Who was King David? The ongoing dispute among archaeologists
A recent report by a major Israeli archaeologist asserting a significant Davidic kingdom that closely mirrors the Biblical narrative is being hotly disputed. The school of thought portraying David as, at most, a semi-mythical clan leader was once the dominant opinion but seems to be losing ground as more archaeologists believe the evidence shows an earlier timeline and a more substantial kingdom.
The Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology recently published a report outlining the backlash that resulted from an article published in May by Hebrew University Prof. Yosef Garfinkel titled “Early City Planning in the Kingdom of Judah: Khirbet Qeiyafa, Beth Shemesh 4, Tell en-Naṣbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara and Lachish V”. The study brought together previous research on five locations near Jerusalem and suggested that the Biblical account of an extensive kingdom under David was accurate, setting the timeline at least 200 years earlier than some researchers previously thought. The research made a compelling case for a 10th-century BCE Kingdom of David (and later, Solomon and his son Rehoboam), comprised of interconnected cities, displaying several parallel construction features, material culture, and a similar dating range.
Garfinkel’s interest began when he was excavating Khirbet Qeiyafa between 2007–2013. He discovered through carbon dating that the site had been in operation for only 20-30 years at the beginning of the 10th century BCE when biblical King David was believed to have ruled. He correlated this with previous findings from Beth Shemesh, Tell en-Nasbeh, and Khirbet ed-Dawwara. He identified a common material culture which included Judean-style casement walls
“What is a kingdom?” countered Garfinkel. “You need cities and roads and military power and economic power and writing.”
In the paper, Prof. Garfinkel reexamines previous studies of the five cities close to Jerusalem, all less than one day’s walk from the capital.
“The evidence was known before. It is not a matter of new discoveries,” Prof. Garfinkel said. “Someone was needed to come along and observe the complete picture that these findings portray. I am glad that I was able to fulfill that role.”
The excavations that formed the basis of these conclusions were conducted by Saar Ganor from the Israel Antiquities Authority and Professor Michal Hazel from Southern Adventist University in Tennessee.
“If you take all these sites, they have the same urban concept. They are all sitting on the border of the kingdom and sitting where you have a main road leading to the kingdom,” he said. “These cities aren’t located in the middle of nowhere. It’s a pattern of urbanism with the same urban concept.”
Until now, many archaeologists believed that this expansive period of the kingdom of Judah began in the 9th or 8th century BCE, 200 to 300 years after the supposed reign of King David, or even as late as the end of the 8th century BCE.
Garfinkel’s conclusions were remarkable and widely covered. In an interview with the Armstrong Institute’s Let the Stones Speak host Brent Nagtegaal, he was asked: “Do you feel like there is going to be pushback from some archaeologists?”
Garfinkel responded: “I’ve never worried about what other scholars might say.”
The critics jumped right in. An article in Haaretz stated that Garfinkel’s report “was greeted with reams of skepticism by many fellow archaeologists, who claim that his conclusions are based on assumptions and poorly interpreted data”. Haaretz cited several archaeologists, most notably Prof. Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa, who is considered the founder of the Biblical minimalist school of archaeology.
The “Biblical minimalist” school of archaeology maintains that the Bible cannot be considered reliable evidence for what happened in ancient Israel and that “Israel” itself is problematic for historical study. This school of thought maintains that David was a local Bedouin leader who ruled over a few thousand Bedouin shepherds in the vicinity of Jerusalem. The minimalists interpret the Tel Dan Stele in a different manner, believing it refers to a geographic location known as the “House of David.”
The minimalists propose a “Low Chronology” in which the period that archaeologists call Iron Age I in Judah and Israel was a period of agrarian communities organized in a tribal social organization (described in the biblical tradition as the period of the judges). The next period, Iron Age ii, was a period of urban society and centralized state organization (described in the biblical tradition as the period of the kings).
Prof. Finkelstein questioned Garfinkel’s dating of the sites, telling Haaretz, “I am not so sure that all the sites that he cites date to exactly the same phase in the 10th century BCE.”
He also doubted the conclusion that the fortified towns in Garfinkel’s study should be labeled as Judahite “as we have very little information about different identities in the Levant in the early Iron Age.”
In conclusion, Finkelstein dismissed the significance of Garfinkel’s report:
“Even if Garfinkel is correct, he does not change the overall picture significantly as he himself is not speaking about a Davidic empire,” Finkelstein notes. “He went on a crusade to show that there was a Davidic empire and ended up admitting that there may have been a Judahite limited territorial entity, meaning that he too has joined the critical camp on biblical history.”
But Prof. Garfinkel has also garnered many advocates. Dr. Scott Stripling, the Director of Excavations for the Associates for Biblical Research at Ancient Shiloh, agreed with Prof. Garfinkel’s conclusions.
“Professor Garfinkel has excavated extensively in Jerusalem and the Shephelah [coastal plain],” Dr. Stripling told Israel365 News. “He amassed data and attempted to observe sociological and anthropological patterns.”
“Instead of acknowledging Garfinkel’s contributions to understanding an important period in Israel’s history – the transition from Iron Age I to Iron Age II – some scholars seem panicked that they are losing control of the narrative. They flinch anytime colleagues review evidence for the existence of David’s kingdom.”
“There is significant evidence for a state and an extensive kingdom at the time of David,” Dr. Stripling told Israel365. “He lays out fortifications at a number of sites from that time. There is also ample evidence of means of production and centralized control.”
“In my view, Garfinkel got it right and reflects the view of most archaeologists,” Dr. Stripling added. “An increasing number of sites show evidence of settlement or resettlement in the Iron Age IIA, including Shiloh where I currently direct the excavations.”
The post Who was King David? The ongoing dispute among archaeologists appeared first on Israel365 News.
Israel in the News
