Essays /

13 B King David Palace Tel Aviv Essay

Essay preview

HAS KING DAVID’S PALACE IN JERUSALEM
BEEN FOUND?
Israel Finkelstein

Ze’ev Herzog

Lily Singer-Avitz

David Ussishkin
Tel Aviv University

Abstract
Recent excavations at the City of David have revealed a set of massive walls constructed of large undressed stones. Excavator Eilat Mazar has presented them as the remains of a single building, which she labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’. Mazar interpreted the ‘Large Stone Structure’ as part of a big construction complex, which had also included the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ on the slope. She dated her ‘Large Stone Structure’ to ca. 1000 BCE and identified it as the palace of King David. We argue that: (1) the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to a single building; (2) the more elaborate walls may be associated with elements uncovered by Macalister and Duncan in the 1920s and should possibly be dated to the Hellenistic period; (3) the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ represents at least two phases of construction— the lower (downslope) and earlier, possibly dating to the Iron IIA in the 9th century BCE, and the later (which connects to the Hasmonaean First Wall upslope) dating to the Hellenistic period.

Recent excavations at the City of David, the site where biblical Jerusalem was founded, have revealed the remains of a set of massive walls constructed of large undressed stones. The excavator, Eilat Mazar, has presented them as the remains of a single, substantial building, which she has labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’ (E. Mazar 2006a; 2006b; 2007). Mazar dated her ‘Large Stone Structure’ to ca. 1000 BCE and, inspired by the ideas of the late Benjamin Mazar (E. Mazar 2006a: 20), identified it as the palace of King David. Eilat Mazar’s archaeological, chronological and, in fact, historical conclusions have unreservedly been endorsed by Amihai Mazar (2006: 269−270). The ostensible importance of this discovery and the media frenzy that has accompanied the excavation demand immediate discussion, which is based on the preliminary publications and on our own observations made during our visits to the site in both excavation seasons.1

1

We are grateful to Dr. Mazar for her hospitality and thorough explanations during our visits following the 2005 season and toward the end of the 2007 season. We also wish to thank her for permission to publish the illustrations on pages 146 and 156.

142

Finkelstein, Herzog, Singer-Avitz, Ussishkin: Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?

HISTORY OF RESEARCH
Eilat Mazar’s excavation field, which in 2005 covered an area of ca. 25 × 9−14 m, is located on the crest of the City of David ridge, directly to the west of Shiloh’s Area G. This field (and the adjoining eastern slope of the ridge) has been explored extensively. It falls within the northern side of Macalister and Duncan’s Field No. 5 (Macalister and Duncan 1926: map in back pocket). Macalister and Duncan exposed most of the area down to bedrock, including several cisterns and a rock-cut ‘olive press’ (ibid.: Pl. I, compare also the photograph ibid.: Fig. 20 with E. Mazar 2007: photograph on p. 31). They also uncovered the ‘Jebusite Ramp’ along the upper edge of the eastern slope (Macalister and Duncan 1926: Pl. V), commonly known today as the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’, as well as the two towers adjacent to the ramp—the southern, ‘Great Tower’, which they attributed to the ‘Early Hebrew period’, and the northern ‘Maccabean Tower’ (ibid.: map in back pocket). This fortification system has been widely identified as part of the late Hellenistic, Hasmonaean First Wall of Jerusalem (e.g., Geva 2003: 529−534; Wightman 1993: 88−94). In the 1960s the area was explored by Kenyon (for the final report see Steiner 2001). On the eastern slope (in her Area A, with Sub-areas A/I−A/XVIII) Kenyon exposed parts of the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’ with domestic units built over it, and investigated the set of the underlying terraces. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Shiloh continued the exploration of the eastern slope (his Area G—Shiloh 1984; for additional data on Shiloh’s excavations see Cahill 2003), studying, in the main, the same structures dealt with by Kenyon and their extensions.

The extensive exploration of the site, and the fact that certain areas were later back-filled, have affected the state of preservation of the ancient buildings. Modern restorations and additions are also evident. In the case of the southern tower this can easily be traced by comparing Macalister and Duncan’s photographs (1926: Fig. 46) with what currently exists. Shiloh described a massive revetment that supports the northern tower as a “modern retaining wall” (No. 6 in Shiloh 1984: Pl. 27: 1), and Steiner noted that “Part of the northern ramp had been restored with cement by the Department of Antiquities of Palestine” (2001: 51).

THE FINDS ACCORDING TO EILAT MAZAR
Eilat Mazar did not present the various elements in her excavation according to numbered strata; rather, she referred to them in terms of labels (e.g., the ‘earth accumulation’, the ‘Large Stone Structure’) and periods. In what follows we summarize her finds from bedrock to the Byzantine period (see E. Mazar 2007 in general; photograph ibid.: 31 for the stratigraphy of the first four elements):

143

TEL AVIV 34 (2007)

In several spots, the excavation reached bedrock with rock-cut cupmarks that were dated to the Chalcolithic period.

Next there is a whitish, ‘leveled surface’ that fills crevices in the bedrock and creates a flattened surface with plots of even bedrock. It was dated between the Chalcolithic period (the cupmarks below it) and the Middle Bronze Age (the earliest pottery in the layer above it—see below). Mazar (2006b: 12; 2006d: 21) suggested that in one place the area had been flattened in order to prepare for activity in the next phase.

Atop the whitish ‘leveled surface’ lies the ‘brown earth accumulation’. Pictures published thus far show its thickness to range between ca. 10 cm and a few dozen cm. A large number of pottery sherds dating to the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and the Iron I was found in it. Mazar compared the Iron I sherds from this layer to the Giloh and Shiloh V assemblages (E. Mazar 2006b: 11−12). She interpreted the ‘brown earth accumulation’ as an accumulated layer of debris representing centuries of activity in an open space (E. Mazar 2006b: 11; 2007: 48), located outside the limit of the second millennium city. Following Macalister and Duncan (1926: 15), she believes that the Bronze Age city was situated further to the south on the ridge of the City of David (E. Mazar 2006b: 12; 2006d; 2007: 16−17, 28, 52).

A number of massive walls constructed of large stone blocks were built over the ‘brown earth accumulation’. Mazar interpreted these walls as belonging to a single building which she labelled the ‘Large Stone Structure’ (Fig. 1). According to her the main wall of this building (Wall 107), described as “slightly curved”, runs from west to east and is 28.4 m long and 2.50−3.00 m wide. Walls oriented perpendicularly to Wall 107 and bonded to it were unearthed along its southern side. The walls found on the northern side of the excavated area adjoin Wall 107 but are not bonded to it. Mazar (2006b: 12−13; 2007: 60) argued that the latter walls belong to a later phase of construction of the ‘Large Stone Structure’. The eastern wall of Mazar’s ‘Large Stone Structure’ (Wall 20) runs along the eastern edge of the crest of the ridge, above the steep slope, immediately to the west of the ‘Stepped Stone Structure’. Macalister and Duncan’s northern ‘Maccabean Tower’ adjoins the outer, eastern side of Wall 20. No floor levels related to the ‘Large Stone Structure’ have been uncovered. Fragments of several Iron IIA vessels were found in a narrow slot between walls in the northeastern sector of the excavation area (Locus 47).

Mazar dated the construction of the original building to ca. 1000 BCE (2007: 17−18, 63; see also A. Mazar 2006: 269−270) and identified it with the palace

144

Finkelstein, Herzog, Singer-Avitz, Ussishkin: Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?

that, according to 2 Samuel 5: 11, the Phoenicians built for King David. She interpreted the additions on the northern side of the building as a reinforcement carried out prior to Pharaoh Shishak’s attack on Jerusalem (2007: 61−62; for the foundations of Mazar’s dating see below).

According to Mazar, the ‘Large Stone Structure’ continued to be in use during Iron Age IIB, until the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE (E. Mazar 2007: 67). Iron IIB pottery was found in two locations (Loci 39 and 47), both not connected to floors. No remains were assigned to the Persian period.

The city-wall built on top of the eastern slope and the two towers adjoining it are late Hellenistic in date and should be identified with the Hasmonaean fortification (2007: 71). This includes the segment of the city wall to the north of the northern tower, which Kenyon identified (1974: 191) with the fortifications built by Nehemiah. According to this view, Wall 20, which marks the eastern limit of the ‘Large Stone Structure’, was reused by the Hasmonaeans in their fortification system (E. Mazar 2007: plan on p. 73). Among the remains of the ‘Second Temple Period’, Mazar describes a cistern with two compartments and a stone-built arched roof, first exposed by Macalister and Duncan (1926: 93−96, Fig. 80). According to her observation, an “arched cistern is located at the western end of our excavation area, its arch having been built into W107 of the Large Stone Structure.… The impression already received is that the cistern was hewn in the earliest stages of human activity in this area. Once the Large Stone Structure was built (… The Iron Age IIA...

Read more

Keywords

-2 1 1.11 1.13 1.14 10 1000 101 105 106 107 1080 10th 10th/9th 11 112 119 11th 12 120 121 124 1270 13 137 14 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 14c 15 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 16 160 161 162 163 164 166 17 1770 179 18 19 1901 191 192 1920s 1923 1925 1926 1927 1929 1938 1939 194 1950 1960s 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1970s 1971 1974 1975 1978 1980s 1982 1984 1985 1989 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2 2.50 20 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2006a 2006b 2006c 2006d 2007 20th 21 218 22 23 25 255 257 258 259 26 269 27 270 272 2725 2780 28 28.4 281 283 288 29 290 291 2960 3 3.00 30 31 32 33 34 347 35 3545 358 363 37 38 39 4 4.18 44 45 46 47 48 49 4th 5 50 501 51 52 529 534 54 552 56 57 58 58.9 586 59 6 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 661 67 67.4 678/53 7 70 71 73 74 75 77 775 786 7th 8 80 800 840 87 870 88 890 8th 9 9.3 92 93 930 94 95 96 97 9th a.e a.g a.m a/i a/xviii above-discuss abraham absenc abstract accept accompani accord account accumul accur acknowledg across activ add addit adjac adjoin admit adoni adoni-zedek aerial affect age alexand alleg almost along alreadi also alt altern although altmann aman amihai amit among analysi analyz anchor ancient annual anoint anoth antiqu appar appear approach approxim arch archaeolog architectur archäologisch area argu argument ariel arrang articl artisan aspect assault assemblag assign associ assum assumpt astour atlanta atop attack attribut auf avitz aviv away b b.c.e babylonian back back-fill background baruch base basi basket bath bce bce.5 bedrock beersheba befund believ belong ben beneath benjamin berlin beyond bibl biblic big birthday black block boden bond bone book border bottom boulder bowl bp broken bronz brought brown build builder built bulla burnt byzantin c ca cahil calcul calibr call cambridg campaign canaan canaanit cannot capit care carr carri case cement center centuri certain chalcolith chamber chang charact chronicl chronolog circumstanti cistern citat cite citi city-wal citywal clear clear-cut close closer clue cm coher coin collaps common compar compart complet complex compli compon concentr concern conclud conclus confus connect conquer conquest consequ consid consider consist construct context continu conveni convent confidenc confident cook cooking-pot cookingpot copenhagen corner cosmic could cours courtesi cover creat crest crevic critic crowfoot cupmark current curv cut d d.m d.t damag data date datum david de dealt death debat debri decad dem demand depart deposit depress der describ descript destruct detail deter deuteronomist deutung defin diagon die differ difficult difficulti dig direct disappear disciplin disclos discov discoveri discuss dismiss disregard distanc distinguish disturb divid divis domest domin doubt downslop dozen dr draw drawn driven duncan e e.g earli earlier earliest earth earthen easili east eastern ed edg effort eilat elabor element elev elimin els elsewher emphasi end endors english entir entranc environment epigraph erad erect erwägungen essay establish eusebius ev even event evert evid examin exampl excav excel exil exist explain explan explor expos extend extens face fact facto factual fall far faust featur felt field fig find finkelstein first fitzgerald five follow forc form former forthcom fortifi fortific fortress found foundat four fractur fragment frenzi fresh full function fund g g.j g.m general genesi geschichtlichen geva giloh gitin give glaci glass go goal grate great greenhut greenfield groot ground grundsätzlich gunkel göttingen h half hand hard hasmonaean hasten haven header heap heard hebrew hellenist henc herodian herzog hewn high higham higher highland hill hiram histor histori historiographi hittit hold hollow honor hospit hous howev huge human i/early ibid idea identifi identifi iej ignor ii iia iib iii illumin illustr immedi import impress includ incorpor inde indic individu inform inhabit inner inspir integr interim intern interpret investig inward inflict ionic iron isol israel israelit israeliten issu item j j.a j.g j.m j.w jahrbuch jannaeaus jannaeus jebusit jerusalem jewish jona joshua jsot judah judean judg jug juglet k k.m kathleen kenyon killebrew king knot know known krater label lack laid lake landnahm larg larger late later latest latter layer lead least leav less let levant level levi lie light like lili limit line lipschit list liter literari literatur live lmlk locat loci locus london long long-term look louisvill low lower lowest m m.c m.l macalist maccabean made maeir mag main make make-up mamluk mantl map mark masonri massiv materi may mazar mean measur media mediterranean melchizedek mention method metr middl mikveh millennium miroschedji mix modern modifi monarchi monument moreov most motif mount much must n na nadav narrat narrow natur near nearbi need needless negat nehemiah neither never new next nomad north northeastern northern northwest nos note noteworthi noth number o observ obstacl obvious occas occup oem old oliv one open oper ophel opinion option order ordinari orient origin ostens ostracon outer outsid over p page palac palestin palästina palästina-jahrbuch palästinajahrbuch parallel part partial pass patriarch peq perfect period permiss perpendicular persian pertin pharaoh phase philistin phoenician photograph physic piasetzki pictur piec pit pl place plan plot pls pocket point polit possibl post post-dat post-exil post-hellenist post-iron pot potteri pp preced predat preliminari prepar presenc present preserv press previous principl prior probabl problem problemat proper propos protect proto proto-ion proven provid public publish qadmoniot qedem quarri quarter quest question quit r.a.s radiocarbon rais ramp rampart ran rang rather re re-dat reach read realiti reason reassess rebuilt receiv recent reconstruct record recov rectangular recurr red reduc reemerg refer regard regim regist regular reich reinforc relat relationship relev remain remov report repres research reserv resid resolut resolv respect respons restor restrict result retain retriev reus reveal revet review reflect riddl ridg right rim rise ritual rock rock-cut roman roof room rubbl run safe sake salem sampl samuel say scarp scene schemat scholar scienc seal search season seasons.1 second section sector see seem segment select semit separ sequenti seri serious set seter settlement seven sever shall sheffield shephelah sherd shiloh shishak shoshenq show shown shukron sic side signific similar sinc singer singer-avitz singl site situ situat sixtieth size sjot slight slope slot smaller so-cal societi soggin sokoloff sole solomon solv somehow somewhat somewher sourc south south-north southern space spars speak specific spot squar stabil stage stairwel state steep steiner step stone stone-built stood stori straight straightforward strata stratigraph stratigraphi stratific stratum strong stronghold structur studi sub sub-area subsequ substanti sufficient suggest sum summar summari supplement suppli support surfac surround sydney symbol symposium system t.e t.l take takeov tel tell templ ten term terrac text thank theori therefor thick thin third thompson thorough though three thus time today togeth tonbridg took top top.3 topograph toponym total toward tower trace tradit transform translat trench tribe tribut tuck turn two typic tyre tyropoeon uncov under understand undress unearth uniqu unit univers unreserv unti upper upslop uriah us use ussishkin v valley van various vaughn vault vers vessel vi view viiib visit visitor vol volum w w107 w22 w24 wall warrior water water-system way weak weaken weippert well well-built well-fortifi went west western whether whitish whose wide width wightman wind winona wish within without wonder word worth would x xix xviii xx y year yet yield yigal z ze zedek zevit zur zvi über σ field figurin fill fill-debri filled filling fills final find finds fire firmli first fissure fit five flat flatten flimsi floor