August 2020<\/p>\n
The academic debate over the dating and function of the LSS is central in the discussion of the size and influence of Jerusalem in ancient times, particularly during the Iron Age IIA (10th century<\/p>\n
BCE), which according to biblical chronology is the period when King David established his kingdom in Jerusalem. A minority of scholars date the remains of the LSS to the 10th century BCE and associate the structure with King David\u2019s palace. They present this interpretation as proof of the accuracy of the biblical account that during the 10th century BCE Jerusalem served as the capital of a powerful kingdom which stretched from the Euphrates in the north to Ezion Gaver (near present-day Eilat) in the south. The majority of archaeologists, however, identify the structure with either earlier or later periods. They claim that during the 10th century BCE Jerusalem was no more than a small mountain chiefdom.<\/p>\n
The intersection of politics and archaeology in one of the most symbolically charged and politically sensitive places in the world means that even what normally could be considered as a purely academic debate is suffused with meaning and implications that resonate way beyond academic journals.<\/p>\n
The Elad Foundation, a private settlers organization, which operates and curates the City of David, conceals or at best underplays the debate about the LSS. As a result, most visitors to the City of David leave the site without being made aware that most researchers dispute the dating of the structure to the 10th Century BCE or its identification with King David.<\/p>\n
In the following we will outline the various interpretive positions on the LSS. In the conclusion we would also like to suggest an alternative approach to curating the site.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/1.jpg\")
<\/a>A section of the Large Stone Structure at the City of David archaeological park in Silwan<\/p><\/div>\n
Archaeological Excavations of the Large Stone Structure<\/h2>\n
The Large Stone Structure (LSS) is located toward the upper section of the Ophel ridge, approximately 100 meters south of the Temple Mount compound (number 2 on the map below). Today it is situated under the City of David visitors\u2019 center. The area of excavation is located west of what is known as the Stepped Stone Structure1 (SSS), which is built on the eastern slope of the Ophel (number 3 on the map).<\/p>\n
The LSS was initially excavated by the British duo, Robert Macalister and John Duncan in 19232 who interpreted the structure as the remains of a Jebusite fortress that David had captured when he took Jerusalem. In 2005, archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar sought to examine this claim. In two articles published approximately two decades prior3, she had speculated that the structure was the palace built by David\u2019s Phoenician allies in his honor following his conquest of Jerusalem. During an excavation funded by the Elad Foundation that Mazar led from 2006-2007 for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, she found what she claimed was evidence to support this assumption.4 However, senior archaeologists who study ancient Jerusalem contested this interpretation of the Large Stone Structure. The following details central elements of Mazar\u2019s claims and the main points made by scholars who have disputed her interpretation.<\/p>\n
Interpretations of the Large Stone Structure at the City of David: King David\u2019s Palace, a Canaanite Fortress, or a Complex of Walls from different periods?<\/p>\n
Identification of the structure as King David\u2019s Palace<\/h2>\n
Eilat Mazar suggested that the LSS and Stepped Stone Structure (SSS) formed part of the same complex of fortifications and construction of enormous magnitude. This speculation is based on several factors. First, Mazar attributed the ceramics discovered in loci she interpreted to be part of complexes sealed by the LSS to the Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE) – the period in which the city was under Jebusite rule. The decision to build the LSS on top of these loci indicates, in her view, that the construction of the palace was an important aspect of the changes in the organization of the city.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Moreover, in Mazar\u2019s opinion, the ceramic evidence found in sealed complexes within the structure itself dates its construction to the end of the Iron Age I in 1000 BCE, when David conquered Jerusalem per Mazar\u2019s claim. Due to the size of the structure and the ceramic findings that included many luxury items, Mazar concluded that this structure served as an important public building, namely a temple or king\u2019s palace. But since it is implausible for a temple of such magnitude to be built alongside the Temple Mount, Mazar concluded that this structure must have been the king\u2019s palace.5 Furthermore, she claimed that the Large Stone Structure was built outside the boundary of the wall that surrounded Jerusalem before this period. Therefore, according to Mazar, the LSS indicates the extensive development processes that took place in Jerusalem following its conquest by David.6<\/p>\n
As noted, Mazar\u2019s position was highly criticized by senior scholars of ancient Jerusalem. The following details the central points of their criticism:<\/p>\n
The Jebusite fortress theory<\/h2>\n
Initial criticism was put forth by Prof. Amihai Mazar, a researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Avraham Faust of Bar Ilan University. A. Mazar and Faust accepted the assumption that the LSS and the SSS constitute one structure yet rejected Eilat Mazar\u2019s claim that it dates back to the end of the Iron Age I and to the period of King David\u2019s reign. They claim that the rich ceramic findings in the LSS that date back to the Iron Age I, indicate that the structure could not have been built at the end of the Iron Age I. In that light, the building may not be regarded as part of a construction enterprise that took place in Jerusalem following David\u2019s conquest of the city. Instead, they claimed that Macalister and Duncan\u2019s initial conjecture that the structure constituted part of Jerusalem\u2019s Jebusite fortification system, was correct.7<\/p>\n
Rejection of the theory that the LSS is one Structure<\/h2>\n
Further criticism of Mazar\u2019s theory was presented by Prof. Israel Finkelstein, Prof. David Ussishkin, Prof. Ze\u2019ev Herzog, and Lily Singer-Avitz, of Tel Aviv University. They claimed that the exposed walls of the Large Stone Structure were poorly preserved, and that their reconstruction as part of one structure is unfounded based on such facts on the ground. Moreover, the researchers claimed that many of the loci that Eilat Mazar alleged were sealed, and thus could be deemed accurately dated areas, were in fact damaged by later construction and therefore may not be considered reliable sources for accurate dating. Furthermore, the team of researchers found evidence that the Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure were not built as one complex, but rather constitute layers of fortifications built and rebuilt over the course of several hundred years, at least from the Iron Age I (1200-1000 BCE) up to the Hellenistic period (332-63 BCE).<\/p>\n
Criticism by City of David\u2019s excavators<\/h2>\n
Two of the City of David\u2019s excavators in recent decades, Prof. Ronny Reich of Haifa University, and Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities Authority, both claimed that Eilat Mazar\u2019s dating is inaccurate and viewed her opinion that the LSS had changed the character of the city as incorrect.8 Reich and Shukron base their claims on the unearthing of walls in various sections of the City of David archaeological park which indicate the city developed substantially only in the 8th century BCE.9<\/p>\n
Presentation of the Site to the public<\/h2>\n
As we have seen, there are multiple views regarding the date of the construction of the LSS and its use. Yet, the visitor\u2019s guide distributed at the site and the sign hung over the LSS barely mention the debate and highlight only Eilat Mazar\u2019s interpretation of the structure as King David\u2019s palace. The text of the sign pays lip service in the form of a question mark after the headline \u201cKing David\u2019s Palace?\u201d and the sentence \u201cother scholars contest this view\u201d (see picture below). Yet none of the alternative interpretations for the LSS are provided.<\/p>\n
The lack of information regarding the scholarly debate over the LSS is even more evident in the site\u2019s informational leaflet. The leaflet contains no mention whatsoever of the criticism by scholars of Mazar\u2019s conclusions. Instead, Mazar\u2019s interpretation is mentioned as the only explanation for the Large Stone Structure\u2019s identification and date of construction (see photo of sign and section of leaflet dealing with the LSS below).<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/2.jpg\")
<\/a>The informational sign alongside the Large Stone Structure<\/p><\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/3-861x1024.png\"){kind=spacer}
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/emekshaveh.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/4.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n