Did
Eilat Mazar
Find
Davıd’s
Palace?
Avraham Faust
O N SOME THINGS , ALL AGREE : H EBREW U NI versity archaeologist Eilat Mazar is a careful, competent 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 dig—based on
what can be inferred from the Biblical text about
King David’s palace. As her critic Ronny Reich,
who is digging southeast of Mazar in the City of
David, put it: “From the few verses mentioning
[David’s 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 mentioned later in this article) had chosen, a previous
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW
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 ashlars (large rectangular building blocks). Additional
ashlars had been uncovered nearby (in Area G of
Hebrew University archaeologist Yigal Shiloh’s dig
in the late 1970s and early 1980s). Eilat Mazar sensibly 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 Shiloh’s
Area G—where the Stepped Stone Structure is
located) 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
*See Eilat Mazar, “Excavate King David’s Palace,” BAR, January/February 1997. One should note, however, that all the evidence Eilat Mazar
referred to when she first suggested the palace can be excavated
referred to the area north of where she finally excavated. This can be
seen clearly in the plans and reconstructions she published (including
the major reconstruction in her 1997 BAR article). Clearly, even if all
the evidence she brought forth in 1997 were impeccable (and they are
not), there was no reason to expect the palace where she excavated.
47
DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E
DAVID’S 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 settlement of Jerusalem.
Perhaps the world’s
most excavated city
since the 1960s, this
area of Jerusalem
has been excavated
by Kathleen Kenyon,
Yigal Shiloh and,
most recently, Eilat
Mazar. Mazar has
uncovered a “Large
Stone Structure” she
believes was built
by King David as
his palace. Does the
archaeology support
her claim?
Temple Mount
Ophel
Kenyon’s Area H
Large Stone Structure
Stepped Stone Structure
(Shiloh’s Area G)
Gihon Spring
GARO NALBANDIAN
Kidron Valley
48
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E
the outer system of walls that belonged to the palace. If Kenyon’s date was correct, this was clearly
a possibility.
On the basis of these various considerations,
Eilat Mazar suggested that King David’s palace
is located from Kenyon’s area H northward, and
above Kenyon’s 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 Kenyon’s Area H). Some of the large
walls clearly extend beyond the area of the excavation. 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 Mazar’s 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 complex and attributed it to King David.*
Moreover, the structure’s 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 Structure seem to have been part of one building.
It was not long before Eilat Mazar’s critics began
weighing in. Four distinguished Tel Aviv University
archaeologists—Israel Finkelstein, Ze’ev Herzog,
Lily Singer-Avitz and David Ussishkin—published
a 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 architectural components date to the late Hellenistic
period (second–first centuries B.C.E.).2
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW
COURTESY ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY
DECADES OF DIGS. Hebrew University archaeologist Eilat
Mazar’s 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 probably 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 Shiloh’s 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 David’s palace should be located nearby.
When she uncovered the Large Stone Structure from the
Iron Age, she proposed it to be King David’s palace.
BETTMAN/CORBIS
*See Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” BAR, January/
February 2006.
49
DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E
EILAT MAZAR
HUGE WALLS. Eilat Mazar excavated a complex structure
that includes a massive eastern wall more than 15 feet
wide (seen at left in this south-facing view of the building’s 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. 1200–1000/950 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 David’s time.
This criticism was published after Eilat Mazar
produced her preliminary report of the first season. 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 suggested by these scholars.3
The results of Eilat Mazar’s 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
50
the same building, there was at least a large early
Iron 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 (perhaps 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 connects the Large Stone Structure and the Stepped
Stone 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.5 As we will
see below, the date of the Stepped Stone Structure
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E
*See Jane Cahill, “It Is There: The Archaeological Evidence Proves It,”
BAR, July/August 1998, and Margreet Steiner, “It’s Not There: Archaeology Proves a Negative,” BAR, July/August 1998.
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW
Stepped Stone Structure
DRAWING BY ALEXANDER PACHOROU
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 archaeological 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 abovementioned two (or three) levels with Iron Age I
material unearthed within the Large Stone Structure.
In addition, the date of the Stepped Stone Structure 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 others 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 of
the 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 Structure (it cannot be later than that).7
ZEV RADOVAN/WWW.BIBLELANDPICTURES.COM
IT’S ALL CONNECTED. In Eilat Mazar’s 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 Shiloh’s Area G (see
photo and drawing right). Since the Stepped Stone Structure had been dated to the Iron Age I, this further solidified the date of the Large Stone Structure’s original construction to the same period. The photo at right shows
the Stepped Stone Structure and later Israelite dwellings
before Mazar’s excavation atop the ridge. The drawing
below incorporates the connecting walls she revealed,
including the Large Stone Structure, which Mazar believes
was King David’s palace.
Lar
ge
Sto
ne
Stru
ctu
re (
W2
0)
private Israelite
dwellings
c. 1000 B.C.E.
10th–6th centuries B.C.E.
5th century B.C.E.
If one accepts the historicity of the Biblical description of David’s 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 David’s capital in Jerusalem.
But even if, as I and others believe (this view
was expressed most notably by Eilat Mazar’s cousin
Amihai Mazar, another leading Hebrew University
archaeologist), the Large Stone Structure dates to
Iron Age I, the period before David’s 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).
51
BOUKY
B OA Z
DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E
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 building—not its original construction. Faust
agrees with Eilat Mazar’s 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/fortress, but it is unlikely that he built it.
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 palace—even though she
recognizes the evidence for an Iron Age I construction. She does this by fudging a little. There is no
exact date—certainly not January 1, 1000 B.C.E.
(or any other year for that matter)—on which the
change from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa occurred.
There was a period of transition; the change, however short, was gradual.
Moreover, the date of David’s conquest of Jerusalem 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
Structure—built in Iron Age I, as she recognizes—
was built during the later years of that archaeological period—or rather in the transition period
52
between Iron Age I and Iron Age IIa. And David
captured Jerusalem, she contends, at the beginning
of Iron Age IIa—or 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 the
Large Stone Structure.
I don’t think it works. Eilat Mazar’s 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 Mazar’s effort to push David’s
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 all
over 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 David’s time.
I have not dealt with Eilat Mazar’s effort to connect the Large Stone Structure to the Phoenicians
who, according to the Bible, built King David’s
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 reflecting Phoenician culture—for 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 building—the time in which the building may have been modified and changed—not the
time of its erection.
It is in this phase of changes in the Large Stone
Structure 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 David’s 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
C O N T I N U E S O N PA G E 7 0
*See Avraham Faust, “Pottery Talks,” BAR, March/April 2004.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
David’s Palace
continued from page 52
after his conquest of Jerusalem, perhaps
as his palace/fortress.
Eilat Mazar found no evidence that
the Large Stone Structure was occupied 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 Mazar’s excavations). More
likely, however, the function of the area
may have changed after David’s 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.10
It 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 7:1–12]), 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 more
optimistic note, we may suggest—at least to
those who think King David existed—that
it is quite possible that in an earlier period,
the structure built by the Biblical Jebusites
in Iron Age I served as David’s palace.11 a
1 Ronny Reich, Excavating the City of David:
Where Jerusalem’s History Began (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archaeology Society, 2011), p. 265.
2 David Ussishkin et al., “Has the Palace of King
David Been Found in Jerusalem?” in E. Baruch,
A. Levy-Reifer and A. Faust, eds., New Studies on Jerusalem, vol. 13 (Ramat Gan) (2007),
[Hebrew], p. 42ff.; Israel Finkelstein et al., “Has
King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?”
Tel Aviv 34 (2007), pp. 157–161.
3 Finkelstein recently attempted to defend his
criticism (Israel Finkelstein, “The ‘Large Stone
AUTHORS
Győző Vörös (“Machaerus,” p. 30) is research director of
the 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 excavations at Thebes, Alexandria and Paphos. He is the author of
Egyptian Temple Architecture: 100 Years of Hungarian Excavations in Egypt, 1907–2007, and editor of Taposiris Magna.
Vörös
Morten Hørning Jensen (“Antipas—
The Herod Jesus Knew,” p. 42) is associate 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
David’s Palace?” p. 47) is chair of the
Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of
Israel Studies and Archaeology at BarIlan University. In addition to particiFaust
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 George
F. 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.
70
Jensen
Margalit
Structure’ in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearning,” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
127 [2011], pp. 1–10). While accepting that some
elements might be early (in contrast to his first
publications), he claims that the evidence for
the early dating is limited to half a room. In his
discussion Finkelstein ignores much of the data,
including, for example, the Iron I crucible layer
which abuts the massive W20—this means that
W20 should also be dated early (below). He also
challenges the connection between the Large
Stone Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure.
4 As claimed by some of Eilat Mazar’s critics.
Finkelstein, for example, attempted recently
(above) to claim that her Iron Age I remains
are insignificant, local in nature (less than half
a room), and cannot therefore date the entire
building. This clearly refutes his claim.
5 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David. Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005–2007 (Jerusalem,
2009), pp. 56–57, 63 and the photograph on p.
56; see also Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the
Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Monarchy,” in R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.,
One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological
and Biblical Perspectives, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405
(Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), pp.
38–39; contra Finkelstein’s article “The ‘Large
Stone Structure’ in Jerusalem.”
6 Iron Age IIb and Iron Age IIc follow, taking
us down to the Babylonian destruction of 586
B.C.E. Israel Finkelstein’s low chronology
would extend Iron Age I to the end of the tenth
century B.C.E., in contrast to the conventional
(or modified conventional) date which most
archaeologists continue to defend, but that
debate is irrelevant to the issue here and need
not detain us here.
7 Reich (Excavating the City of David [p. 266])
suggests that the Large Stone Structure might
date to the Middle Bronze Age—400–500 years
earlier: “I will not be at all surprised if it turns
out that this building actually dates to the
Middle Bronze II.” In light of the above, this is
very unlikely, if only due to its connection with
the Stepped Stone Structure which (and this is
accepted by practically all scholars) cannot be
earlier than Iron I.
8 Such evidence relates to change in settlement
patterns and form, to major architectural works
in various sites such as Gezer, the Negev “fortresses,” etc., and even the pottery of this phase by
itself might be indicative of social change. For the
architectural finds, see the various discussions of
the Solomonic gates, for example (regardless of
what one thinks of their “Solomonic” nature); for
the Negev fortresses and more, see also Amihai
Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narrative”; for the pottery, see, for example, A. Faust,
“Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in Iron
Age Israelite Society,” Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology 15, vol. 1 (2002), pp. 53–73.
9 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David, p. 53.
10 The changes in the Large Stone Structure are
paralleled in the changes in the Stepped Stone
Structure. Both were, after all, part of the same
complex.
11 For a fuller treatment, see A. Faust, “The
Large Stone Structure in the City of David:
A Reexamination,” Zeitschrift des deutschen
Palästina-Vereins 126 (2011), pp. 116–130.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012