The “Governor’s Residency” at Tel ‘Eton, The United Monarchy, and the Impact of the Old-House Effect on Large-Scale Archaeological Reconstructions
“… This has bearings on the date in which social complexity evolved in Judah, on the debate regarding the historicity of the kingdom of David and Solomon, and it also provides the earliest date for the use of ashlar stones in Judah. Finally, the long life of the “governor’s residency” exemplifies a little addressed phenomenon—the old-house effect—in which buildings and settlements existed for a few centuries, but only left significant remains from their last phase. The earlier phases are hardly represented in the finds, barely studied, and rarely published. We suggest that the old-house effect influences archaeological interpretations world-wide, and is also responsible for recent attempts to down-date social complexity in Judah.”
I cannot believe this got published and that anyone could take the author’s argument seriously. Essentially he’s saying that because there was a house, there must have been a King, and if there was a King, it doesn’t matter if his name was David or Solomon – it’s sufficient proof the Kingdom of David existed. Depressing. Even more depressing is the religionists are already out peddling the story. El Pais, of all newspapers, had an article about it today. Doubly depressing.
My Mazamet 
A touch of the Schliemann’s – ‘I have gazed on the face of Agamemnon’ This after digging up ‘Priam’s treasure’ and ‘discovering’ Troy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
LOL 🙂 That’s just wonderful 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
LikeLike
If they could find the jawbone of an ass, we could call the find El País.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Excuse me. The bible was written by God. What other proof could you possibly need of David’s kingdom ? :p
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have counted the depressing you have listed and they are more than two.
It’s totally depressing.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I think you may be a little hard on these chaps. Granted the axe they are clearly grinding is out in front right from the start, but this has been a flaw of biblical archeology since its inception.
They focus on the “most likely” interpretation of the data without consideration of any other possibilities, that the building was a rich traders display of wealth, for example. By naming the house the “Governor’s House” and to their credit they keep this label in quotes, they are predisposing lay readers into accepting the house as part of the region’s governance structure. But governance structures were hardly lavish at this or at most other times in this area. Most were “sturdy” rather than lavish as government coffers were always stretched because of warfare, agricultural projects, etc. Kings and other potentates spent lavishly but that tended to fall off when you got more than one hundred meters from where they lived or worked. Large lavish public works projects were very limited. I suggest that The temple was probably the only one the Hebrews undertook. All of the administrative and military structures were just “sturdy” as these people were not considered aristocrats per se. Rich people built lavish structures, governments did not, with the exception of the Temple and a hundred meter radius of rulers living and work spaces.
And as to the comment the Bible was written by their god, I think they out to reconsider that as the number of grammatical mistakes and spelling errors alone would lose that god the descriptor of being “perfect.” Don’t you think their god would be a better writer?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I found a giant pea once in my garden and wrote a 7500 page paper on it saying it was definitive proof that Jack and the Bean Stalk was not only a true story but that it took place in my very garden over 6000 years ago. I’ve several copies of the paper still sitting about somewhere, so if you want one, I’ll send it to you.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Much like the article a few back that announced: ”Could this be the house that Jesus grew up in?”
Details released just before xmas of that year and … wham bam thank you ma’am.
I would imagine every news agency around the globe got that story.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A couple of points need to be raised here. First, legitimate historical research should not be conflated with the conclusions drawn from it. Second, not all historical research is legitimately conducted (i.e. the unbiased pursuit of empirical facts and objective truth); and, human-derived conclusions tend to be highly subjective and opinionated. This is why the peer-review process of the scientific method is so important. It’s the best way we have to separate fact from fiction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not surprised by the reporting. Journalists seem to have to be experts in copy and paste these days.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m glad you picked up on this nonsense. Saw it last week and had a few eye-rolls. Yes, a house was built on a hill… a HILL. Location, location, location. Of course it’s going to be maintained and expanded on. There is no adjoining infrastructure, and it’s not mentioned in the bible, or any extra-biblical sources. Also odd that it was sacked by the Assyrians. That would appear to signal it was owned (at least in 722 BCE) by an Israelite, not a Judean. Finkelstein tore the authors a new hole over their selection of material to be dated, too.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The most shocking was the title of the article in El Pais – with intentional ambiguous wording: El fin del mito del reino de David (The End of the Myth of the Kingdom of David).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Click bait.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This really will be known as the era of fake news.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s the beauty of today’s news! One can print anything at all and the sheeple will believe it!
LikeLiked by 1 person