Concerning Mazar’s “discoveries” announced earlier today, I think that some readers would be interested in the report given in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993).  A section on the Ophel was written by Hillel Geva and I quote it at length because (1) it reveals what was discovered in the previous excavation that appears to be re-reported as new today and (2) it indicates that the identification of the building as a gate was the excavator’s identification. 

I have marked some statements in bold for emphasis.

In 1986 to 1987, B. Mazar and E. Mazar continued to excavate the complex of Iron Age II public buildings in the southeastern part of the Ophel.  The buildings were partially unearthed in B. Mazar’s 1970 excavations; he identified them as remains of the biblical “house of Millo.”  The renewed excavations revealed many additional remains that add up to a complex of several interconnected, but well-defined building units.  The quality of the construction is impressive, featuring thick walls founded on bedrock, sometimes preserved to a height of some 4 m.  The first stages of these buildings date to the ninth century BCE, at the earliest; they were destroyed, together with the rest of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, as the visible signs of destruction and conflagration indicate.
The remains of building C consisted of the walls of two rooms, the foundations of the walls of other rooms, and sections of floors.  They have been identified as belonging to a four-chamber gatehouse of the type characteristic of the Iron Age II.  The earlier excavations had exposed dozens of vessels, including many storage jars, in the gate’s southwestern chamber.  Building D, which adjoins building C on the east, consisted of several rooms, in which pithoi [large storage jars] were found, suggesting that the building was a storehouse.
The various building units combined to form a dense complex whose outer walls created a continuous line of fortifications along the eastern side of the Ophel, overlooking the Kidron Valley.  The gate may be associated with the large tower (building B) to the south, discovered by Warren in the Ophel wall between 1867 and 1870, and with another, smaller tower (building A) whose eastern side Kenyon exposed in 1967 in her site SII.
The gate has been identified with the biblical “Water Gate” (Neh. 3:26) that was part of the complex known as the “upper house of the king.”  The excavators believe that it was a gate in the western section of the Jerusalem city wall, providing access to a separate royal quarter, which stood on the Ophel until the end of the First Temple period (Vol. 2, p. 715).

Given this report, I cannot determine what, if anything, has been discovered recently.  The only thing that appears to have changed is the date (back now to the time of Solomon).

A couple of weeks ago I read an article in Time Magazine on archaeology in east Jerusalem.  I would normally link to this kind of article (and many other bloggers did), but this one was so thoroughly one-sided that I couldn’t in good conscience link to it without a lengthy refutation.  But you can waste your life on such drivel and I decided to pass. 

A couple of days ago, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) reviewed the article and noted some of its problems.  For instance,

The journalist respectfully refers to Daniel Seidemann, an outspoken foe of Israeli sovereignty and habitation in eastern Jerusalem, as a lawyer who works for a civil rights organization and, elsewhere in the article, as “Lawyer Seidemann,” but does not afford similar honorifics to the archeologist who heads the Jerusalem excavation. McGirk conveniently omits her credentials, introducing her simply as “Eilat Mazar” and incorrectly describing her as “an associate of the right‑wing Shalem think tank” And while he includes this incorrect affiliation – Time has already issued a correction stating that Mazar is not currently affiliated with the Shalem think tank – McGirk neglects to inform readers that Dr. Mazar is a respected archeologist – the granddaughter of Benjamin Mazar, who was a prominent archeologist, historian and former president of the Hebrew University. She received her PhD in archeology more than a decade ago, has published in scholarly journals, was a visiting scholar at the Hebrew University’s Institute of Archeology and is currently a research fellow there.
By contrast, McGirk characterizes those who oppose the field of biblical archeology and disagree with Mazar and her team’s findings as “scholars” and “experts.”

Note that this has nothing to do with the essence of the controversy, which is whether Israel has the right to excavate in Jerusalem.  The “journalist” has carefully selected and withheld information in the manner of a defense lawyer or political lobbyist.  This is all the more distasteful when it involves mischaracterization of scholars and archaeologists.

The conclusion:

Time’s readers cannot reliably learn about the controversies and arguments surrounding the history, archeology, and future of Jerusalem as long as Time’s Jerusalem bureau chief continues to serve as an advocate for one side of the debate instead of as a responsible and ethical journalist.

Time should be ashamed of this article.  To the degree that it is not, we know that objective reporting is not its goal.  If you read the original Time article, you should read this response.