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.