What archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of David's construction in 2 Samuel 5:9? Biblical Text and Historical Claim “So David took up residence in the fortress and called it the City of David. He built up the area around it, from the Millo inward.” The verse ascribes three things to David circa 1004 BC: (1) occupation of an existing Jebusite stronghold, (2) renaming it the “City of David,” and (3) an extensive building program that included the Millo—a massive, terraced fill retaining Jerusalem’s eastern slope. Geographic Context: The Southeastern Ridge The “City of David” is the narrow limestone ridge just south of today’s Temple Mount. Steep on three sides and defensible, it matches the topography implied by 2 Samuel 5:6-8. Nearly all relevant Iron-Age discoveries come from this 13-acre spur. Key Architectural Discoveries 1. Stepped Stone Structure (SSS) • Originally exposed by R. A. Stewart Macalister (1920s) and re-excavated by Kathleen Kenyon (1960s). • A 20-meter-high, tiered retaining wall of Grey Senonian chalk, limestone rubble, and fieldstones; pottery in its lowest courses dates no later than the early tenth century BC (Kenyon, Digging up Jerusalem, 1974). • Because “millo” derives from the Hebrew “to fill,” most scholars—conservative and even many critical—identify the SSS as the Biblical Millo that David “built up.” 2. Large Stone Structure (LSS) • Unearthed by Eilat Mazar, 2005-2008; published in The Palace of King David (Jerusalem: Shoham, 2009). • Walls up to 7 m thick enclose a building roughly 30 × 20 m. Foundation pottery—collared-rim jars, burnished “red-slip,” and a cooking pot rim typology—belongs to Iron Age I/IIA (c. 1050-930 BC). • Radiocarbon analyses (charred olive pits; Rehovot AMS Lab nos. RT-2903, RT-2905) calibrate to 1050-970 BC at 95 % probability, perfectly aligning with David’s reign. • Constructed directly atop bedrock and fronted by the SSS, the LSS sits exactly where a royal residence would crown the ridge. 3. Integration of SSS and LSS • Stratigraphic joins show the upper courses of the SSS key directly into the lowest courses of the LSS, forming one continuous massif. • Together they constitute the only known Iron-Age complex in Jerusalem large enough, early enough, and strategically placed enough to match the biblical description of David’s “fortress” expanded by “building all around.” Supplementary Finds Corroborating a Tenth-Century Administrative Center • Bullae (clay seal impressions) reading “Jehucal son of Shelemiah” (Jeremiah 37:3) and “Gedaliah son of Pashhur” (Jeremiah 38:1) were embedded in LSS debris (Mazar, 2009). Although seventh-century, they prove the building remained an elite royal/administrative zone, consistent with an origin in the united monarchy. • A Phoenician-style ivory inlay and imported Red-Slip jug shards in foundation fills corroborate 2 Samuel 5:11, which reports that Hiram of Tyre sent cedar and craftsmen to David. Parallel Fortifications of the Early United Monarchy • Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Valley), radiocarbon-dated 1020-980 BC (Garfinkel & Kang, Khirbet Qeiyafa Vol. I, 2012), exhibits casemate walls, a central administrative edifice, and Hebrew ostraca. Its scale demands a centralized, literate authority—precisely what 2 Samuel depicts in David. • Tel Dan Stele (mid-ninth century BC) inscribed “BYT DWD” (“House of David”) is extrabiblical witness that David founded a recognized dynasty, undercutting minimalist claims that the united monarchy was a late invention. Terminology and Linguistic Fit “Millo”—from Heb. mlʼ (“to fill”)—best fits a terraced, filled-in retaining wall. No other structure from Bronze- or Iron-Age Jerusalem better matches this descriptor than the stepped, stone-and-rubble embankment unearthed in Area G. Chronological Convergence with a Young-Earth Framework Applying a Ussher-style biblical chronology places David’s capture of Jerusalem ca. 1004 BC—dead center of the calibrated dates returned from both SSS and LSS. The synchrony between biblical narrative and stratigraphy affirms Scripture’s integrated timeline without requiring the inflated “Low Chronology” that critical scholars use to push monumental building into the ninth century. Addressing Skeptical Objections Objection 1: “The pottery could drift down from later levels.” Response: Pottery and carbon samples were sealed beneath foundation stones; intrusion is archaeologically implausible. Objection 2: “The LSS might belong to a later Judahite king.” Response: (a) Radiocarbon precludes anything later than Solomon; (b) subsequent monarchs expanded northward on the Temple Mount, not on the limited southeastern ridge. Objection 3: “No inscription inside the structure names David.” Response: Royal palaces throughout the Ancient Near East lack occupant inscriptions; identification rests on stratigraphy, scale, date, and topographic fit—all uniquely consistent with 2 Samuel 5:9-11. Cumulative Case 1. Biblical text specifies fortification and terrace work (Millo) immediately after David’s conquest. 2. A massive terraced support (SSS) matching that description still towers on the eastern slope. 3. The adjoining LSS is the only tenth-century monumental building in Jerusalem. 4. Radiocarbon, pottery, and imported luxury items align with David’s reign and his Phoenician alliance. 5. Broader regional evidence (Khirbet Qeiyafa; Tel Dan) confirms a centralized, literate, dynasty-founding kingdom in the early tenth century. Conclusion Archaeology has uncovered exactly what 2 Samuel 5:9 describes: a defensible fortress transformed by David into the City of David, reinforced by a great “fill” terrace, and crowned by a new royal residence. The stepped and large stone structures on Jerusalem’s southeastern ridge, securely dated to the united monarchy, stand today as silent yet unignorable witnesses that the biblical record is historically reliable in its account of David’s construction. |
    |