalism. By Yosef Garfinkel. Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 37, No. 3 (May/June 2011).

The keys to the kingdom of David. By Assaf Shtull-Trauring. Haaretz, May 6, 2011. Also here.


Wiener:

The Israel Antiquities Authority’s (IAA) July 18, 2013, press release is crowned with an extraordinary headline: “King David’s Palace was Uncovered in the Judean Shephelah.” At the close of the seventh season of excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa, the Hebrew University Professor Yosef Garfinkel and IAA archaeologist Saar Ganor announced the discovery of “the two largest buildings known to have existed in the tenth century B.C.E. in the Kingdom of Judah” with great fanfare. One of these buildings is a centrally located 100-foot-long palatial structure decorated with elegant imported vessels. Garfinkel told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that “there is no question that the ruler of the city sat here, and when King David came to visit the hills he slept here.” The other structure, a pillared storeroom, features hundreds of storage jars “stamped with an official seal as was customary in the Kingdom of Judah for centuries,” according to the IAA press release.

 

Khirbet Qeiyafa has produced numerous exciting and controversial finds (see links below) that have kept the Biblical archaeology world buzzing. Overlooking the Valley of Elah in the Judean foothills, the fortified Judahite site of Qeiyafa, on the border with the Philistines, has produced persuasive evidence to support the kingship of David at the beginning of Iron Age II, when the Bible says he ruled. The unique presence of two gates at the site has led Garfinkel to identify it as Biblical Sha’arayim, which means “two gates” in Hebrew.

 

However, some scholars are skeptical of Garfinkel’s claims. Garfinkel has used evidence from Qeiyafa to argue that David and Solomon ruled over a well-organized and fully urbanized Judahite state in the tenth century B.C.E. Last year, Tel Aviv University’s Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin published the article “Khirbet Qeiyafa: An Unsensational Archaeological and Historical Interpretation” critiquing Garfinkel’s methods, chronology and interpretations, and Foundation Stone codirector David Willner published an immediate response after today’s press release calling the announcement “unabashed sensationalism.”

 

The dramatic headline is sure to elicit a great deal of debate. Khirbet Qeiyafa is an undoubtedly important site, and we look forward to an imminent archaeological discussion on the newly uncovered palatial structure.


Hasson:

Two or three rows of stones stretching across 30 meters. That is what remains of what is believed to be King David’s palace, or at least the palace of a senior district governor that served the king some 3,000 years ago, according to scholars from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the Israel Antiquities Authority.

 

These vestiges have been excavated in recent weeks at Khirbet Qeiyafa on the Judean foothills, not far from Beit Shemesh, and they are expected to rekindle the stormy debate about the existence of the Kingdom of David. In the meantime, some archaeologists are fighting to prevent a new neighborhood from being built on this hill, which they claim constitutes proof of the biblical account.

 

This is not the first time that the excavators at Khirbet Qeiyafa, Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Antiquities Authority, make waves in the Israeli archaeological community. In recent years the two claimed that their findings from the biblical site poke holes the minimalist approach to Israeli archaeology. This approach, which is identified with several leading scholars from Tel Aviv University, asserts that archaeological research disproves what is written in the Bible, and that the Bible cannot be used as a reliable historical source.

 

The debate centers mainly on the question of the existence and the power of the United Monarchy – the joint kingdom of David and Solomon in the 10th century BCE. The minimalists claim that there was no such kingdom, and if it did exist it was limited to Jerusalem. Jerusalem itself, they claim, was no bigger than an average village. The opposing camp, comprised of archaeologists who propone the maximalists or the biblical approach, claims that the Bible faithfully reflects the situation in the region during that period, with emphasis on the existence of a strong and significant kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital.

 

This debate, which has occupied Israeli archaeologists for decades, occasionally finds itself another arena for the battle. In the past, the scholars have argued over the city gates at Hatzor, Megiddo and Gezer, and later the findings in the City of David in Jerusalem. In recent years, Khirbet Qeiyafa, a fairly low hill south of Ramat Beit Shemesh, has become the focus of the debate.

 

On Thursday, Garfinkel and Ganor completed the excavation at Qeiyafa after seven years. Their findings attest to the fact that this was an important district capital that was subordinate to Jerusalem and ruled its surroundings, and that the culture was Judahite-Israelite rather than Canaanite or Philistine. They suggest that Qeifaya be identified with the city of Sha’arayim that is mentioned in the Bible. “And the wounded of the Philistines fell along the road to Sha'arayim,” relates the book of 1 Samuel, describing the pursuit of the Philistine army immediately after David’s glorious victory over Goliath. According to Garfinkel and Ganor, Qeiyafa discredits the minimalist approach and proves the existence of the United Monarchy.

 

Garfinkel and Ganor raise several arguments. First pertains to Qeiyafa’s location, opposite Philistia, on a hill that controls its surrounding and the major road that crosses the Elah Valley. Garfinkel believes that the Kingdom of David was a medium-sized principality rather than a regional power, but also far from the insulting minimalist description as a village. He believes that this kingdom had three centers: Jerusalem, Hebron and Qeiyafa, each a day's walk from the other. A few years ago he and Ganor walked from the City of David in Jerusalem to Qeiyafa in order to prove this claim.

 

Second, they point to the fact that no pig bones or statuettes of goddesses were found at the site. “It’s clear than neither the diet nor the ritual here were Canaanite. The entire material culture here is Judahite,” says Garfinkel. An ancient inscription found at the site is written in proto-Canaanite script, one of the predecessors of Hebrew script, and therefore strengthens their claim that the ethnic identity of the site was Judahite. The power of the kingdom is indicated by ceramic artifacts originating in Cyprus and Egypt, which are evidence of international commerce. All that has led the archaeologists to conclude that Qeiyafa was a district capital in the Kingdom of David.

 

The newest discovery, which was excavated in recent weeks, consists of remnants of the low wall at the top of the hill. It is 30 meters in length, and is unusually thick and strong. The two men estimate that this is the last vestige of a luxurious public building that was about 1,000 square meters in size, far larger than the private homes. Judging by the thickness of the wall, the palace was at least two stories high, if not more, the archaeologists say.

 

“There is no question that the ruler of the city sat here, and when King David came to visit the hills he slept here,” says Garfinkel. They also excavated the remains of another structure that they identify as a storage building, which they say is evidence of regional tax collection.

 

Unfortunately, most of the palace was destroyed 1,400 years after it was built, and replaced by a large Byzantine building.

 

The meager traces leave fertile ground for a continued debate among the archaeologists. Garfinkel’s minimalist opponents raise questions about the dating of the palace and its importance, as well as about its links to the kingdom in Jerusalem and to King David.

 

First, claim the critics, the ethnic identity of the inhabitants of the site has not been proven. Some, like Prof. Shlomo Bonimovitz and Dr. Zvi Lederman of Tel Aviv University, claim that these are the remnants of a small Canaanite kingdom that existed in the Judean foothills between the Kingdom of Judah and the Philistines. Even if it is Jewish, it is possible that this was a settlement that was actually connected to an Israelite kingdom that was located father north, in the Ramallah region, and predated the Kingdom of David. The critics also want to see evidence of the dating of the large stone wall, since only few vestiges of it remain.

 

But the main argument against many of the biblical archaeologists is that they are biased by the biblical text – a text that was written hundreds of years after the events, and by a writer with a clear political and religious agenda.

 

“I haven’t been at the site during the past season,” says Finkelstein, “so I can't judge the nature and date of the structure. There’s no question that this is an interesting and important site. The excavators attribute it to Judah. Alexander Fantalkin and I suggested that it should be seen as a border fortress of an Israelite unit whose center was on a mountain north of Jerusalem. In any case, I would be careful about uncritical links to biblical traditions that were written down hundreds of years after the site was abandoned.”

 

Prof. Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University is digging not far from Qeiyafa on Tel Zafit, which during that period was the Philistine city of Gath – a city far richer and larger than Qeiyafa. He agrees that it is a Judahite site, “that’s the simplest and most logical explanation. But does that mean that we can raise arguments about the kingdom of David and Solomon? That seems to me a grandiose upgrade,” says Meir. He believes that this is an attempt by “an ancient Judahite entity” to draw a border for itself vis-a-vis the Philistine city of Gath. “The destruction of the site demonstrates that this experiment didn't last for long, and how does that accord with the biblical explanation of the victory of the United Monarchy?”

i24, Israeli 24-Hour News Channel is Launched. By Ruth English.

Israeli 24-hour news channel launches, with eyes on the world. By Ruth English. Washington Post, July 18, 2013.

i24 News website.

i24 News English Promo. Video. satkrak, June 2, 2013. YouTube.




i24 English News Launch. Video. Seb Jec, July 17, 2013. YouTube.

The New Puritans. By Mark Oppenheimer.

The New Puritans: When Did Liberals Become So Uptight? By Mark Oppenheimer. The New Republic, July 15, 2013.

Fear of Rand Paul’s Rise. By Ben Domenech.

Fear of Rand Paul’s Rise. By Ben Domenech. Real Clear Politics, July 19, 2013.

Domenech:

Michael Gerson is terrified of Rand Paul. “This disdain for Lincoln is not a quirk or a coincidence. Paulism involves more than the repeal of Obamacare. It is a form of libertarianism that categorically objects to 150 years of expanding federal power. During this period, the main domestic justification for federal action has been opposition to slavery and segregation. Lincoln, in the Paulite view, exercised tyrannical powers to pursue an unnecessary war. Similarly, Paulites have been critical of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for violating both states’ rights and individual property rights — an argument Rand Paul himself echoed during several interviews as a Senate candidate. This does not make Paulites racists. But it does make them opponents of the legal methods that ended state-sanctioned racism. . . . What does this mean for the GOP? It is a reminder that, however reassuring his manner, it is impossible for Rand Paul to join the Republican mainstream. The triumph of his ideas and movement would fundamentally shift the mainstream and demolish a century and a half of Republican political history. The GOP could no longer be the party of Reagan’s internationalism or of Lincoln’s belief in a strong union dedicated to civil rights.”

 

I am unfamiliar with the moment when Gerson, unstoppable promoter of paternalistic big government that he is, was bequeathed the ability to define the Republican mainstream. But Gerson’s depiction of the libertarian view of the Confederacy is simply fraudulent. I hear far more defenses of the South’s approach from Pat Buchanan sympathizers than from libertarians. Paleoconservatives may find much worthy of defense in the Confederate state, but consider: The Confederate Constitution amended the US Constitution to better facilitate technocratic rule. The Confederate ruling ideology, derived from John C. Calhoun's concurrent majorities, remains current in leftist thought today (see Lani Guinier). The Confederacy was the first to introduce mass conscription. The Confederacy staged a series of repressions and massacres against local autonomy (east Tennessee, central Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, western North Carolina, etc.). The Confederacy imposed an internal-passport regime for civilian travel later echoed by European autocracies. The Confederate state took over most of its own economy by war's end. And the Wilsonian “progressives” contained a surprising number of Confederate sympathizers who saw it as a noble experiment and set about applying its principles in the form of the segregating the federal government, fomenting the Klan, and more.

 

Agrarian non-interventionists have their sympathies for the Confederacy (see Copperhead, which glorifies the Sixties peaceniks – the 1860s), but that’s hardly a viewpoint unique to libertarianism. And for those who actually study history, the idea that the Confederacy was a liberty-oriented alternative to Lincoln and the Union is absurd – in many ways, its worst aspects were the forerunner of the modern technocratic top-down state.

 

Beyond getting the definitions wrong – and purposefully so, in a Sharptonesque manner – Gerson’s attempt to define Rand Paul as someone who cannot shape the future Republican coalition is just the latest sign of how afraid the party’s elite are of the rising coalition of libertarian youngsters and the populist middle class. “Since 2010, almost all the intellectual energy in the Senate has come from Tea Party lawmakers like Rand Paul and Mike Lee, who tend to be relatively dovish, skeptical of foreign aid, concerned about civil liberties, and contemptuous of neoconservatives. Making the case for an activist foreign policy has fallen largely to Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom increasingly resemble the aging characters in Kingsley Amis’s The Old Devils, shambling around the Senate chamber and waxing nostalgic about the good old days when they could bomb other countries in peace. Beyond Rep. Tom Cotton, the neoconservative darling who still staunchly defends the Iraq intervention, there’s little fresh blood among Republican hawks in Congress these days. So perhaps it makes sense for Liz Cheney, the daughter of one of the architects of Bush-era foreign policy, to provide a Senate counterbalance to Paul.”

Concerned neoconservatives have nothing to fear on this count. If Paul is correct about the trajectory of the coalition, his views will achieve more prominence. But there will be a debate first, and the people will decide who they agree with. It could be a messy debate, public and ugly on the stage in Iowa, but that debate will happen. If Gerson and his allies have confidence in the strength of their ideas, they should be prepared to make the case for them . . . not attempt to escape the debate by writing Senators – particularly those with a young, passionate following – out of the party.

 

 

Rand Paul: Conviction Politician. By Michael Gerson.

Rand Paul: Conviction Politician. By Michael Gerson. Real Clear Politics, July 19, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.

Gerson:

To this point, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has been the Republican flavor of the year. Events from the IRS scandal to NSA revelations to the Obamacare train wreck have corroborated libertarian suspicions of federal power. And Paul has shown serious populist skills in cultivating those fears for his political benefit. For a while, he succeeded in a difficult maneuver: accepting the inheritance of his father’s movement while distancing himself from the loonier aspects of his father’s ideology.

 

But now Paul has fallen spectacularly off the tightrope. It turns out that a senior member of his Senate staff, Jack Hunter, has a history of neo-Confederate radio rants. And Paul has come to the defense of his aide.

 

Paul’s attempt to dismiss the matter has only added to the damage. “It was a shock radio job,” the senator explains. “He was doing wet T-shirt contests. But can a guy not have a youth and stuff? People try to say I smoked pot one time, and I wasn’t fit for office.”

 

But Hunter’s offenses were committed as an adult. They included defending a regime founded on slavery, comparing Abraham Lincoln to Saddam Hussein and raising (in Hunter’s words) a “personal toast every May 10 to celebrate John Wilkes Booth’s birthday.” This was not a single, ideological puff but rather a decade spent mainlining moonlight and magnolias in the ruins of Tara.

 

Paul is rumored to be considering a 2016 presidential run. So his dismissal of the sympathetic treatment of a presidential assassin as the equivalent of sponsoring a wet T-shirt contest requires some explanation. The easier political course for Paul would have been to cut this embarrassing tie and reduce the damage. He still might be forced to do so. But his reluctance is revealing.

 

This would not be the first time that Paul has heard secessionist talk in his circle of confederates — I mean, associates. His father has attacked Lincoln for causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Others allied with Paulism in various think tanks and Web sites have accused Lincoln of mass murder and treason. For Rand Paul to categorically repudiate such views and all who hold them would be to excommunicate a good portion of his father’s movement.

 

This disdain for Lincoln is not a quirk or a coincidence. Paulism involves more than the repeal of Obamacare. It is a form of libertarianism that categorically objects to 150 years of expanding federal power. During this period, the main domestic justification for federal action has been opposition to slavery and segregation. Lincoln, in the Paulite view, exercised tyrannical powers to pursue an unnecessary war. Similarly, Paulites have been critical of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for violating both states’ rights and individual property rights — an argument Rand Paul himself echoed during several interviews as a Senate candidate.

 

This does not make Paulites racists. But it does make them opponents of the legal methods that ended state-sanctioned racism.

 

To put the best construction on it, Paulites tend to hate war and federal coercion in any form, even in causes generally regarded as good. They opposed the Cold War and nearly every post-World War II American exercise of power. They equate the war on terrorism with militarism, imperialism and empire. And they remain unhappy about the War of Northern Aggression.

 

Not all libertarians, of course, view Appomattox as a temporary setback. A libertarian debate on the topic: “Lincoln: Hero or Despot?” would be two-sided, lively and well-attended. But Paulism is more than the political expression of the Austrian school of economics. It is a wildly ambitious ideology in which Hunter’s neo-Confederate views are not uncommon.

 

What does this mean for the GOP? It is a reminder that, however reassuring his manner, it is impossible for Rand Paul to join the Republican mainstream. The triumph of his ideas and movement would fundamentally shift the mainstream and demolish a century and a half of Republican political history. The GOP could no longer be the party of Reagan’s internationalism or of Lincoln’s belief in a strong union dedicated to civil rights.

 

The Hunter matter is also a reminder that Paul is a conviction politician. His convictions, however, are the problem. In January, Hunter wrote that the “philosophy hasn’t substantively changed” between Ron Paul and his son. Rand Paul’s goal is to legitimize the Paulite movement, not repudiate its worst elements. But his ties to those elements may put an upward limit on his political rise.