From her careful reading of the Biblical text, the Hebrew University’s Eilat Mazar thought she knew just where King David’s palace lay buried in the small, 12-acre site known as the City of David, so she decided to dig there. There is no doubt that when she did so, she uncovered walls of a very imposing structurea—and the place seemed right for David’s palace.b
The principal wall of the structure, which she calls the Large Stone Structure, was more than 8 feet wide and more than 90 feet long with a corner that extended for an additional 12 feet. But this wall and the wall stubs extending from it were archaeologically quite complex. The walls came from different time periods, they had been used and reused—and they were very difficult to date. There was some indication of date in the usual way, however—the date of the pottery within the walls.
According to the traditional dating, King David ruled in the tenth century B.C.E. And Mazar did find some pottery sherds from this period (Iron Age IIa), especially a small black-on-red juglet from Cyprus that dated to this period. This suggested that the major wall could be from King David’s time. The problem was that the surface on which this pottery was found could not be associated with or directly connected to the wall that Mazar wanted to date. It would be nice if it were, but it wasn’t. So the dating of the wall is not as airtight as it might be. Nevertheless, she thought this structure could be David’s palace.
Eilat Mazar has her critics, but even they recognize, as one of them put it, “She is a skilled and energetic archaeologist.”1 There is no question about her archaeological qualifications. The question is about her interpretation. And even her critics recognize that at least part of the wall may be from the tenth century.2
As I understand her, she never claims that she is sure she has found King David’s palace. But she reasons from the evidence (both hers, as well as others’) that it does seem quite likely that this is a wall of his palace.
The question I wish to raise is whether she is acting in an archaeologically responsible manner in speculating this way without absolute proof.
It seems to me she is.
Archaeologists do this all the time. Indeed, there is so little that is absolutely clear or certain about archaeological conclusions and inferences. Archaeologists are constantly reasoning from incomplete evidence. They have no other choice. And they are constantly changing their conclusions based on new evidence. This is as it should be.
But that is also why some of the most frequently appearing words in archaeological discussions are “maybe,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “likely” and other hedges on conclusions that may not be certain. These are the words that spell out “speculation.” Sometimes, the speculation becomes generally accepted (e.g., that the site of Izbet Sartah, excavated by Tel Aviv University’s Israel Finkelstein, is actually Biblical Ebenezer, where the Israelites mustered for their battle with the Philistines when the Ark was conquered [1 Samuel 4:1]).
One of Mazar’s harshest critics is Haifa University archaeologist Ronny Reich, who is digging in the City of David within a hundred yards of Mazar. He calls her speculation nothing but “wishful thinking.”3 Yet he himself is guilty of this very same kind of speculation regarding this very same wall—the one that Mazar has excavated. Based on what Reich has himself excavated, he has written that “I will not be surprised if it turns out that this building [of Mazar’s] actually dates to the Middle Bronze Age II [c. 15th century B.C.E.].”4 Reich is certainly entitled to his speculation, as long as he recognizes that he is doing the same thing Mazar is doing. Indeed, in the space of one page in his new book on the City of 064 David, Reich himself declares something “possible,” it “may have been,” and “I have the feeling.”5
Reich does it elsewhere in his new book as well. He notes a speculation by Raymond Weill, a French Jew who excavated here in the teens and twenties of the 20th century. Weill found some steps that he identified as steps referred to in the Biblical book of Nehemiah (3:15, 12:37). Reich admits that he has no idea how Weill came to this conclusion. However, Reich seems to agree with Weill because “this is the only flight of stairs known to descend from the high, cliff-like edges of the southern City of David to the Kidron streambed.”6 Would he allow this kind of reasoning to Eilat Mazar?
Across the road from Mazar’s excavation is another excavation, this one directed by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovetz of the Israel Antiquities Authority. They have uncovered a large, richly decorated structure with a ritual purification annex. The eastern wall of the structure is more than 45 feet long, preserved at places up to 16 feet high and 5 feet thick. “Without a doubt,” they say, “this was a large and important structure on the landscape of the Lower City in the years prior to the [Roman] destruction, almost certainly visible from a distance.”7 In the first century, Queen Helena of Adiabene (in modern Iraq) moved to Jerusalem with her entourage and converted to Judaism. According to the first-century historian Josephus, Helena built several large buildings including her palace in the Lower City, what today we call the City of David.8 Is the structure Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovetz have found Queen Helena’s palace?
While exercising “a measure of caution,” the excavators go on to say that “the linkage of one of the buildings in the Lower City [we have excavated] to the ruling House of Adiabene cannot easily be dismissed.”
Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovetz’s speculation that this might be Queen Helena’s palace has not raised the storm of criticism that Mazar’s speculation has concerning King David’s palace. But the cases do seem parallel. Why has Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovetz’s speculation not raised 065 the same level of criticism as Mazar’s? I cannot help but wonder if this is because Mazar’s speculation is about something Biblical, something that the public would be intensely interested in. But the fact is that Ben-Ami and Tchekhanovetz, too, have been criticized for their speculation.9 And they have been advised (pressured?) to rein it in. My guess is that you will not hear these relatively young archaeologists, who are directing their first major excavation, making this speculation again, especially not in English.
Should archaeologists speculate about their finds when they write for the general public? Do they do it only to get publicity for their finds? Or is it perfectly proper to speculate so long as the speculation is suitably qualified?
Since this archaeological speculation, such as it is, is directed at the general public (that is, BAR readers), perhaps they should have a say in the matter. Let us hear from you.
From her careful reading of the Biblical text, the Hebrew University’s Eilat Mazar thought she knew just where King David’s palace lay buried in the small, 12-acre site known as the City of David, so she decided to dig there. There is no doubt that when she did so, she uncovered walls of a very imposing structurea—and the place seemed right for David’s palace.b The principal wall of the structure, which she calls the Large Stone Structure, was more than 8 feet wide and more than 90 feet long with a corner that extended for an additional 12 feet. […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.
Ronny Reich, Excavating the City of David (Jerusalem and Washington, DC: Israel Exploration Society and the Biblical Archaeology Society, 2010), p. 265. See also Israel Finkelstein, Ze’ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz and David Ussishkin, “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” Tel Aviv 34 (2007), p. 142.
2.
As her strongest critics very carefully put it, “There are strong indications that some or all parts of the ‘Large Stone Structure’ may have been built later than the Iron IIA [the time of King David].” [Emphasis supplied] Finkelstein et al., “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem Been Found?” at p. 150. If “some” “may” be later, it seems to me they are implicitly admitting that “some” “may” be earlier. Indeed they admit that “With the absence of floors, and taking into consideration construction changes in the Roman and Byzantine periods and disturbances as a result of modern research, the walls of the ‘Large Stone Structure’ cannot be accurately dated.” Thus, they admit, they cannot prove Mazar wrong anymore than that she has failed to prove her case right (p. 154). Their article thus reflects nothing if not uncertainty: Certain elements “should possibly be dated.” Mazar’s interpretation is “open to alternative interpretations.” “It is difficult to establish whether Iron IIA pottery found there belongs to the original room.” The absence of some pottery “could have been” explained by X. Some of Mazar’s walls “indicate the possibility.” In short, the best they can say is not that Mazar is wrong but that she has not adequately proved her case.
3.
Reich, Excavating the City of David, p. 307.
4.
Reich, Excavating the City of David, p. 266.
5.
Reich, Excavating the City of David, p. 312.
6.
Reich, Excavating the City of David, p. 86.
7.
Doron Ben Ami and Yana Tcheckhanovetz, “A Domestic Dwelling from the End of the Second Temple Period and a Late Roman Peristyle Structure in the Givati Parking Lot, City of David,” Qadmoniot 43, no. 140 (2010), pp. 89–95 (Hebrew). Our thanks to Samuel Fishman for his translation from the Hebrew.
8.
Jewish War 5.253 (Loeb ed.).
9.
E.g., Reich, Excavating the City of David, p. 268.
