faust 2012 bar sepoct david palace

8/13/2019 Faust 2012 BAR SepOct David Palace

1/7

47B I B L I C A L A R C H A E O L O G Y R E V I E W

ON SOME THINGS, ALL AGR EE: HEBREW UNI-

versity archaeologist Eilat Mazar is a careful, com-

petent excavator who welcomes even her severest

critics to her site. And, unlike many, she promptly

publishes preliminary excavation reports, making

available the details of her finds, as well as her

interpretations.

Criticism of her excavation in the oldest part of

Jerusalem, known as the City of David, begins even

with the way she decided where to digbased on

what can be inferred from the Biblical text about

King Davids palace. As her critic Ronny Reich,

who is digging southeast of Mazar in the City ofDavid, put it: From the few verses mentioning

[Davids palace] in the Bible, Mazar was certain she

knew where it was.1

Mazar, it should be noted, did not rely on only

the Biblical text in suggesting the site. In addition

to her interpretation of some Biblical passages, she

refers to a number of other considerations that

guided her choice of a site to excavate.*

Near the site Eilat Mazar (I must now use both

names to distinguish her from the other Mazar men-

tioned later in this article) had chosen, a previous

excavator, British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon,

had found (in her Square A XVIII) a handsome

proto-Aeolic capital (redolent of royal architecture

of the Iron Age) together with some imposing ash-

lars (large rectangular building blocks). Additional

ashlars had been uncovered nearby (in Area G of

Hebrew University archaeologist Yigal Shilohs dig

in the late 1970s and early 1980s). Eilat Mazar sen-

sibly reasoned that these must have come from a

large public, perhaps royal, building nearby.

There was more: Kenyon had found a system

of walls (in her Area H, just northwest of Shilohs

Area Gwhere the Stepped Stone Structure islocated) that Kenyon dated to the tenth century

B.C.E., the time of King Solomon; Kenyon thought

this wall system was a double parallel (casemate)

city wall; Eilat Mazar felt this wall could be part of

Did

Eilat MazarFind

DavdsPalace?

*See Eilat Mazar, Excavate King Davids Palace, BAR, January/Febru-ary 1997. One should note, however, that all the evidence Eilat Mazarreferred to when she first suggested the palace can be excavatedreferred to the area north of where she finally excavated. This can beseen clearly in the plans and reconstructions she published (includingthe major reconstruction in her 1997 BARarticle). Clearly, even if allthe evidence she brought forth in 1997 were impeccable (and they arenot), there was no reason to expect the palace where she excavated.

Avraham Faust


2/7

48 S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 2

D A V I D S P A L A C E

DAVIDS ROYAL

CITY. The narrow

12-acre ridge, still

known as the City

of David, lies south

of the Temple Mount

and just west of the

Kidron Valley. It is

the location of the

most ancient settle-

ment of Jerusalem.

Perhaps the worlds

most excavated city

since the 1960s, this

area of Jerusalem

has been excavated

by Kathleen Kenyon,

Yigal Shiloh and,

most recently, Eilat

Mazar. Mazar hasuncovered a Large

Stone Structure she

believes was built

by King David as

his palace. Does the

archaeology support

her claim?

Temple Mount

GARO

NALBANDIAN

Kidron Valley

Ophel

Kenyons Area H

Stepped Stone Structure(Shilohs Area G)

Large Stone Structure

Gihon Spring


3/7



the outer system of walls that belonged to the pal-

ace. If Kenyons date was correct, this was clearly

a possibility.

On the basis of these various considerations,

Eilat Mazar suggested that King Davids palace

is located from Kenyons area H northward, andabove Kenyons Square A XVIII. Almost ten years

after she first published her suggestion, Eilat Mazar

went into the field, and in two long seasons she

uncovered many walls, some of which were very

massive, covering the entire excavation area (which

lies south of Kenyons Area H). Some of the large

walls clearly extend beyond the area of the excava-

tion. Eilat Mazar understood the walls to be part

of a large building, which she named the Large

Stone Structure (LSS), parallel to the Stepped Stone

Structure (SSS).

According to Eilat Mazars reconstruction, the

Large Stone Structure is a complex system of walls,some of which are extremely massive and some

smaller. She has interpreted it as a palatial com-

plex and attributed it to King David.*

Moreover, the structures eastern wall (more

than 15 ft wide) is integrated into the upper

courses of the Stepped Stone Structure! Both the

Stepped Stone Structure and the Large Stone Struc-

ture seem to have been part of one building.

It was not long before Eilat Mazars critics began

weighing in. Four distinguished Tel Aviv University

archaeologistsIsrael Finkelstein, Zeev Herzog,

Lily Singer-Avitz and David Ussishkinpublisheda detailed critique of her excavation based on the

finds of the first season and a visit to the site. They

concluded that all the walls may not be of the same

period (which is true), and that most of the archi-

tectural components date to the late Hellenistic

period (secondfirst centuries B.C.E.).2

DECADES OF DIGS. Hebrew University archaeologist Eilat

Mazars decision to dig in the City of David was informed

by the Biblical text and by the excavations that preceded

hers (photo at top). In the 1970s and 1980s, Yigal Shiloh

(above right; also of the Hebrew University) excavated

Area G on the eastern slope of the ridge, including the

famous support structure known as the Stepped Stone

Structure, and revealed imposing ashlars that had prob-

ably been the building blocks of an important public

building. Before Shiloh, British archaeologist Kathleen

Kenyon (right) had found similar ashlars in her excavation

of Area H, just northwest of Shilohs Area G, as well as an

elegant proto-Aeolic capital (at bottom) suggestive of royal

Iron Age architecture. Based on these earlier finds, Mazar

thought that Davids palace should be located nearby.

When she uncovered the Large Stone Structure from the

Iron Age, she proposed it to be King Davids palace.

BETTMAN/CORBIS

COURTESY

ISRAELANTIQUITIES

AUTHORITY

*See Eilat Mazar, Did I Find King Davids Palace? BAR, January/February 2006.


4/7



This criticism was published after Eilat Mazar

produced her preliminary report of the first sea-son. While this dating was possible in light of the

results of the first season (though in my view it

was not plausible), the results of the second season,

promptly published, refutes the lower dating sug-

gested by these scholars.3

The results of Eilat Mazars second season have

resolved, in my view, the issue of the date of the

structure in an almost final manner. As we shall

presently see, it is clearly an Iron Age structure

(i.e., from the Biblical period, not the Hellenistic

period); or, in case not all of the walls belong to

the same building, there was at least a large earlyIron Age structure here. Although it is possible that

some of the walls do not belong to this building,

most of them do. It is immaterial if some of them

do not.

We can be sure of the Iron Age (rather than

Hellenistic) date of the Large Stone Structure for a

number of reasons. Eilat Mazar exposed two (per-

haps three) stratified Iron Age I layers within the

building. This shows that the building, or at least

the relevant parts, were built in Iron Age I, and not

later. Furthermore, it should be noted that one of

those layers abuts the massive wall (W20) that con-

nects the Large Stone Structure and the SteppedStone Structure. This clearly indicates that the Iron

Age I remains were part of a large structure, even

if some of the walls Eilat Mazar unearthed were

not part of it.4

It was in her second season that Eilat Mazar

connected the massive eastern wall of the Large

Stone Structure (her Wall 20) to the Stepped Stone

Structure. The connection between the Large Stone

Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure has been

substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.5As we will

see below, the date of the Stepped Stone Structure

HUGE WALLS. Eilat Mazar excavated a complex structurethat includes a massive eastern wall more than 15 feet

wide (seen at left in this south-facing view of the build-

ings northeast corner). Within this Large Stone Structure,

as Mazar named it, were two or three stratified layers of

Iron Age I remains, showing that it must have been built

no later than the Iron Age I (c. 12001000/950 B.C.E.).

Even so, Mazar identified the building as likely having

been the palace King David built for himself in the early

Iron Age IIa. Archaeologist Avraham Faust argues that

the archaeological evidence indicates a construction date

before Davids time.


5/7



in the Iron Age is clear, hence proving the Iron Age

date of the Large Stone Structure.

But when in the Iron Age was the structure

built? There are two possibilities: Iron Age I, as I

believe; or Iron Age IIa, as Eilat Mazar prefers. It is

important to keep the dates of these two archaeo-logical periods in mind. Iron Age I extends from

about 1200 to the first half of the tenth century

B.C.E., the period of the Judges in Biblical terms.

Iron Age IIa extends for about a century and a half

thereafter. In Biblical terms this includes the time

of the United Monarchy under David and Solomon

and also much of the ninth century B.C.E.6

A date within the Iron Age I, and not Iron Age

IIa, is supported first and foremost by the above-

mentioned two (or three) levels with Iron Age I

material unearthed within the Large Stone Structure.

In addition, the date of the Stepped Stone Struc-ture might also help us determine the date of the

Large Stone Structure within the Iron Age. The

date and nature of the construction of the Stepped

Stone Structure has been intensively studied and

debated. Some scholars identify two elements in its

construction, and date them separately, while oth-

ers see them as part of one structure.* As far as the

dating is concerned, those who see it as composed

of two elements date the first phase to Iron Age I

(the time of the Judges) and the second phase to

Iron Age IIa (the time of the United Monarchy

or slightly afterward). Those scholars who see it

as one structure date it to Iron Age I (the time ofthe Judges). Because of the findings from the early

Iron Age IIa within the floors that were built on

top of the Stepped Stone Structure, it is quite clear

that its construction predates this period, and an

Iron Age I date seems plausible. The Iron I date

for the Stepped Stone Structure seems therefore to

support an Iron I date for the Large Stone Struc-

ture (it cannot be later than that).7

If one accepts the historicity of the Bibli-

cal description of Davids conquest of Jerusalem,

even in its most general outlines, it is quite clear

in light of the above dating that the complex was

constructed in the period before this, and prior to

the establishment of Davids capital in Jerusalem.But even if, as I and others believe (this view

was expressed most notably by Eilat Mazars cousin

Amihai Mazar, another leading Hebrew University

archaeologist), the Large Stone Structure dates to

Iron Age I, the period before Davids conquest of

the city according to the Bible, David may still have

used the structure as his palace or as a fortress.

Indeed, pottery evidence (especially from

Room B) shows that the building was expanded

and used (though not constructed) in Iron Age IIa

(the time of the United Monarchy).

*See Jane Cahill, It Is There: The Archaeological Evidence Proves It,BAR, July/August 1998, and Margreet Steiner, Its Not There: Archae-ology Proves a Negative, BAR, July/August 1998.

ITS ALL CONNECTED. In Eilat Mazars second season of

excavation, she demonstrated that the broad eastern wall

of her Large Stone Structure (W20) was in fact connected

to the Stepped Stone Structure in Shilohs Area G (see

photo and drawing right). Since the Stepped Stone Struc-

ture had been dated to the Iron Age I, this further solidi-

fied the date of the Large Stone Structures original con-

struction to the same period. The photo at right shows

the Stepped Stone Structure and later Israelite dwellings

before Mazars excavation atop the ridge. The drawing

below incorporates the connecting walls she revealed,

including the Large Stone Structure, which Mazar believes

was King Davids palace.

DRAWING

BY

ALEXANDER

PACHOROU

Stepped Stone Structure

private Israelite

dwellings

LargeStoneStructure (W20)

c. 1000 B.C.E.

10th6th centuries B.C.E.

5th century B.C.E.

ZEV

RADOVAN/WWW.BIBLELANDPICTUR

ES.COM


6/7



It is therefore quite possible, as already suggested

by Amihai Mazar, that the building was the Jebusite

stronghold (metzuda) that David captured when he

conquered Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:7), and that he

used the building after he settled in the city.

Eilat Mazar nevertheless continues to maintain

that David constructed the palaceeven though she

recognizes the evidence for an Iron Age I construc-

tion. She does this by fudging a little. There is no

exact datecertainly not January 1, 1000 B.C.E.

(or any other year for that matter)on which thechange from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa occurred.

There was a period of transition; the change, how-

ever short, was gradual.

Moreover, the date of Davids conquest of Jeru-

salem cannot be fixed with precision either. We

cannot say that on January 1, 1000 B.C.E. David

conquered Jerusalem.

Thus, Eilat Mazar argues that the Large Stone

Structurebuilt in Iron Age I, as she recognizes

was built during the later years of that archaeo-

logical periodor rather in the transition period

between Iron Age I and Iron Age IIa. And David

captured Jerusalem, she contends, at the beginning

of Iron Age IIaor rather in the transition period

between Iron Age I and Iron Age IIa. In short,

both occurred during the transition between the

two archaeological periods. Voila! David built theLarge Stone Structure.

I dont think it works. Eilat Mazars excavation

has uncovered at least two layers from Iron Age I

(and perhaps a third), proving that the building

could not have been constructed at the end of this

archaeological period. The building is likely to have

existed for a considerable time in Iron Age I.

Similarly, Eilat Mazars effort to push Davids

accession of Jerusalem back into the later years of

Iron Age I seems forced: If we push the emergence

of the Israelite monarchy to the end of Iron Age I,

this will date it before the appearance of the Iron

Age IIa pottery, which was unearthed in strata allover the country where evidence for the emergence

of the state was uncovered.*8

It is thus very unlikely, archaeologically, that

King David was the builder of the Large Stone

Structure. The finds show very clearly that it was

built in Iron Age I, years before Davids time.

I have not dealt with Eilat Mazars effort to con-

nect the Large Stone Structure to the Phoenicians

who, according to the Bible, built King Davids

palace: King Hiram of Tyre [of Phoenicia] sent

envoys to David with cedar logs, carpenters and

stone masons; and they built a palace for David(2 Samuel 5:11). Eilat Mazar uncovered a number

of elements in the Large Stone Structure reflect-

ing Phoenician culturefor example, ivory inlays

and a fine Cypriot imported jug. As she notes, the

Phoenicians were renowned, among other things,

for their maritime commerce on the Mediterranean

shores and their expertise in ivory carving.9 But

all the finds that she suggests reflect Phoenician

influence come from (in her view, as well) a later

phase of the buildingthe time in which the build-

ing may have been modified and changednot the

time of its erection.

It is in this phase of changes in the Large StoneStructure that the imported Phoenician pottery is

found in the structure (whether indicating direct

connections with Phoenicia or not). Since it is

likely that the Large Stone Structure was still in

use in Davids time, it is not surprising to find

Phoenician elements at this time.

While it is thus clear that David did not erect

the Large Stone Structure, he may well have used it

TYRED OUT? According to the Bible, the Phoenician king

Hiram of Tyre sent envoys to David with cedar logs,

carpenters and stone masons; and they built a palace for

David (2 Samuel 5:11). Eilat Mazar uncovered evidence

of Phoenician culture, including this delicate Cypriot

juglet (above) and ivory inlays, during her excavation of

the Large Stone Structure. As Avraham Faust points out,

however, the layer with these finds come from a later

phase of the buildingnot its original construction. Faust

agrees with Eilat Mazars cousin, archaeologist Amihai

Mazar, that the Large Stone Structure was likely built by

the Jebusites in the Iron Age I. When David conquered

Jerusalem in the early Iron Age IIa, he may well have

adapted and renovated the building as his palace/for-

tress, but it is unlikely that he built it.

C O N T I N U E S O N P A G E 7 0

*See Avraham Faust, Pottery Talks, BAR, March/April 2004.

BOUKY

BOAZ


7/7


after his conquest of Jerusalem, perhaps

as his palace/fortress.

Eilat Mazar found no evidence thatthe Large Stone Structure was occu-

pied in the Iron Age subsequent to Iron

Age IIa. This dearth of later remains may

be the result of modern archaeological

activity (most of the area was excavated

prior to Eilat Mazars excavations). More

likely, however, the function of the area

may have changed after Davids time. It

appears that when Jerusalem expanded

to new areas, the area of the Large Stone

Structure changed function and lost its

royal/stately character, as happens very

often in ancient cities.10It is possible, therefore, that when a new

palace was built in another place (either by

King David [2 Samuel 5:11] or, more likely,

by King Solomon [1 Kings 7:112]), the

Large Stone Structure (and the Stepped

Stone Structure) declined in importance,

and after a while perhaps even ceased to

function as a public building.

But if one wishes to end on a moreoptimistic note, we may suggestat least to

those who think King David existedthat

it is quite possible that in an earlier period,

the structure built by the Biblical Jebusites

in Iron Age I served as Davids palace.11a

1 Ronny Reich,Excavating the City of David:Where Jerusalems History Began (Jerusalem:Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archae-ology Society, 2011), p. 265.2 David Ussishkin et al., Has the Palace of KingDavid Been Found in Jerusalem? in E. Baruch,A. Levy-Reifer and A. Faust, eds.,New Stud-ies on Jerusalem, vol. 13 (Ramat Gan) (2007),

[Hebrew], p. 42ff.; Israel Finkelstein et al., HasKing Davids Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?Tel Aviv34 (2007), pp. 157161.3 Finkelstein recently attempted to defend hiscriticism (Israel Finkelstein, The Large Stone

Structure in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearn-ing,Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins127 [2011], pp. 110). While accepting that someelements might be early (in contrast to his firstpublications), he claims that the evidence forthe early dating is limited to half a room. In hisdiscussion Finkelstein ignores much of the data,including, for example, the Iron I crucible layerwhich abuts the massive W20this means thatW20 should also be dated early (below). He alsochallenges the connection between the LargeStone Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure.4 As claimed by some of Eilat Mazars critics.Finkelstein, for example, attempted recently(above) to claim that her Iron Age I remainsare insignificant, local in nature (less than halfa room), and cannot therefore date the entirebuilding. This clearly refutes his claim.5 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excava-tions at the Summit of the City of David. Prelimi-nary Report of Seasons 20052007(Jerusalem,2009), pp. 5657, 63 and the photograph on p.56; see also Amihai Mazar, Archaeology and the

Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Mon-archy, in R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.,One GodOne CultOne Nation: Archaeologicaland Biblical Perspectives, Beihefte zur Zeitschriftfur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405(Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), pp.3839; contra Finkelsteins article The LargeStone Structure in Jerusalem.6 Iron Age IIb and Iron Age IIc follow, takingus down to the Babylonian destruction of 586B.C.E. Israel Finkelsteins low chronologywould extend Iron Age I to the end of the tenthcentury B.C.E., in contrast to the conventional(or modified conventional) date which mostarchaeologists continue to defend, but thatdebate is irrelevant to the issue here and neednot detain us here.7

Reich (Excavating the City of David [p. 266])suggests that the Large Stone Structure mightdate to the Middle Bronze Age400500 yearsearlier: I will not be at all surprised if it turnsout that this building actually dates to theMiddle Bronze II. In light of the above, this isvery unlikely, if only due to its connection withthe Stepped Stone Structure which (and this isaccepted by practically all scholars) cannot beearlier than Iron I.8 Such evidence relates to change in settlementpatterns and form, to major architectural worksin various sites such as Gezer, the Negev for-tresses, etc., and even the pottery of this phase byitself might be indicative of social change. For thearchitectural finds, see the various discussions ofthe Solomonic gates, for example (regardless of

what one thinks of their Solomonic nature); forthe Negev fortresses and more, see also AmihaiMazar, Archaeology and the Biblical Narra-tive; for the pottery, see, for example, A. Faust,Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in IronAge Israelite Society,Journal of Mediterranean

Archaeology15, vol. 1 (2002), pp. 5373.9 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David, p. 53.10 The changes in the Large Stone Structure areparalleled in the changes in the Stepped StoneStructure. Both were, after all, part of the samecomplex.11 For a fuller treatment, see A. Faust, TheLarge Stone Structure in the City of David:A Reexamination,Zeitschrift des deutschen

Palstina-Vereins126 (2011), pp. 116130.

AUTHORS

Gyozo Vrs (Machaerus, p. 30) is research director ofthe Hungarian Academy of the Arts in Budapest and has

served as director of the Machaerus Project in Jordan since

July 2009. A specialist in architecture, he has led excava-

tions at Thebes, Alexandria and Paphos. He is the author of

Egyptian Temple Architecture: 100 Years of Hungarian Exca-

vations in Egypt, 19072007, and editor of Taposiris Magna.

Morten Hrning Jensen(AntipasThe Herod Jesus Knew, p. 42) is asso-

ciate professor at the Lutheran School

of Theology in Aarhus, Denmark. His

research focuses on Galilee in the

Roman period, and he is author of

Herod Antipas in Galilee (Mohr Siebeck,

2006, 2010).

Avraham Faust (Did Eilat Mazar Find

Davids Palace? p. 47) is chair of theMartin (Szusz) Department of Land of

Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-

Ilan University. In addition to partici-

pating in numerous digs and surveys

in Israel and abroad, since 2006 he has

directed the excavations at Tel Eton (Biblical Eglon).

Avishai Margalit (Josephus vs. Jeremiah, p. 53) is GeorgeF. Kennan Professor Emeritus of the Institute for Advanced

Study in Princeton and Schulman Professor Emeritus of

Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2010

he was awarded the Israel Prize for philosophy.

Jensen

Vrs

Faust

Margalit

Davids Palacecontinued from page 52

faust 2012 bar sepoct david palace

Documents