Bible Hill: Digging into the Past

This is a picture of the remains of a search for remains: a square left by archaeologists, which, over the years, has become a kind of archaeological remnant of its own.
I don't know why there haven't been extensive excavations on Bible Hill. Perhaps the test squares failed to indicate the presence of important remains, or perhaps the Department of Antiquities lacked the resources to do a full excavation.
It's hard to imagine that a hill in such a prominent location remained undeveloped over the thousands of years of human settlement in Jerusalem. On the other hand, it's also hard to understand why it remained undeveloped in the 60 odd years of the existence of the State of Israel. Maybe there's a problem of ownership.
Property rights in Jerusalem are often difficult to sort out (I say this in the light of a very recent Supreme Court decision denying the rights of Palestinians to the houses in East Jerusalem where they have been living for decades, because the land was owned by Jews before 1948 - a clear instance of a huge disparity between law and justice).
Archaeology also raises the question of how much the past should own the present. Does the presence of something ancient necessarily trump the claims of living people? If the point of archaeology is gathering evidence about the past, once the evidence has been gathered, why not clear away the ancient debris, especially if it's not something particularly beautiful or impressive?
Archaeology can be a metaphor for our attitudes toward our personal past. Some people turn incidents in their past into monuments, and others sweep their past away and move on. I don't think this is the result of voluntary decisions. Some of us can't stop worshiping our past. We can't clear our ancestors' bones out of our living room altars, while others can't relate to those dusty urns at all. There is danger in remembering too much and in forgetting too much.