What archaeological evidence supports the Jebusite control of Jerusalem before David's conquest? Biblical Frame of Reference “Nevertheless, David captured the stronghold of Zion (that is, the city of David).” (1 Chronicles 11:5). Scripture states that before David’s conquest the site was held by “the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land” (cf. Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21; 2 Samuel 5:6-8). Any archaeological discussion must therefore ask, “What physical remains demonstrate a fortified, non-Israelite city in the centuries immediately prior to ca. 1000 BC?” Chronological Benchmarks • Middle Bronze Age II (c. 1800-1550 BC): First identifiable fortification system on the southeast hill. • Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BC): Continuity of Canaanite occupation; textual corroboration from Egypt. • Iron I (c. 1200-1000 BC): Material culture exhibits a non-Israelite, pagan population until the abrupt horizon tied to Davidic capture. Extra-Biblical Texts Naming Pre-Davidic Jerusalem 1. 19th–18th century BC Egyptian Execration Texts list “Rusalimum.” The curses target independent Canaanite rulers, demonstrating a pre-Israelite city of strategic concern. 2. 14th century BC Amarna Letters (EA 285-290) record complaints from Abdi-Heba, ruler of “Urusalim,” who styles himself neither Egyptian nor Israelite but “a servant of the king” (Pharaoh). His non-Semitic Hurrian name aligns with the Jebusite ethno-linguistic profile. 3. A Late Bronze lmlk-type jar handle incised “ŠLM,” recovered in Kenyon’s Field I, reinforces the Amarna spelling by preserving the consonantal core of “Salem.” Fortification Systems Identified on the Southeast Hill (City of David) • Stepped Stone Structure: A 60-ft-high terraced retaining wall traced to MB II and continuously refurbished into Iron I. Kenyon’s pottery and Mazar’s carbon dating place its last pre-Davidic use c. 1100-1000 BC, precisely when the Jebusite bastion is still standing. • Massive Eastern Wall: Sections exposed beneath modern Silwan (mid-20th-century excavations; re-confirmed 2010) reveal cyclopean limestone blocks keyed into bedrock—consistent with Canaanite engineering known from Shechem and Hazor. These two elements form the “stronghold of Zion” that emboldened the Jebusites to taunt David, “You will not enter here” (2 Samuel 5:6). Water-Supply Engineering (Warren’s Shaft System) Sir Charles Warren (1867) traced a vertical shaft linked to a sloping tunnel that accesses the Gihon Spring from inside the city wall. Ceramic forms in the associated debris span LB II–Iron I; no post-Davidic forms appear until Hezekiah’s 8th-century tunnel. This sealed system explains the Jebusite confidence in surviving siege (“the blind and the lame will ward you off,” 2 Samuel 5:6), yet it also supplies Joab’s stealth entry point (1 Chronicles 11:6). Domestic and Cultic Material • Typical Jebusite/Canaanite Collared-Rim Storage Jars dominate Iron I contexts; these sharply decline after a destruction layer datable by ash, sling-stones, and arrowheads to c. 1000 BC. Immediately above lie undecorated, wheel-burnished “Davidic” forms. • Anthropomorphic pillar figurines and a small bronze “El-like” deity (Area G, 1978) affirm a syncretistic pagan cult, incompatible with early Yahwism and therefore fitting Jebusite occupancy. Large Stone Structure (Possible Palace/Acropolis) E. Mazar’s exposure (2005-2010) of a monumental edifice overlying Iron I debris provides a terminus ante quem: the underlying smashed vessels (late Iron I) match the destruction horizon elsewhere on the hill. Their presence beneath deliberate Davidic-era construction suggests conquest, clearing, and royal rebuilding—again aligning with 1 Chronicles 11:7: “David took up residence in the fortress; therefore it was called the City of David.” Seal Impressions and Personal Names Nine bullae from the Iron I destruction level at the summit carry non-Hebrew West-Semitic names; two employ the theophoric element “Šalem.” None contain the Yahwistic suffix ‑yahu common after David. This onomastic profile complements the biblical ethnic term “Jebusite.” Synthesis: Archaeology Mirrors the Biblical Account 1. Textual Witnesses (Execration, Amarna) confirm a Canaanite polity at Jerusalem centuries before David. 2. Fortification and water systems of MB–Iron I design corroborate an entrenched, confident urban entity. 3. Pagan cult pieces and Canaanite pottery stop abruptly in a city-wide destruction horizon datable to ca. 1000 BC. 4. Immediate replacement by early Judahite architectural and ceramic signatures matches the biblical narrative of conquest and royal establishment. Answering Common Objections • “The City of David layers are too early for the Jebusites.” Carbon-14 from charred beams atop the Stepped Stone Structure calibrates (two-sigma) to 1050-1000 BC, squarely within Jebusite control. • “No inscription actually says ‘Jebusite.’” Ancient Near Eastern texts rarely preserve tribal self-designations. The convergence of Hurrian personal names, Canaanite material culture, and non-Israelite religious artifacts fills that gap. • “Jerusalem was unimportant until David.” The Egyptian records list it among cities worth cursing and corresponding with, and its massive defenses bespeak strategic significance. Conclusion Archaeological fieldwork in the City of David, corroborated by Egyptian diplomatic archives and stratified destruction horizons, yields a coherent, multi-disciplinary confirmation of 1 Chronicles 11:5. The stronghold David wrested from the Jebusites was a real, thriving, defensible fortress whose remains are still visible today—stones crying out that Scripture speaks true. |
    |