Editing David (section)

===Archaeological analysis===

Of the evidence in question, John Haralson Hayes and James Maxwell Miller wrote in 2006: "If one is not convinced in advance by the biblical profile, then there is nothing in the archaeological evidence itself to suggest that much of consequence was going on in Palestine during the tenth century BCE, and certainly nothing to suggest that Jerusalem was a great political and cultural center."<ref>A History of Ancient Israel and Judah; ByJames Maxwell Miller & John Haralson Hayes; pages 204; SCM Press, 2006; {{ISBN|9780334041177}}</ref> This echoed the 1995 conclusion of [[Amélie Kuhrt]], who noted that "there are no royal inscriptions from the time of the united monarchy (indeed very little written material altogether), and not a single contemporary reference to either David or Solomon," while noting, "against this must be set the evidence for substantial development and growth at several sites, which is plausibly related to the tenth century."<ref name="Kuhrtp438">{{cite book|last=Kuhrt|first=Amélie |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=V_sfMzRPTgoC&q=Kuhrt,+Amiele+(1995).+The+Ancient+Near+East.|title=The Ancient Near East, c. 3000–330 BC, Band 1|publisher=Routledge |year=1995|isbn=978-0-41516-762-8|location=New York|page=438 |author-link=Amélie Kuhrt}}</ref>

In 2007, [[Israel Finkelstein]] and [[Neil Asher Silberman]] stated that the archaeological evidence shows that Judah was sparsely inhabited and Jerusalem no more than a small village. The evidence suggested that David ruled only as a chieftain over an area which cannot be described as a state or as a kingdom, but more as a chiefdom, much smaller and always overshadowed by the older and more powerful [[Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)|kingdom of Israel]] to the north.<ref>{{harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2007|pp=26–27}}; {{harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2002|pages=[https://archive.org/details/bibleunearthedar00fink/page/189 189–190]|loc=Chapter 8|ps=: Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairly local level, restricted to the hill country.}}</ref> They posited that Israel and Judah were not monotheistic at the time and that later 7th-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.{{sfn|Finkelstein|Silberman|2002|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA23 23]; 241–247}} They noted a lack of archeological evidence for David's military campaigns and a relative underdevelopment of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, compared to a more developed and urbanized Samaria, capital of Israel during the 9th century BCE.<ref>{{harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2002|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA158 158]}}. "We still have no hard archaeological evidence—despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur—that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam."</ref>{{sfn|Finkelstein|Silberman |2002|p=131|loc=Table Two}}<ref>{{harvnb|Finkelstein|Silberman|2002|p=181}}. Speaking of Samaria: "The scale of this project was enormous."</ref>

In 2010, [[Amihai Mazar]] wrote that the [[United Monarchy]] of the 10th century BCE can be described as a "state in development".<ref name="amazar">{{cite book |last=Mazar |first= Amihai |chapter=Archaeology and the biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy |chapter-url= http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Mazar%20-%20The%20United%20%20Monarchy-BZAW2010.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140611170411/http://www.rehov.org/Rehov/publications/Mazar%20-%20The%20United%20%20Monarchy-BZAW2010.pdf |year=2010 |title=One God – One Cult – One Nation: Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-022358-3 |archive-date=2014-06-11 |url-status= dead}}</ref> He compared David to [[Labaya]], a Caananite warlord living during the time of Pharaoh [[Akhenaten]]. While Mazar believes that David reigned over Israel during the 11th century BCE, he argues that much of the Biblical text is of "literary-legendary nature".<ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-12-12|title=First Person: Did the Kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon Actually Exist?|url=https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/did-the-kingdoms-of-saul-david-and-solomon-actually-exist/|access-date=2021-07-20|website=Biblical Archaeology Society}}</ref> According to William G. Dever, the reigns of [[Saul]], David and [[Solomon]] are reasonably well attested, but "most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom".{{sfn|Dever|2020|loc=Chapter 5}}{{sfn|Dever|2017|pp=322–324}}<ref>{{Cite web|title=NOVA {{!}} The Bible's Buried Secrets {{!}} Archeology of the Hebrew Bible |website=PBS |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/dever.html|access-date=2021-07-20|quote=The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them. Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.}}</ref> [[Avraham Faust]] and Zev Farber argue that David managed to establish a [[empire|mini-empire]] through multiple conquests which are archaeologically attested in destruction layers of many urban centers dating to his time.{{sfn|Faust|Farber|2025|pp=406ff}}

[[Lester L. Grabbe]] wrote in 2017: "The main question is what kind of settlement Jerusalem was in Iron IIA: was it a minor settlement, perhaps a large village or possibly a citadel but not a city, or was it the capital of a flourishing—or at least an emerging—state? Assessments differ considerably".<ref>Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? By Lester L. Grabbe; page 77Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017</ref> Isaac Kalimi wrote in 2018, "No contemporaneous extra-biblical source offers any account of the political situation in Israel and Judah during the tenth century BCE, and as we have seen, the archaeological remains themselves cannot provide any unambiguous evidence of events."<ref name="Kalimi p. 32"/>

The view of Davidic Jerusalem as a village has been challenged by [[Eilat Mazar]]'s excavation of the [[Large Stone Structure]] and the [[Stepped Stone Structure]] in 2005.<ref>Zachary Thomas, "Debating the United Monarchy: let's see how far we've come." ''Biblical Theology Bulletin'' (2016).</ref> Mazar proposed that these two structures may have been architecturally linked as one unit and that they date to the time of King David. Mazar supports this dating with a number of artifacts, including pottery, two Phoenician-style ivory inlays, a black-and-red jug, and a radiocarbon-dated bone, estimated to be from the 10th century.<ref>Mazar, Eilat, ''Excavations at the Summit of the City of David, Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007'', Shoham, Jerusalem and New York, 2009, pp. 52–56.</ref> Dever, [[Amihai Mazar]], [[Avraham Faust]], and Nadav Na'aman have argued in favour of the 10th-century BCE dating and responded to challenges to it.<ref name="amazar"/><ref>Avraham Faust 2010. "The large stone structure in the City of David: a reexamination." ''Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins''.</ref><ref>"The Stepped Stone Structure" in Mazar ed., The Summit of the City of David Excavations 2005–2008: Final Reports Volume I: Area G (2015), pp. 169–88</ref>{{sfn|Na'aman|2014}}{{sfn|Dever|2017|pp=277–283}} In 2010, Eilat Mazar announced the discovery of part of the [[ancient city walls around the City of David]], which she believes date to the 10th century BCE. According to Mazar, this would prove that an organized state did exist in the 10th century.<ref name=":0" /> In 2006, [[Kenneth Kitchen]] came to a similar conclusion, arguing that "the physical archaeology of tenth-century [[Canaan]] is consistent with the former existence of a unified state on its terrain."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kitchen |first=K. A.|title=On the Reliability of the Old Testament|date=2006-06-09|publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing|isbn=978-0-8028-0396-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&q=%22the+physical+archaeology+of+tenth-century+Canaan+is+consistent+with+the+former+existence+of+a+unified+state+on+its+terrain%22&pg=PA158}}</ref>

Scholars such as [[Israel Finkelstein]], Lily Singer-Avitz, [[Ze'ev Herzog]] and [[David Ussishkin]] do not accept these conclusions.<ref>Has King David's Palace in Jerusalem been Found? By Israel Finkelstein, Lily Singer-Avitz, Ze'ev Herzog & David Ussishkin; Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Volume 34, 2007 - Issue 2; Pages 142-164</ref> Finkelstein does not accept the dating of these structures to the 10th century BCE, based in part on the fact that later structures on the site penetrated deep into underlying layers, that the entire area had been excavated in the early 20th century and then backfilled, that pottery from later periods was found below earlier strata, and that consequently the finds collected by E. Mazar cannot necessarily be considered as retrieved ''in situ''.<ref>The "Large Stone Structure" in Jerusalem Reality versus Yearning By Israel Finkelstein, 2011; Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 127(1):2-10; at [https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/527790/Finkelstein-2011,-Jerusalem.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230419090508/https://www.mq.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/527790/Finkelstein-2011,-Jerusalem.pdf|date=2023-04-19}}</ref> [[Aren Maeir]] said in 2010 that he has seen no evidence that these structures are from the 10th century BCE and that proof of the existence of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."<ref name=":0">'Jerusalem city wall dates back to King Solomon'; by Abe Selig; Jerusalem Post, 23 February 2010; at [https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Jlem-city-wall-dates-back-to-King-Solomon]</ref>

Excavations at [[Khirbet Qeiyafa]] by archaeologists [[Yosef Garfinkel]] and [[Saar Ganor]] found an urbanized settlement [[radiocarbon dated]] to the 10th century, which supports the existence of an urbanised kingdom. The [[Israel Antiquities Authority]] stated: "The excavations at Khirbat Qeiyafa clearly reveal an urban society that existed in Judah already in the late eleventh century BCE. It can no longer be argued that the Kingdom of Judah developed only in the late eighth century BCE or at some other later date."<ref name="garfinkel2012">{{cite web|last1=Garfinkel|first1=Yossi|last2=Ganor|first2=Sa'ar|last3=Hasel|first3=Michael|date=19 April 2012|title=Journal 124: Khirbat Qeiyafa preliminary report|url=http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1989|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120623021750/http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=1989|archive-date=23 June 2012|access-date=12 June 2018|website=Hadashot Arkheologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel|publisher=Israel Antiquities Authority|ref=garfinkel2012}}</ref> But other scholars have criticized the techniques and interpretations to reach some conclusions related to Khirbet Qeiyafa, such as Israel Finkelstein and Alexander Fantalkin of [[Tel Aviv University]], who have instead proposed that the city is to be identified as part of a northern Israelite polity.<ref name="finkelsteinfantalkin2012">{{cite journal|last1=Finkelstein|first1=Israel|last2=Fantalkin|first2=Alexander|date=May 2012|title=Khirbet Qeiyafa: an unsensational archaeological and historical interpretation|url=http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Qeiyafa_Unsensational_Interpretation.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170131195600/http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Qeiyafa_Unsensational_Interpretation.pdf |archive-date=2017-01-31 |url-status=live|journal=Tel Aviv|volume=39|pages=38–63|doi=10.1179/033443512x13226621280507|access-date=12 June 2018|ref=finkelsteinfantalkin2012|s2cid=161627736 |issn = 0334-4355}}</ref>

In 2018, [[Avraham Faust]] and Yair Sapir stated that a Canaanite site at [[Tel Eton]], about 30 miles from Jerusalem, was taken over by a Judahite community by peaceful assimilation and transformed from a village into a central town at some point in the late 11th or early 10th century BCE. This transformation used some [[ashlar]] blocks in construction, which they argued supports the United Monarchy theory.{{sfn |Faust|Sapir|2018|p= 1|ps=: 'The lack of evidence for public construction and state apparatus in the region of Judah before the 8th century, expressed for example by the total lack of ashlar construction, is one of the oft-quoted evidence against the historical plausibility of a kingdom centered in Judah. The building of the "governor's residency," along with other lines of evidence, suggests that the settlement at Tel'Eton was transformed in the 10th century BCE, lending important support to the historicity of the United Monarchy'}}<ref>Proof Of King David? Not Yet. But Riveting Site Shores Up Roots Of Israelite Era, By Amanda Borschel-Dan; Times Of Israel; 14 May 2018; At [https://Www.Timesofisrael.Com/Proof-Of-King-David-Not-Yet-But-Riveting-Site-Shores-Up-Roots-Of-Israelite-Era/]</ref>