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, com-
excavator, British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon,
had found (in her Square A XVIII) a handsome
petent excavator who welcomes even her severest proto-Aeolic capital (redolent of royal architecture
critics to her site. And, unlike many, she promptly of the Iron Age) together with some imposing ash-
publishes preliminary excavation reports, making lars (large rectangular building blocks). Additional
available the details of her finds, as well as her ashlars had been uncovered nearby (in Area G of
interpretations. Hebrew University archaeologist Yigal Shiloh’s dig
Criticism of her excavation in the oldest part of in the late 1970s and early 1980s). Eilat Mazar sen-
Jerusalem, known as the City of David, begins even sibly reasoned that these must have come from a
with the way she decided where to dig—based on large public, perhaps royal, building nearby.
what can be inferred from the Biblical text about There was more: Kenyon had found a system
King David’s palace. As her critic Ronny Reich, of walls (in her Area H, just northwest of Shiloh’s
who is digging southeast of Mazar in the City of Area G—where the Stepped Stone Structure is
David, put it: “From the few verses mentioning located) that Kenyon dated to the tenth century
[David’s palace] in the Bible, Mazar was certain she B.C.E., the time of King Solomon; Kenyon thought
knew where it was.”1 this wall system was a double parallel (casemate)
Mazar, it should be noted, did not rely on only city wall; Eilat Mazar felt this wall could be part of
the Biblical text in suggesting the site. In addition
to her interpretation of some Biblical passages, she *See Eilat Mazar, “Excavate King David’s Palace,” BAR, January/Febru-
ary 1997. One should note, however, that all the evidence Eilat Mazar
refers to a number of other considerations that referred to when she first suggested the palace can be excavated
guided her choice of a site to excavate.* referred to the area north of where she finally excavated. This can be
Near the site Eilat Mazar (I must now use both seen clearly in the plans and reconstructions she published (including
the major reconstruction in her 1997 BAR article). Clearly, even if all
names to distinguish her from the other Mazar men- the evidence she brought forth in 1997 were impeccable (and they are
tioned later in this article) had chosen, a previous not), there was no reason to expect the palace where she excavated.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 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 settle-
ment of Jerusalem.
Perhaps the world’s
most excavated city
since the 1960s, this
area of Jerusalem
has been excavated
by Kathleen Kenyon, Temple Mount
Yigal Shiloh and,
most recently, Eilat
Mazar. Mazar has
uncovered a “Large
Stone Structure” she
believes was built
by King David as
Ophel
his palace. Does the
archaeology support
her claim?

Kenyon’s Area H

Large Stone Structure

Stepped Stone Structure
(Shiloh’s Area G)

Gihon Spring

Kidron Valley
GARO NALBANDIAN

48 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
 DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E

the outer system of walls that belonged to the pal-

ace. 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 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 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 com-
plex 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 Struc-
ture 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 archi-
tectural components date to the late Hellenistic
period (second–first centuries B.C.E.).2
*See Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” BAR, January/
February 2006.
BETTMAN/CORBIS

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
COURTESY ISRAEL ANTIQUITIES AUTHORITY

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 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.

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 49

DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E

EILAT MAZAR
HUGE WALLS. Eilat Mazar excavated a complex structure the same building, there was at least a large early
that includes a massive eastern wall more than 15 feet Iron Age structure here. Although it is possible that
wide (seen at left in this south-facing view of the build- some of the walls do not belong to this building,
ing’s northeast corner). Within this Large Stone Structure, most of them do. It is immaterial if some of them
as Mazar named it, were two or three stratified layers of do not.
Iron Age I remains, showing that it must have been built We can be sure of the Iron Age (rather than
no later than the Iron Age I (c. 1200–1000/950 B.C.E.).
Hellenistic) date of the Large Stone Structure for a
Even so, Mazar identified the building as likely having
been the palace King David built for himself in the early number of reasons. Eilat Mazar exposed two (per-
Iron Age IIa. Archaeologist Avraham Faust argues that haps three) stratified Iron Age I layers within the
the archaeological evidence indicates a construction date building. This shows that the building, or at least
before David’s time. the relevant parts, were built in Iron Age I, and not
later. Furthermore, it should be noted that one of
This criticism was published after Eilat Mazar those layers abuts the massive wall (W20) that con-
produced her preliminary report of the first sea- nects the Large Stone Structure and the Stepped
son. While this dating was possible in light of the Stone Structure. This clearly indicates that the Iron
results of the first season (though in my view it Age I remains were part of a large structure, even
was not plausible), the results of the second season, if some of the walls Eilat Mazar unearthed were
promptly published, refutes the lower dating sug- not part of it.4
gested by these scholars.3 It was in her second season that Eilat Mazar
The results of Eilat Mazar’s second season have connected the massive eastern wall of the Large
resolved, in my view, the issue of the date of the Stone Structure (her Wall 20) to the Stepped Stone
structure in an almost final manner. As we shall Structure. The connection between the Large Stone
presently see, it is clearly an Iron Age structure Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure has been
(i.e., from the Biblical period, not the Hellenistic substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.5 As we will
period); or, in case not all of the walls belong to see below, the date of the Stepped Stone Structure

50 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
 DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E

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 Struc-
ture had been dated to the Iron Age I, this further solidi-
fied the date of the Large Stone Structure’s original con-
struction 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,

ZEV RADOVAN/WWW.BIBLELANDPICTURES.COM
including the Large Stone Structure, which Mazar believes
was King David’s palace.

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

DRAWING BY ALEXANDER PACHOROU

B.C.E., the period of the Judges in Biblical terms.
Iron Age IIa extends for about a century and a half Lar
ge
Sto
thereafter. In Biblical terms this includes the time ne
Stru
of the United Monarchy under David and Solomon ctu
Stepped Stone Structure re (
and also much of the ninth century B.C.E.6 W2
0)
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. private Israelite
In addition, the date of the Stepped Stone Struc- dwellings
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 c. 1000 B.C.E.
Stone Structure has been intensively studied and
10th–6th centuries B.C.E.
debated. Some scholars identify two elements in its
construction, and date them separately, while oth- 5th century B.C.E.
ers see them as part of one structure.* As far as the
dating is concerned, those who see it as composed If one accepts the historicity of the Bibli-
of two elements date the first phase to Iron Age I cal description of David’s conquest of Jerusalem,
(the time of the Judges) and the second phase to even in its most general outlines, it is quite clear
Iron Age IIa (the time of the United Monarchy in light of the above dating that the complex was
or slightly afterward). Those scholars who see it constructed in the period before this, and prior to
as one structure date it to Iron Age I (the time of the establishment of David’s capital in Jerusalem.
the Judges). Because of the findings from the early But even if, as I and others believe (this view
Iron Age IIa within the floors that were built on was expressed most notably by Eilat Mazar’s cousin
top of the Stepped Stone Structure, it is quite clear Amihai Mazar, another leading Hebrew University
that its construction predates this period, and an archaeologist), the Large Stone Structure dates to
Iron Age I date seems plausible. The Iron I date Iron Age I, the period before David’s conquest of
for the Stepped Stone Structure seems therefore to the city according to the Bible, David may still have
support an Iron I date for the Large Stone Struc- used the structure as his palace or as a fortress.
ture (it cannot be later than that).7 Indeed, pottery evidence (especially from
Room B) shows that the building was expanded
*See Jane Cahill, “It Is There: The Archaeological Evidence Proves It,”
BAR, July/August 1998, and Margreet Steiner, “It’s Not There: Archae- and used (though not constructed) in Iron Age IIa
ology Proves a Negative,” BAR, July/August 1998. (the time of the United Monarchy).

BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW 51

DAV I D ’ S PA L AC E

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
B OA Z

could not have been constructed at the end of this

BOUKY

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
TYRED OUT? According to the Bible, the Phoenician king over the country where evidence for the emergence
Hiram of Tyre “sent envoys to David with cedar logs, of the state was uncovered.*8
carpenters and stone masons; and they built a palace for It is thus very unlikely, archaeologically, that
David” (2 Samuel 5:11). Eilat Mazar uncovered evidence
King David was the builder of the Large Stone
of Phoenician culture, including this delicate Cypriot
juglet (above) and ivory inlays, during her excavation of
Structure. The finds show very clearly that it was
the Large Stone Structure. As Avraham Faust points out, built in Iron Age I, years before David’s time.
however, the layer with these finds come from a later I have not dealt with Eilat Mazar’s effort to con-
phase of the building—not its original construction. Faust nect the Large Stone Structure to the Phoenicians
agrees with Eilat Mazar’s cousin, archaeologist Amihai who, according to the Bible, built King David’s
Mazar, that the Large Stone Structure was likely built by palace: “King Hiram of Tyre [of Phoenicia] sent
the Jebusites in the Iron Age I. When David conquered envoys to David with cedar logs, carpenters and
Jerusalem in the early Iron Age IIa, he may well have stone masons; and they built a palace for David”
adapted and renovated the building as his palace/for- (2 Samuel 5:11). Eilat Mazar uncovered a number
tress, but it is unlikely that he built it. of elements in the Large Stone Structure reflect-
It is therefore quite possible, as already suggested ing Phoenician culture—for example, ivory inlays
by Amihai Mazar, that the building was the Jebusite and a fine Cypriot imported jug. As she notes, the
stronghold (metzuda) that David captured when he Phoenicians were “renowned, among other things,
conquered Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:7), and that he for their maritime commerce on the Mediterranean
used the building after he settled in the city. shores and their expertise in ivory carving.”9 But
Eilat Mazar nevertheless continues to maintain all the finds that she suggests reflect Phoenician
that David constructed the palace—even though she influence come from (in her view, as well) a later
recognizes the evidence for an Iron Age I construc- phase of the building—the time in which the build-
tion. She does this by fudging a little. There is no ing may have been modified and changed—not the
exact date—certainly not January 1, 1000 B.C.E. time of its erection.
(or any other year for that matter)—on which the It is in this phase of changes in the Large Stone
change from Iron Age I to Iron Age IIa occurred. Structure that the imported Phoenician pottery is
There was a period of transition; the change, how- found in the structure (whether indicating direct
ever short, was gradual. connections with Phoenicia or not). Since it is
Moreover, the date of David’s conquest of Jeru- likely that the Large Stone Structure was still in
salem cannot be fixed with precision either. We use in David’s time, it is not surprising to find
cannot say that on January 1, 1000 B.C.E. David Phoenician elements at this time.
conquered Jerusalem. While it is thus clear that David did not erect
Thus, Eilat Mazar argues that the Large Stone the Large Stone Structure, he may well have used it
Structure—built in Iron Age I, as she recognizes—
C O N T I N U E S O N PA G E 7 0
was built during the later years of that archaeo-
logical period—or rather in the transition period *See Avraham Faust, “Pottery Talks,” BAR, March/April 2004.

52 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012
David’s Palace by King Solomon [1 Kings 7:1–12]), the Structure’ in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearn-
Large Stone Structure (and the Stepped ing,” Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins
continued from page 52
127 [2011], pp. 1–10). While accepting that some
Stone Structure) declined in importance, elements might be early (in contrast to his first
after his conquest of Jerusalem, perhaps and after a while perhaps even ceased to publications), he claims that the evidence for
as his palace/fortress. function as a public building. the early dating is limited to half a room. In his
discussion Finkelstein ignores much of the data,
Eilat Mazar found no evidence that But if one wishes to end on a more including, for example, the Iron I crucible layer
the Large Stone Structure was occu- optimistic note, we may suggest—at least to which abuts the massive W20—this means that
pied in the Iron Age subsequent to Iron those who think King David existed—that W20 should also be dated early (below). He also
Age IIa. This dearth of later remains may it is quite possible that in an earlier period, challenges the connection between the Large
Stone Structure and the Stepped Stone Structure.
be the result of modern archaeological the structure built by the Biblical Jebusites 4 As claimed by some of Eilat Mazar’s critics.
activity (most of the area was excavated in Iron Age I served as David’s palace.11 a Finkelstein, for example, attempted recently
prior to Eilat Mazar’s excavations). More (above) to claim that her Iron Age I remains
1 Ronny Reich, Excavating the City of David: are insignificant, local in nature (less than half
likely, however, the function of the area a room), and cannot therefore date the entire
Where Jerusalem’s History Began (Jerusalem:
may have changed after David’s time. It Israel Exploration Society and Biblical Archae- building. This clearly refutes his claim.
5 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David: Excava-
appears that when Jerusalem expanded ology Society, 2011), p. 265.
2 David Ussishkin et al., “Has the Palace of King tions at the Summit of the City of David. Prelimi-
to new areas, the area of the Large Stone
David Been Found in Jerusalem?” in E. Baruch, nary Report of Seasons 2005–2007 (Jerusalem,
Structure changed function and lost its A. Levy-Reifer and A. Faust, eds., New Stud- 2009), pp. 56–57, 63 and the photograph on p.
royal/stately character, as happens very ies on Jerusalem, vol. 13 (Ramat Gan) (2007), 56; see also Amihai Mazar, “Archaeology and the
often in ancient cities.10 [Hebrew], p. 42ff.; Israel Finkelstein et al., “Has Biblical Narrative: The Case of the United Mon-
King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” archy,” in R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, eds.,
It is possible, therefore, that when a new Tel Aviv 34 (2007), pp. 157–161. One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archaeological
palace was built in another place (either by 3 Finkelstein recently attempted to defend his and Biblical Perspectives, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift
King David [2 Samuel 5:11] or, more likely, criticism (Israel Finkelstein, “The ‘Large Stone 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.”
AUTHORS 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
Győző Vörös (“Machaerus,” p. 30) is research director of would extend Iron Age I to the end of the tenth
century B.C.E., in contrast to the conventional
the Hungarian Academy of the Arts in Budapest and has (or modified conventional) date which most
served as director of the Machaerus Project in Jordan since archaeologists continue to defend, but that
July 2009. A specialist in architecture, he has led excava- debate is irrelevant to the issue here and need
tions at Thebes, Alexandria and Paphos. He is the author of not detain us here.
7 Reich (Excavating the City of David [p. 266])
Egyptian Temple Architecture: 100 Years of Hungarian Exca- suggests that the Large Stone Structure might
vations in Egypt, 1907–2007, and editor of Taposiris Magna. date to the Middle Bronze Age—400–500 years
earlier: “I will not be at all surprised if it turns
Morten Hørning Jensen (“Antipas— out that this building actually dates to the
Middle Bronze II.” In light of the above, this is
The Herod Jesus Knew,” p. 42) is asso- very unlikely, if only due to its connection with
Vörös ciate professor at the Lutheran School the Stepped Stone Structure which (and this is
of Theology in Aarhus, Denmark. His accepted by practically all scholars) cannot be
earlier than Iron I.
research focuses on Galilee in the 8 Such evidence relates to change in settlement
Roman period, and he is author of patterns and form, to major architectural works
Herod Antipas in Galilee (Mohr Siebeck, in various sites such as Gezer, the Negev “for-
2006, 2010). tresses,” 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
Avraham Faust (“Did Eilat Mazar Find the Solomonic gates, for example (regardless of
David’s Palace?” p. 47) is chair of the Jensen what one thinks of their “Solomonic” nature); for
Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of the Negev fortresses and more, see also Amihai
Mazar, “Archaeology and the Biblical Narra-
Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar- tive”; for the pottery, see, for example, A. Faust,
Ilan University. In addition to partici- “Burnished Pottery and Gender Hierarchy in Iron
Faust pating in numerous digs and surveys Age Israelite Society,” Journal of Mediterranean
in Israel and abroad, since 2006 he has Archaeology 15, vol. 1 (2002), pp. 53–73.
9 Eilat Mazar, The Palace of King David, p. 53.
directed the excavations at Tel Eton (Biblical Eglon). 10 The changes in the Large Stone Structure are
paralleled in the changes in the Stepped Stone
Avishai Margalit (“Josephus vs. Jeremiah,” p. 53) is George Structure. Both were, after all, part of the same
F. Kennan Professor Emeritus of the Institute for Advanced complex.
11 For a fuller treatment, see A. Faust, “The
Study in Princeton and Schulman Professor Emeritus of Large Stone Structure in the City of David:
Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 2010 A Reexamination,” Zeitschrift des deutschen
he was awarded the Israel Prize for philosophy. Margalit Palästina-Vereins 126 (2011), pp. 116–130.

70 SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2012