Is This King David’s Tomb?

Home > Magazines > BAR > January/February 1995

063

Can a reasonable case be made that this is King David’s tomb?

Ask any ultra-modern, sophisticated archaeologist and he (or she) will most likely either express disinterest or brush off the possibility with a smile and an emphatic “No.”^a Sit 064down and reason, however, and things begin to change.

Let’s begin with some facts on which all agree:

(1) King David’s Jerusalem was located on the eastern ridge of the city, south of the present Temple Mount, the area called today the City of David. All agree that this is the original City of David and that it is a mere 10 or 11 acres.

(2) There was a widespread ancient belief that corpses contaminate. Israelite law reflects the belief that corpses impart impurity.^b Burials were almost always outside, not inside the city.^c Royal burials were exceptions.^d

(3) The Bible tells us that the kings of Judah from David to Ahaz were buried “within the City of David”—somewhere in this small 10-acre site.^e

(4) Nehemiah tells us that the Davidic tombs were in the southern part of the City of David (Nehemiah 3:16).^f

(5) The proposed site of David’s tomb, and of others adjacent to it, is precisely where one would expect to find the burial site mentioned in the Bible—in the southern part of the City of David, an area that would normally be forbidden to burials.

In 1913 to 1914 a Frenchman named Raymond Weill excavated this area and found several tombs that he numbered T1 to T8. In 1923 to 1924 he returned to the area and uncovered another tomb he labelled T9. The most magnificent of these tombs is T1. It is a kind of long tunnel or artificially excavated cave 52-½ feet long, over 8 feet wide and over 13 feet high at the front, lowering to over 6 feet at the back. The original appearance of the entrance is difficult to tell because it was hacked away long ago, along with much of one side. But at the back wall is a carefully cut depression for a body or perhaps a sarcophagus or coffin. The depression measures 4 feet wide and over 6 feet long (see the sidebar “Fit for a King: King David’s Tomb?”).

In front of the tomb are several steps leading down to another opening that appears to be an entrance to a later tomb chamber of someone who wanted to be buried as close as possible to whoever was buried in the main chamber. The long tunnel has itself been altered to provide an additional, lower level: Grooves can be seen on either side of the tunnel, creating slots into which supports for a floor could be fit. In this way, a lower level could be created beneath this artificial floor where someone else could be buried.^g Further to the right is another opening and cavity that could have served as still another tomb (see the sidebar “Fit for a King: King David’s Tomb?”).

This description is dependent in large part on the careful and reliable drawing prepared by Weill and a slightly later drawing by Louis-Hugues Vincent. Unfortunately, this tomb has not been scientifically drawn and studied in modern times. That remains a “consummation devoutly to be wished.”

Further north, T3 appears to be a smaller version of T1. T2 was another long cave, but almost nothing remained of it. Its plan could not be drawn.

T1 sits on the summit of the mound. Other tombs descend around it like an apron.

The fact that some extravagant, even ostentatious tombs were located precisely where the Bible says the kings of Judah, including King David, were buried certainly suggests to a reasonable mind that the fanciest of these tombs (T1) may well have belonged to King David.

065

The naysayers make two arguments:

(1) They’re not tombs.

(2) They don’t date to the time of David and the kings of Judah.

The main evidence in both these arguments is that T1 is unlike any other known ancient tomb (except T3 and perhaps T2), a fact that may be conceded.

The naysayers correctly point out that we know a great deal about Jerusalem tombs from both the First Temple period and the Second Temple period. There are hundreds of these tombs all around the city. And T1 does not match the characteristics of any of them.

Both a factual omission and a logical fallacy, however, undermine the significance of this argument of the naysayers.

The factual omission is that among the hundreds of First and Second Temple tombs in Jerusalem, not a single one can be dated to the tenth century B.C.E. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a single tenth-century Israelite tomb anywhere. We really don’t know what a tenth-century Israelite tomb looked like. So we can’t reject—or support—T1 as a tenth-century Israelite tomb on stylistic grounds.

We do know what eighth-century Israelite tombs looked like. We have lots of them, north of the city as well as east of the City of David in the village of Silwan, across the Kidron Valley. But does it make sense to reject a tenth-century date for T1 on the ground that it is different from tombs dated 200 years later? Moreover, some of the tombs in the City of David necropolis do share characteristics with these later tombs in Silwan. (For example, see the City of David tomb pictured in “The Tombs Of Silwan,” BAR 20:03.) And there are even similarities between T1 and some later First-Temple-period tombs: The depression at the rear of T1 on which to lay the body is similar to those in some later First-Temple-period tombs.^h

The logical fallacy of the naysayers’ argument runs deeper: One would certainly expect King David’s tomb to be special, different, even unique. Doesn’t it make more sense to conclude that a magnificent tomb with unusual architectural characteristics is more likely to be a royal tomb than to conclude that because of these unusual characteristics it cannot be dated to the tenth century?

Besides, we really don’t know what T1 originally looked like. As noted, the entrance has been entirely cut away. In later times, the area became a quarry.

067

The distinguished archaeologist David Ussishkin, of Tel Aviv University, writes that this is not David’s tomb because the quality of the architecture is poor. Royal tombs would have “finer and more impressive” workmanship. The workmanship here is “crude and careless.”ⁱ But in conversations with Ussishkin, he graciously pointed out to me two other instances where kings have been buried within a city, at Byblos and Tunis, where the sarcophagi (and grave goods) were grand, but the tombs themselves were often of poor quality and were less than elegant.^j

My conclusion therefore is that, if T1 is a tomb, King David was quite possibly buried here.

But was it a tomb? The great British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon called it a water cistern, without explaining how it could be used. She had to admit that if it was indeed a cistern, it was a cistern “of rather unusual form.”^k Nor did she deal with the likelihood that even if it had been used as a cistern, this was not its original use. A leading Tel Aviv University archaeologist, Gabriel Barkay, has suggested to me that it may have been a storage area for wine. If so, that was hardly its original use. Barkay suggests the Late Roman period for its use as a wine cellar.

I see no reason to doubt that it was a tomb.

My friend Father Jerome Murphy-O’Connor of the École Biblique in Jerusalem has raised still another possible objection: This area was quarried as early as the Persian period (sixth-fourth centuries B.C.E.). Jews, the argument goes, would never quarry King David’s tomb. Q.E.D., this was not King David’s tomb.

The answer to this argument is somewhat complicated. According to both Weill and Kenyon (who was especially admired for her careful stratigraphic excavations), this area was quarried, not in the Persian period, but in the Late Roman period (second century C.E.) and the Byzantine period (fourth-sixth centuries C.E.). In terms of historical context, this dating makes good sense. The Romans quarried the area after they suppressed the Second Jewish Revolt, the Bar-Kokhba revolt (132–135 C.E.), when they built their own city on the ruins of Jewish Jerusalem. They named the rebuilt city Aelia Capitolina in an effort to obliterate all of its Jewish connections. Quarrying continued in the Byzantine period when Jerusalem was a Christian city and the City of David was no longer within the city wall.

A more recent excavator, Israeli archaeologist Yigal Shiloh, however, found a section of the city wall that he dated to his strata 7–6, sometime between the second century B.C.E. and 70 C.E. (when the Romans effectively ended the First Jewish Revolt by burning Jerusalem). Beneath the foundation of this wall, which rested on bedrock, he found evidence of quarrying. Therefore, he concluded that quarrying in this area must have begun earlier than the construction of the wall. This doesn’t get Shiloh quite as far back as the Persian period, however. He does this by a little stratigraphic legerdemain. In the Persian period stratum (his stratum 9), he found a layer of chalky gravel that he concluded must be from a quarry. Combined with the evidence that quarrying began earlier than the construction of the strata 7–6 city wall, he concluded that the quarrying began “prior to the Hellenistic period, apparently in Persian times.”^l Shiloh recognized that this conclusion conflicted with that of Weill and Kenyon.

Even conceding for the sake of argument that Shiloh is correct in concluding that some quarrying occurred as early as the Persian period (i.e., quarrying by Jews, who would not have quarried David’s tomb), that quarrying did not necessarily include the area near T1. A careful examination of Shiloh’s preliminary report shows that the city wall under which he found evidence of quarrying (loci W151 and W152) is considerably east of T1.^m Even if there was quarrying here in the Persian period, there is no reason to believe that it extended to T1. Everyone would agree that quarrying of this area was never limited to the Persian period. Even if some quarrying occurred at the edge of the slope (and many archaeologists will dispute Shiloh’s conclusion that the quarrying dates to the Persian period), and even if we accept the shaky contention that this early quarrying was done by Jews, this does not require us to conclude that T1 was quarried at this time. Indeed, this city wall was itself robbed out in large part, “mainly as a result of quarrying in the post-exilic period.”ⁿ So here is good evidence that quarrying occurred in later periods as well. Obviously, there was something left to quarry.

Much remains to be learned from a scientific study of these tombs. Hopefully, that will soon occur. In the meantime, however, the possibility that these are the royal tombs of the House of David, and may even include the tomb of King David himself, is surely strong enough to demand that they be cleared and cleaned and treated with some reverence. Imagine the interest all of us would have in exploring this area ourselves to determine whether this may be the tomb of King David.

Can a reasonable case be made that this is King David’s tomb?

Footnotes

This was not always so. Many prominent scholars (in the past) have concurred with the conclusion suggested here, that the tombs discussed below belong to the kings of Judah. These scholars include Raymond Weill, who excavated these tombs and first proposed this identification. Even quite recently Benjamin Mazar has written flatly that “the tombs of David (1 Kings 2:10), Solomon (1 Kings 11:43) and several of their descendants were cut into bedrock in the City of David,” although he later qualifies this by saying that “there is nothing conclusive that can be said one way or the other about the tombs, which Weill identified as belonging to the royal cemetery. The question, at least for the present, must remain open” (The Mountain of the Lord [New York: Doubleday, 1975], pp. 183, 185). See also Benjamin Mazar, Qadmoniot 1 (1968), pp. 11–12 (in Hebrew).
The more prevalent attitude today, however, is reflected in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993), p. 712, s.v. “Jerusalem”: “Weill ascribed these tombs to the kings of Judah, and at the time his opinion was shared by other scholars. Today, however, it is no longer accepted, especially since no other evidence has been found to confirm that they belong to the Israelite period.” On the latter point, see below.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary (ABD), vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), p. 64, s.v. “David, City of,” takes a similar position: “Although many authors accepted Weill’s identification, scholarly consensus has rejected it on the grounds that no chronological evidence has been found linking these rock cuttings to the Iron Age. … Moreover, typologically, no such tomb plan is known from the Iron Age.” Both of these points are addressed below.
The ABD’s article on “Burials” discusses the tombs east of the City of David in Silwan and north in the École Biblique, and also notes that the Bible tells us that the early kings of Judah, including David and Solomon, were buried in the City of David, but does not even mention the existence of the tombs uncovered by Weill.

The ashes of the red heifer were used in a potion to purify those who had been defiled by contact with a corpse (Numbers 19; see also Leviticus 21:1–4, 11, 22:4–7; Numbers 5:2, 6:6–13, 9:6).

The Mishnah is explicit: Burial in towns surrounded by a wall is forbidden. Kelim 1.7. See Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim, vol. 2, (Jerusalem, 1938), p. 135, and vol. 3, (Jerusalem, 1939), pp. 190–191. In the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Temple Scroll, the prohibition is implicit, but unmistakable. See Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, (Jerusalem, 1983), vol. 2, col. 48, 11–14, p. 209; vol. 1, pp. 322–323. I am indebted to Professor Jacob Milgrom for these references.

Some kings of Israel were also buried in their respective capitals, for example, Baasha in Tirzah (1 Kings 16:6); Omri and Ahab in Samaria (1 Kings 16:28; 22:37). See also Shmuel Yeivin, “The Sepulchers of the Kings of the House of David,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 27, p. 30 (1948) (“Beginning at the latest with the thirteenth-twelfth century B.C.E. and at least down to the seventh-sixth century, it was the current custom in the whole East Mediterranean basin to bury the kings in their palaces, or in the near vicinity—at any rate, not only within the walls of their capitals, but apparently within the area of the inner citadels of such capital cities,” at p. 38).

According to the Bible, David “was buried in the City of David” (1 Kings 2:10); Solomon “was buried in the city of his father David” (1 Kings 11:43; 2 Chronicles 9:31); and Rehoboam “was buried with his fathers in the City of David” (1 Kings 14:31; 2 Chronicles 12:16). Likewise, Abijam/Abijah (1 Kings 15:8; 2 Chronicles 13:2–3), Asa (1 Kings 15:24; 2 Chronicles 16:14), Jehoshaphat (1 Kings 22:51; 2 Chronicles 21:1), Joram (2 Kings 8:24; the notice in 2 Chronicles states that, although Joram was buried in the City of David, it “was not in the tomb of the kings”), Ahaziah (2 Kings 9:28), Joash (2 Kings 13:1; as with Joram, although he was buried in the City of David, he “was not buried in the tombs of the kings” 2 Chronicles 24:25), Amaziah (2 Kings 14:20; in 2 Chronicles 25:28 in the Masoretic text, it says “City of Judah” instead of “City of David”; other witnesses have “City of David”; see, e.g., NRSV, REB, NJB), Azariah/Uzziah (2 Kings 15:7; in 2 Chronicles 26:23, it says “in the burial field of the kings”; some translations read beside or in the field adjoining, since Uzziah was a leper), Jotham (2 Kings 15:38; 2 Chronicles 27:9), Ahaz (2 Kings 16:20; cf. 2 Chronicles 28:27: Ahaz “was buried in the city, in Jerusalem; his body was not brought to the tombs of the kings of Israel”). In 2 Chronicles 32:33, Hezekiah is said to have been buried “on the upper part of the tombs of the sons of David.”
The burial of later kings is often noted, but is never located in the City of David.

See Shmuel Yeivin, “The Sepulchers of the Kings of the House of David,” p. 44.

These slots may be much later, however. Evidence of a combed instrument suggests they may be Byzantine, but this does not detract from the fact that the chamber was originally a tenth-century B.C.E. tomb.

See “The Tombs of Silwan,” BAR 20:03; Gabriel Barkay and Amos Kloner, “Jerusalem Tombs From the Days of the First Temple,” BAR 12:02; Gabriel Barkay, “The Divine Name Found in Jerusalem,” BAR 09:02.

David Ussishkin, The Village of Silwan (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1993), pp. 298–299.

10.

Ussishkin referred me to Pierre Montet, Byblos et l’Egypte (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1928). Tomb V of this royal cemetery contained the famous Ahiram sarcophagus. The grave goods in these tombs were extraordinary, both in quality and number. For the plan of Tomb V, see planche CXXV of the Atlas. For the quality of the masonry of these tombs, see, for example, the engraving on p. 19 of the text and planches XX, LXXVIII–LXXXVII of the Atlas. The extraordinary grave goods are shown on the plates that follow.

On Tanis, see Pierre Montet, Le Drame D’Avaris (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1941), especially p. 164, fig. 47 and planche I.

11.

Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jerusalem (New York: Praeger, 1974), p. 156. In her effort to discredit these tombs as the royal cemetery, Kenyon even doubted that the Bible really meant “in” when it referred to royal burials in the City of David: “I would even go so far as saying that I doubt that in Jerusalem means within the walls of the city, for burial within the walls of the town was completely contrary to semitic practice” (p. 32). That’s why she had to argue they were cisterns.

12.

Yigal Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David, I, Qedem 19 (1984), pp. 7–8.

13.

Loci W151 and W152 can be seen on figure 9, p. 47 of Shiloh, Excavations at the City of David. This wall can be fixed in a larger geographical context by identifying it on figure 3, p. 40, where T1, T2 and T3 are marked. East of T3, W151 and W152 can be seen in outline. A photograph of this city wall may be seen in plate 11:2.

14.

G.J. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem (Sydney, Australia: 1993), p. 43.