Iron Age Jerusalem: temple-palace, capital city.

• Author: Uziel, Joe

INTRODUCTION

The debate over the status of Jerusalem of the United Monarchy has been of major interest to many scholars. (1) Many of these studies focus on the presence or absence of archaeological finds. According to some, during the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E., the city was only a small settlement. (2) Others read the finds, limited as they are, as indicative of the presence of a large capital. (3) A third opinion explains the lack of finds in Jerusalem through anthropological or ethno-archaeological justification, claiming that a site that is designated as a capital may be unsettled, (4) while a fourth opinion claims that there was only a rural settlement in Jerusalem during that period. (5) There is a general assumption that the portrayal of Jerusalem in the Biblical record is an attempt by a late editor to assign early importance to the capital city that arose only later. (6)

In this paper we will suggest another reconstruction of the city's history during the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.E. We will propose that Jerusalem indeed served as the capital city of the United Monarchy and later of Judah, without necessarily leaving impressive archaeological remains. It will be shown that this explanation is in complete accordance with the Biblical record. Some scholars have already referred to Jerusalem in the early stages as an ideological/royal center, only later becoming the true capital of a state in the eighth century B.C.E. (see references above in n. 1). We suggest that already in the days of the United Monarchy, Jerusalem served as the capital of the state. As a capital, its sole function was as a royal-cultic center, purposely separated from a large population of residents, with the specific intention of strengthening the status of the monarchy. The need to view capital cities as solely large (residential) cities is a reflection of modern thought and not of the Biblical record, which makes no mention of residential and related construction for non-royal populations in the capital.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

Few architectural remains in Jerusalem have been unequivocally dated to the period of the United Monarchy. It is widely agreed that the stepped stone structure, discovered by Kenyon and Shiloh, (7) served as the base for a larger superstructure, and is of monumental proportions. The dating of this structure has been debated, with various portions of the structure being dated to different periods by various scholars. (8) Other than the stepped stone structure, several other meager architectural elements have been found in the City of David, (9) including traces of a larger building recently discovered by E. Mazar, which she interprets as a palace dating to the tenth century. (10) In addition to architecture, small finds--particularly pottery--dating to the tenth century (according to the high chronology) have been found scattered in various areas of the excavations. (11) While the pottery is useful in determining the presence of human activity at the site, it cannot attest to the size or importance of the city during this time. (12)

THE DEBATE OVER THE STATUS OF JERUSALEM

Based on the textual evidence, along with the limited archaeological finds mentioned above, and in conjunction with the fact that the site is one of the most heavily excavated in the world, scholars have suggested multiple interpretations of Jerusalem's status from the time of the United Monarchy until the days of Hezekiah. The "half-full" approach proposed by A. Mazar contends that Jerusalem served as the center of the United Monarchy, even though it was not necessarily a large city. According to this view, in David's time the city was located on the hill above the Gihon spring, and only later, during the Solomonic era, did it expand northward to include the Temple mount. (13) The "half-empty" approach stresses the lack of archaeological remains and bureaucratic finds related to administrative/bureaucratic activity, while questioning the historicity of the Biblical narrative, claiming that Jerusalem was at best a very small site but certainly not an administrative center. (14) The "minimalist" approach takes this one step further, claiming that the United Monarchy and the Judean state until the eighth century (and to a certain extent even beyond) was a figment of the late Biblical composer's imagination. (15)

Several anthropological and ethnoarchaeological approaches have been used in order better to understand the status of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah from its establishment through the eighth century B.C.E. One approach sees Jerusalem as the seat of a chiefdom (Judah), making Jerusalem a small provincial town that served as its center. (16) Jamieson-Drake proposed that the absence of larger settlements in the area, along with the lack of settlement hierarchy and script and bureaucratic evidence, all point to a system of state-level politics. Faust compared Jerusalem to other empires, such as those of the Mongols and the Zulu, in which a capital city was either not established at all or only a small capital existed, the empire being comprised mostly of empty space. (17) A different point of view emphasizes the formation of the Judean state from its border towns inward. While the evidence from Jerusalem is limited, the appearance of various cities along the western frontier indicates that a central Judean government did exist, with its capital in Jerusalem. (18)

Finally, a more historically oriented approach was taken by Na'aman, who compared Jerusalem of the tenth century to that of the fourteenth century B.C.E. (19) In the fourteenth century Jerusalem was a highland stronghold which dominated a pastoral population in the hill country and Shephelah. Yet in Jerusalem, there is almost no archaeological evidence dating to the fourteenth century. This is to be explained by the destruction or obliteration of the earlier remains by later building activity and by the fact that the city of this period is located in areas that have not yet been excavated. This led Na'aman to conclude that Jerusalem of the tenth century was originally the center of a kingdom made up of pastoral settlements in the Hill Country and only later expanded to the Shephelah, just as fourteenth-century Jerusalem had been the center of a state in the same region.

THE RELIABILITY OF THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT

Given the lack of archaeological evidence and extra-Biblical records, the Hebrew Bible serves as the major source for the reconstruction of the history of the United Monarchy, despite its religious agenda. In order to use such a source, caution must be exercised, yet we believe that this source should not be dismissed as unreliable. (20) There is little doubt that the Hebrew Bible was edited at a later stage, with the purpose of serving a religious agenda, but as others have pointed out, the Hebrew Bible includes earlier traditions and allusions to historical events that took place well before the text was composed and edited. (21) Several examples can be mentioned: Shishak's campaign in the late tenth century B.C.E., (22) the narratives relating to the role of the city of Gath as a major Philistine center, (23) and the destruction of Gath by Haza's el king of Aram in the late ninth/early eighth century B.C.E., a fact mentioned by the Hebrew Bible (2 Kings 12:17) and supported by the archaeological excavations at the site. (24) Na'aman argues that administrative writing was used during the tenth century in Jerusalem, yet he views reports of Solomon's feats of building as unrealistic, being rather an attempt of the Deuteronomistic editor to compare Solomon to the great kings of his own time, although possibly based on ancient sources. (25) Yet even if the Biblical accounts of David's conquests or Solomon's building activities are exaggerated, there is no evidence that they were completely fabricated. Furthermore, from the examples given above, there is good reason to assume that a historical core (some of which dates to the tenth century) underlies certain passages in the Biblical account. (26) Below we undertake a review of the Biblical sources dealing with Jerusalem. As shall be seen, none of these references present Jerusalem as a large residential capital city.

CHOOSING JERUSALEM

According to Judges 1:8, the tribe of Judah conquered Jerusalem, yet...