Although a few bibliobloggers have noted it (including Jim Davila and Tyler Williams), there has been very little discussion of the announcement by Eilat Mazar that she has found a section of a wall from the first temple.  The story has been reported in the Jerusalem Post.  Mazar first announced parts of this find in 2005, when she claimed to have found King David’s palace.

Obviously,  I would like to read a much more detailed report than what was contained in the Jerusalem Post article, but I thought I would make some preliminary comments here.  First, the wall she describes is not a small wall.  They have already uncovered 20 meters worth of the wall, and the wall itself is 7 meters across.  That is a pretty good sized wall.  It seems to me to be more on the scale of a city wall than a building, but again I am not familiar with the details of the find.  It certainly seems possible that it could be a monumental building.

Second, the interpretation of this find will be interesting.  What other evidence do they have for the use of this building?  I am assuming they are going on something other than size to determine that it is a palace or a temple.  What associated objects are being found with it?  Keep in mind that it is a rule in archaeology that finding a floor is more important than finding a wall.  People live on floors.  Flies live on walls.  If you want to know the date(s) and function(s) of a building, finding the floor is much more important — and more difficult.

Third, I am sure the dating of this will be debated for quite a while.  Being able to solidly date something to the time of King David would be huge.  But for most things in this period we can usually only date them within a wide range.  Barring the ability to associate a stratum with a known event, such as a destruction of the city, it is very difficulty to assign something with enough specificity to say that it came from David or Solomon or Reheboam.  Such specificity comes in only when we have a well established series of strata, and it does not seem that Mazar’s dig is wide-spread enough to find this.  It may be that the best we can do is give a century.  But of course, you get more press coverage by saying you have found a building associated with King David than you do by saying you have found one from c.10th-9th centuries BCE.

I can’t wait to read more details.  If it is from the 10th century, it will have important impact on current historical debates.  It is way too early, however, to begin drawing conclusions about the implications of this find for historians.

Permalink