The discrepancy between written history and archeological history in the beginning region of Jerusalem

        

    When considering the beginnings of Jerusalem, the evidence which describes the original inhabitants of the city and the exchange of powers is quite confusing. Before delving into this idea however is important to establish some things regarding the idea of sacred space. 

An integral part of the idea of sacred space is the concentration of a place to make it a sacred place. As Eliade states, “ It must be understood that the consecration of unknown territories is always are consecration; to organize a space is to repeat the paradigmatic work of the gods “ (Eliade 33). We see this idea of consecration within the beginnings of the story in Genesis. There are two main instances within Genesis that I would like to mention: the sacrifice of Abraham’s son and the pouring of the oil by Jacob on the stone. Both of these places are instances of consecration through a sacrifice and the pouring of oil on the stone leading to the formation of a sacred place. 

Although these biblical stories are the closest thing to written evidence that we have of the beginnings of the formation of Jerusalem, within the archeological context, there are some discrepancies. To begin, we must talk about Israel. In the text Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths, Armstrong mentions that” Archeologists have uncovered the remains of about one hundred unfortified new villages in the hill country of Jerusalem, which have been dated to about 1200 BCE” (Armstrong 23). From archaeological evidence, it is clear that people have inhabited the region of Jerusalem for quite some time. However, when matched up with biblical evidence there is a stark difference. In the book of Joshua, it is mentioned that the first battle in which Joshua sought to take Canaan was Jericho and scholars date that battle to about 1400 BCE. Between the other cities and the first conquest of Jericho, there were approximately 500 years in which all of the cities were pillaged. Even more so, the Book of Judges, which comes directly after the Book of Joshua mentions that it is possible that Joshua had not even done his conquest. 

With all of this in mind, the confusions of the beginnings of the area that would come to be Israel and Palestine are confusing. Various questions have come to light regarding whether or not the validity of the written history in the form of the bible are able to be trusted when archeological evidence suggests otherwise. In addition to this, the documentary hypothesis by Armstrong even suggests that the five books that make up the Torah were not written by Moses individually, but by different authors from different time periods that were put together by an individual in approximately the 6th century CE. Whatever the case may be on the validity of sources and which sources to use in the context of defining the history of Jerusalem, it is important to remember the different ways that people may see these sources as integral parts of their history or ways in which territory is disputed.