Offprint from:

Amit, Ben Zvi, Finkelstein, and Lipschits, eds., Essays on Ancient

Israel in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman
ç Copyright 2006 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.:

The Glass Half Full

Amihai Mazar
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

During the last decade, Nadav Naªaman dedicated several studies to the
question of the historicity of the biblical accounts relating to the United Mon-
archy (1996a; 1996b; 1997). He accepts the existence of a state centered in Je-
rusalem from the 10th century to the Babylonian conquest and the probability
that written documents from various sources, including temple archives as
well as commemorative inscriptions, were preserved in Jerusalem for centu-
ries; some of them may go back to the time of David and Solomon, whom he
envisions as real historical figures (Naªaman 1997: 60–61). These documents
were, in his view, used by the Deuteronomistic author/s, though the latter and
still-later authors and editors invented much of the biblical narrative and de-
scriptions in light of features and models known to them at the time of writ-
ing. Thus, evaluation of the United Monarchy as a historical entity remains a
highly debatable issue. No wonder this subject has become the focal point of
current debates among historians of ancient Israel and archaeologists working
in modern Israel (see, for example, Handy 1997 for a collection of essays rep-
resenting different views on this topic). The status of Jerusalem during the
time of the United Monarchy is naturally a central issue in this debate.
Naªaman devoted a special study to this subject (1996a), in which he criticized
the negation of the United Monarchy as a historical entity and of Jerusalem as
a city in the 10th century b.c.e. by scholars such as David Jamieson-Drake,
Peter Lemche, Thomas Thompson, and Philip Davies (we may now add Da-
vid Ussishkin and Israel Finkelstein). In his words: “I will try to show that
these scholars’ evaluation of the excavations in Jerusalem is inadequate and
leads to erroneous conclusions, and that they ignore the lesson that may be
learned from the investigation of the Amarna tablets for the study of Jerusa-
lem’s political position in the tenth century bce” (Naªaman 1996a: 18). Later
in this essay, Naªaman (1996a: 21–23) enumerated five points that lead to the
conclusion that David and Solomon were real royal figures with court, scribes,
and considerable political power.

255
 256 Amihai Mazar

In the present essay I wish to continue Naªaman’s line of thought concern-

ing Jerusalem in light of several new publications and ideas. This study is dedi-
cated to an outstanding scholar, whom I have followed with admiration for
more than the time assigned by the Hebrew Bible to each of the disputed fig-
ures, David and Solomon.
The evaluation of Jerusalem as a city in the 10th century b.c.e. is a crucial
question in the ongoing debate over the United Monarchy. Can the archaeo-
logical exploration of Jerusalem provide an answer to the question whether Je-
rusalem was a substantial city at this time? The excavators of the City of
David—Kathleen M. Kenyon and Yigal Shiloh—have asserted that it can, as
did Margaret Steiner, who published the results of Kenyon’s work, and Jane
Cahill and Alon De Groot, who are in the process of publishing Areas G and
E of Shiloh’s excavations (Steiner 2001: 113–14; Cahill 2003; 2004; De Groot
2001; De Groot and Bernick-Greenberg forthcoming). All of these authors
have defined David’s Jerusalem as a town of 4 hectares, with a citadel sup-
ported by the “Stepped Structure” found in Shiloh’s Area G. During the Sol-
omonic era, the Temple Mount area may have been adjoined to the older city,
expanding it to about 12 hectares. However, this expansion is based only on
the biblical description, because there is no archaeological evidence from the
Temple Mount area relating to this period.
Other scholars have presented a more negative view. The most extreme is
Ussishkin, who wrote in 1998 that “during 150 years of research no evidence
was found for a settlement [in Jerusalem] dating to the United Monarchy . . .
the archaeological evidence clearly contradicts the biblical evidence” (Ussish-
kin 1997: 58, translated from Hebrew by the author). In later English versions,
he admits that “during the entire period from the end of the Middle Bronze
Age and the eighth century b.c.e., Jerusalem was not abandoned, and there are
the remains of some human activity, of a small settlement on the eastern slope
of the City of David, centered in the area above the Gihon spring” (Ussishkin
2003: 107). Finkelstein (2003: 87–92) believes that 10th-century Jerusalem
was a small town of some importance that could have ruled some of the sur-
rounding territory, similar to the kingdom of ºAbdi-Heba in the 14th century
b.c.e. This evaluation leads to the conclusion that 10th-century Jerusalem
could not have been the capital of a developed state. The biblical description
of David and Solomon’s state as well as Solomon’s building operations in Jeru-
salem are taken as no more than imaginative and exaggerated historiograph-
ical accounts, based on a much later Judean reality and ideology (Finkelstein
2003: 91).
An assessment of the nature of Jerusalem in the 10th–9th centuries b.c.e.
in light of the new publications leads to conclusions similar to the conclusions

spread is 6 points short

 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 257

of Steiner, Cahill, De Groot, and Naªaman, rather than Ussishkin and +.

However, this assessment does not lead to a maximalistic view of the United
Monarchy. A balanced estimation of Jerusalem may lead to a balanced estima-
tion of the kingdom as well.
The new publications on Jerusalem include the final report on Kenyon’s ex-
cavations on the eastern slope of the City of David (Steiner 2001), 1 a compre-
hensive article on Shiloh’s excavations in Area G (Cahill 2003), and a report on
Shiloh’s excavations of Area D (Ariel 2000); a manuscript of the final report of
Area E of Shiloh’s excavations, prepared by A. De Groot and H. Bernick-
Greenberg, was also available to me.

The “Stepped Structure” of Area G

Of central importance to our discussion is the “Stepped Structure” of Shi-
loh’s excavation Area G (Franken 1987; Shiloh 1984: 13–17; Cahill 2001;
2003; Steiner 2001; see also Maeir 2000: 52–54; Reich 2000: 102–5, and ref-
erences to earlier works there). Steiner’s and Cahill’s publications are espe-
cially informative with regard to this unique structure. I will briefly review the
various components attributed to this structure in an attempt to examine
whether they do indeed belong to one structure; I will then discuss the date
of the construction and use, its significance compared with other building
works of the Iron Age in Syria–Palestine, and the biblical references that may
apply to it.
Defining the Structure
Cahill and Steiner describe five components (fig. 1):
Component 1: The upper “terrace” system (Steiner’s nos. 1–4) consisting of
retaining walls oriented mainly east–west and supporting massive rubble
fills, found during Kenyon’s excavations (Squares AI–III) and Shiloh’s
(Area G, partially overlapping Kenyon’s area; Kenyon 1974: photos 27, 28,
31, 32; Shiloh 1984: pls. 27:2, 28:1–2; Steiner 2001: 26, 30, 32, figs. 4.2,
4.8, 4.10)—henceforth: “the terraces.”

1. Note that this publication is disappointing on a number of fronts. The plans are
merely schematic outlines, a portion of the excavation documentation was not available to
the author, and the published pottery is minimal and includes mainly small sherds from
problematic contexts. Steiner acknowledges her difficulty in interpreting the daily excava-
tion logs and other data that she received and the fact that the documentation is markedly
wanting (2001: 1–2).
258 Amihai Mazar

Fig. 1. The remains of the “Stepped Structure” as revealed by the excavations of Shiloh and
Kenyon: component 1: the “terraces” (in black); component 2: “the mantle wall”; compo-
nent 3: a stone structure uncovered in Kenyon’s Square AXXIII; component 4: “Terraces
4–5” in the upper part of Kenyon’s Trench I; component 5: a massive stone wall in the
upper part of Trench I. Drawing by Rachel Solar, based on Kenyon and Shiloh’s plans.

Component 2: The “mantle wall” (a term that I first encountered in Franken

1987: 131 and that was later used by Cahill), a term that refers to the
Stepped Structure itself, as revealed by Macalister, Kenyon, and Shiloh
above the “terraces” (Kenyon 1974: photo 76 right; Shiloh 1984: pls. 26:1–
2, 27:1 [no. 2], 29:1 [no. 1]).
Component 3: A massive stone structure built of very large stones, revealed
by Kenyon in her Square AXXIII, south of Components 1 and 2 described
above. It was identified by Kenyon and Steiner as a continuation of the
Stepped Structure (Component 2), despite its different building style
(Kenyon 1974: photo 33; Steiner 2001: 43–45, figs. 5.2–5.4).
 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 259

Component 4: Three walls on the upper part of Trench I of Kenyon’s ex-

cavations (ca. 10 m east of Component 3 and lower on the slope; Steiner
2001: 25, 28, figs. 4.1, 4.7). These were understood by Kenyon and
Steiner to be additional terraces continuing Component 2 (Steiner’s ter-
races nos. 5–7).
Component 5: A massive stone wall (6.5 m wide and 4.5 m high), located
east of and adjacent to the walls of Component 4 (Kenyon 1974: photo 64;
Steiner 2001: 46, figs. 5.5–5.6). Steiner divided it into two phases: lower
and upper, though these can be explained as merely technical phases. She
suggested that this wall is the eastern, lower part of the “Stepped Structure.”
However, it should be noted that no explicit stratigraphic relationship exists
between Components 1–3 and Components 4–5 (see the schematic cross-
section drawing in Steiner 2001: 28, fig. 4.7).
The relationships between these five components are a matter of archaeologi-
cal interpretation, which indeed has led in several directions. Kenyon, Shiloh,
and Steiner saw the “terraces” (Component 1 and, according to Steiner, also
4) as an independent building phase, earlier than the “Stepped Structure”
(Components 2, 3 and, according to Steiner, also 5). In contrast, Cahill, Tar-
ler, and De Groot, preceded to some extent by Franken (1987: 133), sug-
gested that Components 1 and 2 should be viewed as representing one
architectural unit (they did not refer to Components 3, 4, and 5, which were
revealed in Kenyon’s excavations). In their view, the “terraces” were struc-
tural foundation, with the “mantle wall” serving as its outer encasing. This lat-
ter interpretation is more appealing. The only difficulty in accepting it is a
section drawing showing the southern side of Square AXXIII of Kenyon’s ex-
cavations (Steiner 2001: 27, fig. 4.4), in which a layer of earth appears to sepa-
rate the terrace walls of Component 1 (Walls 70, 71, 72) from the structure
above them (Component 3), said to be a continuation of the “Stepped Struc-
ture” (= “mantle wall”). This upper structure rests atop a layer of stone fill.
However, a photograph (Steiner 2001: 45, fig. 4.5) shows that Component 3
(the southern portion of the Stepped Structure, according to Kenyon) de-
scends to a considerable depth and appears to touch the terrace wall seen at the
bottom of the photograph. Slightly north of this point, in Squares AI–AII,
Walls 57–61 of Kenyon’s excavations (identical to Shiloh’s Walls 747, 743,
370, 748, and 371: Shiloh 1984: 54, fig. 16) were associated by Kenyon, Shi-
loh, and Steiner with the “terrace” system. They are oriented east–west, pre-
served to a significant height, and the “mantle wall” (Component 2) is built
directly on top of them (Steiner 2001: 31, fig. 4.9). There is no good reason
to define these rather thin walls as terraces: they run perpendicular to the slope
260 Amihai Mazar

and are too close together to be part of a terrace system that was intended as
platforms for construction, as explained by Kenyon and Shiloh (for a similar
criticism, see Franken 1987: 133). On the face of it, the suggestion by Cahill
and the others seems reasonable, although circumstances in the southern end
of the excavated area (Kenyon’s Square AXXIII) were perhaps different due to
the steep topography there (a southward- and eastward-sloping descent). This
situation required the construction of a solid, deep foundation (Component
3), and it exhibits a technique that is different from the technique used in con-
structing the “mantle wall” (Component 2) to its north. In any case, Compo-
nents 1–3 can be seen as constituting one system, which was probably altered
over the course of its use.
Regarding Components 4–5 in Trench I, Kenyon and Steiner reasoned
that Component 4 was contemporaneous with and functionally parallel to
Component 1, as is Component 5 to Components 2–3. But this identification
is not necessarily correct. The plan of Component 4 is not clear: no plan of
the “terraces” numbered 5 and 7 was ever published, and in the cross-section
drawing they are depicted quite schematically. “Terrace 5” appears as Wall 81
in the section drawing (Steiner 2001: 29, 34, fig. 4.15); this is a wall preserved
to a height of 3.5 m, its western side exposed, its eastern side abutted by the
massive wall referred to here as Component 5. “Terrace 6” appears in this
cross-section drawing as Wall 84, appearing to predate Wall 81 (“Terrace 4”),
thus undermining the notion that “terraces” 5 and 6 were contemporary as
presented by Steiner. “Terrace 7” is even more unclear (apparently it is sup-
posed to be Wall 52, which is visible in the same section drawing and appears
to have been covered by a plaster floor associated with Wall 84/Terrace 6, im-
plying that it predates the latter). Regarding the massive wall here denoted
Component 5—in my opinion there are no grounds for Steiner’s identifica-
tion of this wall as part of the “Stepped Structure.” The top of this wall is 7 m
lower than the foundation of Component 3 located 10 m to its west, and no
stratigraphic link exists between the two. The eastern face of this massive wall
(Component 5) is built of ashlar (Steiner 2001; 46–47, figs. 5.6–5.7), while
the stones of the Stepped Structure are unworked. Thus I am not convinced
that this massive wall is part of the “Stepped Structure” complex; rather, it
probably should be seen as part of a separate, massive Iron Age II structure.

Dating
Kenyon and Shiloh dated the “terraces” (Component 1) to the Late Bronze
Age, while Steiner claimed they were built during Iron Age I (see below). The
“mantle wall” (Component 2) was dated by Kenyon to the Hellenistic period,
by Shiloh to the 10th century b.c.e. and by Steiner to the 10th–9th centuries
 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 261

b.c.e. Because no floor surfaces were preserved that might have yielded ar-
chaeological material to use in dating, a terminus post quem must suffice for the
date of construction and a terminus ante quem for the final period in which it
was used. The former was convincingly established by Steiner on the basis of
a ceramic assemblage unearthed in a room underlying and sealed by Walls 55
and 56 (Steiner 2001: 28, figs. 4.5–4.6). This room predates Components 1
and 2, as demonstrated by the photographs and the cross-section drawing
(Steiner 2001: 26–27, figs. 4.2–4.4). The assemblage includes fragments of
two “collared-rim” jars, cooking pots, and a carinated bowl; the types are
identical to types found at Giloh and Mana˙at, both located a few kilometers
south of Jerusalem. At Giloh I defined the assemblage as relating to a period
referred to as “Iron IA,” that is, the first half of the 12th century b.c.e. (Mazar
1981), whereas at Mana˙at a similar assemblage was defined as relating to the
end of the Late Bronze Age (Edelstein, Milevski, and Aurant 1998: 47–54,
fig. 4.10). This difference is merely semantic, because all agree that this assem-
blage should be dated to the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the
12th century b.c.e. Related also to this ceramic horizon of the beginning of
Iron I are sherds uncovered by both Kenyon and Shiloh in the construction
fills of the “terraces” (Component 1) and in a probe conducted in the con-
struction fill of the “Stepped Structure” after the “mantle wall” stones had
been removed (Component 2; Steiner 2001: 34–35, fig. 4.16; Cahill 2003:
50, fig. 1.10 and fig. 2 here). Steiner dates the construction of the “terraces”
to the same period as the sherds (Iron I), while associating the “mantle wall”
with the 10th or 9th century b.c.e. Cahill claimed that the “terraces” and the
“mantle wall” (Components 1 and 2) were built simultaneously at some point
in Iron I. Note that Steiner presents no ceramic finds that can be used to date
Components 2 and 3 independently.
A terminus ante quem for the construction of the Stepped Structure (Compo-
nent 2) was based on the earliest finds from the residences built on it. We know
that these solid stone buildings were destroyed during the Babylonian invasion
of 586 b.c.e., but when were they built? Although Steiner dates the residences
found by Kenyon above the Stepped Structure to only the 7th century b.c.e.,
Cahill published ceramic assemblages from the lower two floors (Strata 13 and
14) of the “Burnt Room” at the northeastern corner of Area G, above the
lower part of the Stepped Structure (Cahill 2003: 57–65, figs. 1.13–1.14), and
they are characteristic of Iron IIA. Note that this period is at the heart of the
current debate on Iron Age chronology. In my opinion as well as in the current
opinion of many other scholars, Iron IIA spans most of the 10th and 9th cen-
turies b.c.e., and I have suggested the approximate dates of 980–840/830
b.c.e. (Coldstream and Mazar 2003: 40–44; Mazar 2005, for a comprehensive
262 Amihai Mazar

discussion); the same time frame is preferred by Ben-Shlomo, Shai, and Maeir
(2004: 2) and Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 227–36), while Finkelstein
(2003) and Gilboa and Sharon (2003) date this period to the 9th century ex-
clusively. 2
If the residences at the foot of the Stepped Structure were indeed built dur-
ing Iron IIA, the Stepped Structure would still predate them. To summarize,
the “Stepped Structure” (Components 1, 2, and probably also Component 3,
on which we lack direct evidence) may have been constructed either during
Iron Age I or during the earlier part of Iron Age IIA—in any event, before the
construction of houses on top of it, still during Iron Age IIA. I see no possi-
bility of reaching a date more precise than this. In historical terms, the struc-
ture was erected either before or during the time of the United Monarchy.
In this regard, it is interesting that Phoenician Bichrome jug sherds pub-
lished by Cahill appear among the ceramic finds from the floor of Stratum 14,
while a sherd (even though only one) of the “Black-on-Red” Cypro-Phoeni-
cian family appears in Stratum 13. This relative sequence is known from other
sites of the period, such as Dor (Gilboa and Sharon 2003) and southern Judah
(Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2004: 214–18); at Tel Rehov, Black-on-Red pot-
tery starts to appear in Stratum V but is lacking in Stratum VI, though both
belong to Iron Age IIA and both are dated by radiometric dates to the 10th
century b.c.e. (Mazar et al. 2005). These sherds, though few and small, may

2. Note Finkelstein’s view on this matter: according to his low chronology, Iron Age I
continued until the time of Shoshenq I. Thus, according to him, it is possible that the “ter-
races” (Component 1, but not the “mantle wall,” Component 2) were constructed during
the 10th century b.c.e. (Finkelstein 2003). He quotes Steiner in saying that 10th-century
sherds (according to the conventional chronology) were found in the “mantle wall” of the
“Stepped Structure” (Finkelstein 2003: 85). These sherds should be dated to the 9th cen-
tury according to his method, and thus in his view the “Stepped Structure” (i.e., Compo-
nent 2 alone) was built in the course of the 9th century. However, this was written before
the publication of Steiner’s final report. With its publication, it now becomes clear that the
few sherds were all found among the stones of Component 5, and their connection to the
Stepped Structure (Component 2) is debatable, as explained above. Steiner published no
Iron II ceramic finds related to the construction of Components 2 and 3, the principal com-
ponents of the “Stepped Structure.” In addition, as mentioned above, the sherds in the con-
struction fills of the Stepped Structure and “terraces” (especially the cooking pots) are very
early in the Iron Age I and should be dated to the 12th century. They cannot be lowered
to the 10th century by any chronological method. If the “Stepped Structure” was built dur-
ing the 9th century, it could have existed only for a few decades, because during the same
century houses were built on it, as shown by Cahill. Thus Finkelstein’s dating of the com-
ponents of the Stepped Structure has no factual foundation. For a criticism of the low chro-
nology of the Iron Age, see Mazar 2005; Mazar et al. 2005.
 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 263

Fig. 2. Selection of pottery sherds from the construction fill of the Stepped Structure (after
Steiner 2001: fig. 4.16).

be instructive in regard to the relationship of Jerusalem with Phoenicia during

Iron Age IIA.
The dating of Components 4–5 should be treated separately because they
are separate units, and their relation to the Stepped Structure remains in
doubt. The only evidence we have for these are 95 pottery sherds published
by Steiner (2001: 49, fig. 5.11). These are divided into three groups: sherds
from within the massive wall Component 5 (2001: nos. 1–33), 3 sherds found
underneath Component 4 (and 5?) (2001: nos. 34–59), and sherds found
above Component 5 which thus have no direct chronological value (2001:

3. Thirty-two small sherds and one nearly complete vessel related to the “massive struc-
ture” (Component 5) were published. Their find-spots are not entirely clear: do they come
from the upper (seen by Steiner as a second building phase) or the lower part of the wall?
Of the sherds, some can be identified as dating to Iron I and some to Iron IIA, but many
are not diagnostic and can be associated with either period. Only sherd no. 30 can be placed
in a later period—Iron IIB.
264 Amihai Mazar

nos. 60–95). Most of sherds nos. 1–59 are quite small and nonindicative. Most
of them appear suitable for the Iron I period, others are unclassifiable, and only
2–3 small sherds (nos. 22 and 30?) may be dated to Iron IIA. Thus the terminus
post quem for the construction of Component 5 is Iron Age I; the terminus ante
quem is determined by an Iron Age II house that was constructed next to the
eastern side of Component 5 (Steiner 2001: 81, fig. 6.28, “Area 26”). There
is insufficient data to establish the construction date of this house, though it is
clear that it was destroyed during the Babylonian conquest. As said above, it is
doubtful that Component 5 was part of the Stepped Structure, but even if it
had been, it has yielded no finds that can alter the conclusions achieved from
Kenyon’s and Shiloh’s excavations of the main parts of the Stepped Stone
Structure higher on the slope.
Assessing the Structure
The length of the upper part of the Stepped Structure (Components 1–3)
is more than 40 m, its height ca. 18 m (not including Components 4–5) or
ca. 30 m (including Component 5). It appears that the visible portion of the
structure is part of a larger building, the full length of which is unknown. It
can be assumed that the structure functioned as a foundation for a superstruc-
ture that can be reconstructed as a monumental fortress. 4 A building of these
proportions is unparalleled in comparison with other architectural remains
from Israel and its neighbors from the 12th to 10th centuries b.c.e. Only from
the 9th century do monumental fortified enclosures appear in Israel and Ju-
dah at administrative centers such as Samaria, Jezreel, and Lachish. The dis-
tinctiveness and magnitude of the Stepped Stone Structure tell of Jerusalem’s
unique status as an administrative center during the building’s use.
At the Iron Age I site of Giloh, 7 km southwest of the City of David, we
uncovered the foundation of a square stone structure, 11.2 m long on each
side, that was constructed with a fill of large stone rubble (Mazar 1990: 145–
46, figs. 6–7). The foundation was interpreted as the base of a tower that
could serve as a central shelter for the small community in time of danger. The
building technique and size of this tower foundation recall to some extent the
construction of Components 1 and 3 in the City of David, though the latter
must have belonged to a much larger building. Because the pottery found be-
low and in the construction fills of the Stepped Structure is similar to the pot-
tery of Giloh, there is justification in connecting the two. It is possible that the
massive stone constructions in Jerusalem and Giloh were undertaken by a
similar population at the beginning of the Iron I, who used a technique and

4. See postscript to this essay, pp. 269ff.

 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 265

skill that was well known in the region during that period. The identification
of this population is left in question: while I suggested that Giloh was founded
by an early Israelite or “proto-Israelite” population (the latter term is used by
Dever and Finkelstein for the Iron Age I hill country population), Ahlström
(1984) suggested that Giloh was a Jebusite settlement on the outskirts of Jeru-
salem. It should be stressed, however, that Jebusites are known only from the
biblical texts relating to pre-Davidic Jerusalem; there is no hint in the archae-
ological record for the existence of a distinct ethnic group in Jerusalem during
Iron Age I. Giloh’s material culture does not differ from the culture of other
hill country sites. Thus the ethnic identification of the Iron Age I settlers in
Jerusalem and its vicinity must be considered unresolved (for summary, see
Mazar 1994). The construction of the Stepped Structure at the City of David
and the square foundation of a tower(?) at Giloh indicates the existence of
massive public/defensive structures in the central hill country of Iron Age I, an
architectural feature of this culture that has not been sufficiently acknowl-
edged previously in the relevant literature.
Identification and the Biblical Connection
The biblical narrative about David’s conquest of Jerusalem includes the fol-
lowing statements: “David took the fortress of Zion, which is now the City of
David. . . . David occupied the fortress and named it the City of David. David
built the city all around the Millo inward” (2 Sam 5:7–9). The historicity of
this passage is quite controversial in current research. Can the Stepped Struc-
ture and the missing building retained by it be identified with the “Fortress of
Zion”? To me the identification is plausible in light of the chronological con-
siderations and the nature of the structure as detailed above (see Franken 1987:
133–34; Mazar 1997: 64; Cahill 2004: 25). Of course, this identification can-
not be proved, but it may appear credible to scholars who accept the view that
the biblical historiographical narrative has retained valuable information about
the past, in spite of the much later date of its composition (Mazar 2003; forth-
coming).

Other Excavation Areas

As recognized by many scholars in the past (see, for example, Naªaman
1997: 18–19), the topography of the City of David and its unusual settlement
history distort the archaeological picture. The erosion and human activity on
the steep eastern slope of this site resulted in the destruction of early struc-
tures. The fact that the city of Jerusalem was not destroyed during the Iron
Age until the Babylonian conquest may mean that massive stone buildings
continued in use for hundreds of years. The paucity of finds from a period
266 Amihai Mazar

constituting about 800 years (from the end of the Middle Bronze period up to
the 8th century b.c.e.) in Jerusalem creates an illusion of a long occupation
gap, but this gap appears to be the result of unique conditions in the excavated
areas. Thus the apparent lack of Late Bronze remains in the City of David cre-
ates a paradoxical situation, because the letters of ºAbdi-Heba, ruler of Jerusa-
lem in the Amarna period, demonstrate its importance during this period
(Naªaman 1997: 19–21). Steiner arrived at the very unlikely conclusion that
Jerusalem of the Amarna period should be sought elsewhere (Steiner 2001:
112–13), a suggestion that has already been criticized by Naªaman as being an
exercise in futility. Cahill has pointed out Late Bronze remains from several
excavation areas, though they are meager. This gap between the archaeologi-
cal finds and the written sources is remarkable and can only be explained by
the special conditions of destruction and of building in the City of David.
In comparison with the Amarna period, the remains of Jerusalem from the
United Monarchy are quite impressive. Ceramic finds dated to Iron IIA were
found in all of Shiloh’s excavations in the City of David. To date, only the
finds from Area D have been published, a peripheral area located at the south-
eastern corner of the City of David hill (Ariel 2000: 35–42, 93–94, 113–21,
figs. 11–15). Additional finds will be published as part of the final report of the
excavations in Area E, prepared by A. De Groot and H. Bernick-Greenberg. 5
Uncovered in Strata 15 and 14 were building remains that had been seriously
damaged by later Iron Age activity but were nevertheless distinguishable; the
ceramic finds from these strata will be published on fifteen plates, including a
selection of vessels from Iron I alongside the more substantial Iron IIA finds.
The assemblage resembles the pottery of Arad Stratum XII, Tel Batash (Tim-
nah) Stratum IV, and Lachish Stratum V—all typical Iron IIA strata. The finds
from Stratum 13 are minimal but apparently can be associated with the end of
the Iron IIA (the second half of the 9th century b.c.e.?).
Admittedly, other areas of the city yielded no Iron I–IIA finds. We know
nothing of the situation within the Temple Mount enclosure, to which the
descriptions of Solomon’s building enterprises relate (see, for example, Knauf
2000). The dating of the monumental building unearthed by Benjamin Mazar
and Eilat Mazar on the southern edge of the “Ophel” north and its relation to
Warren’s Tower remain debatable. The few sherds found close to bedrock can
be identified with Iron IIA, but they are too few to provide a secure date for
the construction of the monumental buildings in that area. However, it is not
impossible that massive stone structures of this sort were constructed during
Iron Age IIA and continued to be in use until the Babylonian conquest. Reich

5. My thanks to A. De Groot for allowing me to read the manuscript of this volume.

 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 267

and Shukron’s excavations around the Gihon Spring provided no pottery

sherds from between the Middle Bronze period and the Iron II period (the
8th–7th centuries b.c.e.; Reich and Shukron 1999). Yet one may hypothesize
that the immense fortifications of the Middle Bronze Age that they found, in-
cluding the large pool south of the Gihon Spring and “Channel II,” continued
to be in use over hundreds of years, despite the absence of direct archaeologi-
cal proof (Cahill 2004: 31). The dearth of ceramic finds can be attributed to
periodic cleaning of the floors of these monumental buildings, erosion, and
other earth-moving activities.

Jerusalem of the United Monarchy:

An Appraisal
Jerusalem of the 10th century b.c.e. can be described as spreading over the
entirety of the City of David hill (ca. 4 hectares). Though the architectural re-
mains are scant, the pottery evidence and some building remains indicate that
all of this area was inhabited, though we do not yet know whether the town
was planned and densely occupied. There is no indication that a city wall ex-
isted during this period, though continued use of the old fortifications around
the Gihon Spring should not be ruled out. At the upper part of the hill, the
“Stepped Structure” served as a retaining wall for a massive building, perhaps
a fortress or an administrative center, one of a kind in Israel in this period.
The lack of archaeological data for the Temple Mount area leaves the ques-
tion of the historical validity of the biblical account of Solomon’s building en-
terprises a matter of interpretation. Scholars who reject the notion that this
account reflects actual building projects in the 10th century fail to answer the
questions when and by whom the Iron Age temple and palace were erected in
Jerusalem. We have no hint, written or otherwise, of such a project’s having
been undertaken after the reign of Solomon. While the biblical account may
indeed be exaggerated and unrealistic, it seems to retain a historical truth at its
core (Naªaman 1997: 22–23). And if so, Jerusalem probably extended over ca.
10 or even 12 hectares in the days of Solomon and was crowned by a royal
residence and a temple. It is possible that the temple and palace on the Temple
Mount were originally detached and at a distance from the core of the City of
David, with open spaces left between the city and the Mount; only in the
course of the period of the monarchy (from the 9th century b.c.e. onward)
was the Ophel area (between the Temple Mount and northern edge of the
City of David) fortified and built up with monumental public buildings, as
shown by the excavations in the southern part of this area.
Could Jerusalem of the 10th century be described as the capital of a state
such as the Davidic and Solomonic state described in the biblical narrative? It
 268 Amihai Mazar

should be noted that several cities in Iron Age I–IIA Israel were either similar
to Jerusalem in size or were much larger, and some of them were fortified.
This was true of the major cities of the Philistines—Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron
(the latter decreasing in size during the 10th century)—as well as Dor, Me-
giddo, Tel Rehov, Tel Kinneret (the latter a large fortified city of the late 11th
century b.c.e., probably declining in the 10th century), the mound of Beth-
saidah, and perhaps others (Dan? Ashkelon?). Jerusalem was certainly not the
largest and most densely built city in the area at this time, but it should not be
dismissed as nonexistent or only a small village.
How should we envision the state of David and Solomon if its capital was
of the nature described above? The city at the time of David emerges as a city
that was small in size but included a stronghold unique to the period, and it
could have functioned as a power base of a political entity. The magnitude of
this entity is a matter of historical interpretation. The great importance of Da-
vid and the House of David in various biblical accounts and the mention of Bet
David as the name of Judah on the Tel Dan inscription from the end of the 9th
century b.c.e. testify that David was well known throughout the Levant as the
founder of Judah’s ruling dynasty. The title Bet David probably refers to a real
historical figure who left an impact for generations to come. Whether and
how David managed to establish a hegemony over widespread areas of Syria–
Palestine are questions that are probably unanswerable in archaeological terms.
In our postmodern way of thinking, the role of the individual in history has
gained weight again. Thus we may envision a talented leader such as David,
who was charismatic, manipulative, and adept at intertribal affairs; combine
this with the use of a small but competent military and the absence of a sig-
nificant external force to intervene, and we have a man who may have been
able to gain considerable political and military power in his time and place
(Naªaman 1997; Halpern 2001; contra Finkelstein 2003). The territorial ex-
tent of this hegemony, however, is an open question. It is most likely that the
biblical account is exaggerating in claiming Davidic hegemony over Syria and
Transjordan. Naªaman compares David’s achievements to the rule of Labªayu
of Shechem and ºAbdi Heba from Jerusalem—men who were hill-country
rulers of the 14th century b.c.e. The Amarna letters relate that, during a pe-
riod of Egyptian control over Canaan, Labªayu attempted to take control of
large areas of the country, from the Jezreel Valley to the Judean foothills, by
military and political means. In the 10th century b.c.e., when no external im-
perial power was present in the Levant and many Canaanite cities were in de-
cline, a leader such as David could have taken control of large parts of the
country (Naªaman 1997: 23–25). Jerusalem may be compared to a Medieval
burg—a stronghold centered in a rather small town that may nevertheless have
been a center for leaders who established their own small state.

spread is 9 points long

 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 269

The era of Solomon should be understood as a continuation and consolida-

tion of the Davidic kingdom. The building activities described in the biblical
narrative should not be waved aside as unrealistic: there are enough archaeo-
logical data to support their existence, provided we use the conventional chro-
nology for the period (Mazar 2005 and forthcoming). Only such an under-
standing of the United Monarchy explains Shoshenq I’s raid on Israel and his
strategy of entering the heartland of the hill country north of Jerusalem.
Thus, the recently published studies on the City of David excavations and
the forthcoming reports enable us to arrive at a more-refined understanding of
the 10th-century city and to support and position that Jerusalem constituted a
unique seat of power at this time. This was a formative period—a period in
which the Israelite political entity was just beginning to take shape, with Jeru-
salem at its center (Mazar 1997: 62–64). 6

Postscript
After the completion of my essay, Eilat Mazar announced the results of her
excavation in the City of David during March–August 2005 (Mazar 2006).
The excavation area is located on the summit of the City of David, northwest
of Shiloh’s Area G and south of Kenyon’s Field H. A monumental building
including a massive stone pavement was partly uncovered. The building was
damaged by Herodian structures, and no floor was preserved. The stone walls
are a maximum of 2.5 m wide, and most of the construction is of rough, un-
worked stones, similar to the construction technique of Components 2 and 3
of the stone Stepped structure. The walls were founded in some places on
bedrock and in others on a thin layer of earth containing Iron Age I pottery
(12th–11th centuries b.c.e.) as well as some Middle Bronze pottery, similar to
the pottery described above in relation to the construction of the stone
Stepped Structure. In one place, repairs and additions to the building were
observed. There was an earth layer abutting the foundations containing a good
quantity of Iron IIA pottery (red slipped and hand burnished) as well as an im-
ported Cypro-Phoenician jug of the Black-on-Red family (Mazar 2006: 25).
This pottery group appears to be associated with the repairs to the building.
Continuation of the same building was found by Kenyon in her adjacent Field
H, in the form of what she denoted a “casemate” wall, dated by her to the
10th century b.c.e. (Kenyon 1974: 91–92 and photo 37; the continuation of

6. Herzog and Singer-Avitz (2004: 231–34), though using a correct chronology for the
Iron IIA period, suggest that Judah emerged between Lachish and Beer-sheba. This suppo-
sition is based on the supposed lack of evidence for the importance of Jerusalem and other
hill-country sites. However, the picture illustrated above indicates that there is no need for
such imaginative suggestions.
270 Amihai Mazar

the walls in this photograph was revealed by E. Mazar). Very little Iron II or
any other pre-Herodian pottery was found in this excavation area; the little
that was found came from loci that are unrelated to the monumental building,
in areas mostly excavated earlier by Stewart Macalister. The evidence for dat-
ing the newly discovered monumental building is almost identical to that of
the Stepped Structure: the terminus post quem is the early Iron Age I pottery
in the earth layer below the foundations. However, because this layer also
abutted the lower courses of the stones of this building and there are no later
sherds, it seems plausible that the building was founded around the date of this
pottery, that is, during Iron Age I (12th–11th centuries b.c.e.). The Iron IIA
pottery (10th–9th centuries b.c.e.) dates the repairs or period of use of this
building. It is thus very plausible that the building was in use during the 10th
century b.c.e. There is no evidence for a later date for this building. Eilat
Mazar suggested identifying this building with David’s palace (2 Sam 5:11). I
would claim that this building is part of the stone Stepped Structure complex,
and for that matter, the new excavation appears to confirm the suggestion
(made by Cahill and in this essay) that the stone Stepped Structure supported
a huge citadel. This discovery thus fulfills the expectation that a substantial
structure should be located west of the stone Stepped Structure support wall.
As such, it could be part of the Citadel of Zion, as conjectured above.

References
A˙ituv, S., and Mazar, A., eds.
2000 The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Ahlström, G. W.
1984 Giloh: A Judahite or Canaanite Settlement? IEJ 34: 17–172.
Ariel, D. T., ed.
2000 Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume V:
Extramural Area. Qedem 40. Jerusalem.
Ben-Shlomo, D.; Shai, I; and Maeir, A.
2004 Late Philistine Decorated Ware (“Ashdod Ware”): Typology, Chronology, and
Production Centers. BASOR 335: 1–34.
Cahill, J. M.
2001 Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence.
Pp. 21–28 in New Studies in Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, ed.
A. Faust and E. Baruch. Ramat-Gan. [Hebrew]
2003 Jerusalem at the Time of the United Monarchy: The Archaeological Evidence.
Pp. 13–80 in Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Kille-
brew. Atlanta.
2004 Jerusalem in David and Solomon’s Time. BAR 30/6: 20–31.
Coldstream, N., and Mazar, A.
2003 Greek Pottery from Tel Rehov and Iron Age Chronology. IEJ 53: 29–48.
 Jerusalem in the 10th Century b.c.e.: The Glass Half Full 271

De Groot, A.
2001 The “Invisible City” of the Tenth Century b.c.e. Pp. 29–34 in New Studies in
Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference, ed. A. Faust and E. Baruch. Ramat-
Gan. [Hebrew]
De Groot, A., and Bernick-Greenberg, H.
Forthcoming Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Vol-
ume VI: Area E. Qedem. Jerusalem.
Edelstein, G.; Milevski, I; and Aurant, S.
1998 Villages, Terraces and Stone Mounds: Excavations at Manahat, Jerusalem, 1987–
1989. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports No. 3. Jerusalem.
Finkelstein, I.
2003 The Rise of Jerusalem and Judah: The Missing Link. Pp. 81–102 in Jerusalem in
Bible and Archaeology, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew. Atlanta. [Original:
Levant 33 (2001) 105–15.]
Franken, H. J.
1987 The Excavations of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem on the
South-East Hill in the Light of Subsequent Research. Levant 19: 129–35.
Gilboa, A., and Sharon, I.
2003 An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate:
Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus
and Greece. BASOR 332: 7–80.
Halpern, B.
2001 David’s Secret Demons. Grand Rapids.
Handy, L. K., ed.
1997 The Age of Solomon. Leiden.
Herzog, Z., and Singer-Avitz, L.
2004 Redefining the Centre: The Emergence of State in Judah. Tel Aviv 31: 209–44.
Jérusalem
2003 Les Cahiers de Science et Vie 75: 97.
Kenyon, K. M.
1974 Digging Up Jerusalem. London.
Knauf, E. A.
2000 Jerusalem in the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages: A Proposal. Tel Aviv 27: 75–
90.
Maeir, A.
2000 Jerusalem before King David: An Archaeological Survey from Protohistoric
Times to the End of the Iron Age I. Pp. 33–66 in The History of Jerusalem: The
Biblical Period, ed. S. A˙ituv and A. Mazar. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Mazar, A.
1981 Giloh: An Early Israelite Site in the Vicinity of Jerusalem. IEJ 31: 1–36.
1994 Jerusalem and Its Vicinity in Iron Age I. Pp. 70–91 in From Nomadism to Mon-
archy, ed. I. Finkelstein and N. Naªaman. Jerusalem.
1997 An Evaluation of the United Kingdom in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.
Pp. 60–69 in New Studies in Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Third Conference, ed.
A. Faust and E. Baruch. Ramat-Gan. [Hebrew]
 272 Amihai Mazar

2003 Remarks on Biblical Traditions and Archaeological Evidence concerning Early

Israel. Pp. 85–98 in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, An-
cient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina,
ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN.
2005 The Debate over the Chronology of the Iron Age in the Southern Levant: Its
History, the Current Situation and a Suggested Resolution. Pp. 15–30 in The
Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text, and Science, ed. T. Levy and
T. Higham. London.
Forthcoming The Spade and the Text: The Interaction between Archaeology and Is-
raelite History Relating to the 10th–9th Centuries b.c.e. In Understanding the
History of Ancient Israel: Symposium in the British Academy, ed. H. Williamson.
London.
Mazar, A.; Bruins, H.; Panitz-Cohen, N.; and van der Plicht, J.
2005 Ladder of Time at Tel Rehov: Stratigraphy, Archaeological Context, Pottery and
Radiocarbon Dates. Pp. 193–255 in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archae-
ology, Text, and Science, ed. T. Levy and T. Higham. London.
Mazar, E.
2006 Did I Find King David’s Palace? BAR 32/1: 16–27.
Naªaman, N.
1996a Sources and Composition in the History of David. Pp. 180–83 in The Origins of
the Ancient Israelite States, ed. V. Fritz and P. R. Davies. JSOTSup 228. Sheffield.
1996b The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political
Position in the Tenth Century b.c.e. BASOR 304: 17–27.
1997 Sources and Composition in the History of Solomon. Pp. 57–80 in The Age of
Solomon, ed. L. K. Handy. Leiden.
2002 The Past That Shapes the Present: The Creation of Biblical Historiography in the Late
First Temple Period and after the Downfall. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Reich, R.
2000 The Topography and Archaeology of Jerusalem in the First Temple Period.
Pp. 93–130 in The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period, ed. S. A˙ituv and
A. Mazar. Jerusalem. [Hebrew]
Reich, R., and Shukron, E.
1999 Light at the End of the Tunnel. BAR 25/1: 22–33.
Shiloh, Y.
1984 Excavations in the City of David 1978–1982, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, Volume I: In-
terim Report of the First Five Seasons. Qedem 19. Jerusalem.
Steiner, M. L.
2001 Excavations by Kathleen M. Kenyon in Jerusalem, 1961–1967. Vol. 3. London.
Ussishkin, D.
1997 Jerusalem in the Period of David and Solomon: The Archaeological Evidence.
Pp. 57–58 in New Studies in Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Third Conference, ed.
A. Faust and E. Baruch. Ramat-Gan. [Hebrew]
2003a Solomon’s Jerusalem: The Text and the Facts on the Ground. Pp. 103–16 in Je-
rusalem in Bible and Archaeology, ed. A. G. Vaughn and A. E. Killebrew. Atlanta.
2003b Jerusalem as a Royal and Cultic Center in the 10th–8th Centuries b.c.e.
Pp. 529–38 in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Is-
rael, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed.
W. G. Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN.

long