A Great United Monarchy? Archaeological and Historical Perspectives

Abstract

Twelve years have passed since I first presented-to the German Institute in Jerusalem-my ideas on the chronology of the Iron Age strata in the Levant and how it impacts on our understanding of the biblical narrative on the United Monarchy of ancient Israel. 1 I was naïve enough then to believe that the logic of my 'correction' was straightforward and clear. Twelve years and many articles and public debates later, however, the notion of Davidic conquests, Solomonic building projects, and a glamorous United Monarchy-all based on an uncritical reading of the biblical text and in contradiction of archaeological findsis still alive in certain quarters. This paper presents my updated views on this matter, and tackles several recent claims that archaeology has now proven the historicity of the biblical account of the great kingdom of David and Solomon.

On the Constitution and Transformation ofPhilistine Identity

“…In this study we do not intend to broach the topic of the existence, or lack thereof, of the so‐called ‘United (Judahite) Monarchy’ during the early Iron Age IIA, nor the date, process, character and/or extent of the influence of the early Israelite state (see, e.g., Faust 2003; 2007; Finkelstein 2005; 2010; Finkelstein and Silberman ; Garfinkel et al . ; Mazar ).…”

Debating the United Monarchy: Let's See How Far We've Come

“…Moreover, the earlier part of the Iron Age in the Levant lacks examples of the kind of monumental royal inscriptions familiar from other kingdoms of the ancient Near East, such as Assyria. For Finkelstein, this lack of evidence for the use of writing in the 10 th century Bce is an indictment of the idea of a historical United Monarchy, for as he sees it, the scribal activity that such a state would necessitate is lacking in the archaeological record (Finkelstein 2010). Amihai Mazar's primary counter to this regards one serious problem with our present state of evidence: the lack of surviving papyrus.…”

“…This does not mean that he rejects absolutely any possibility of even some genuine historical memory surviving from the time of the United Monarchy. For example, he notes that the prominent role of the Philistine city of Gath in the narratives concerning David are unlikely to have been a concoction of an author writing as late as the 7 th century Bce given that Gath was destroyed by king Hazael of Damascus in the late 9 th century and barely resettled thereafter (Finkelstein 2007a). But his statement that the idea of a royal archive of texts from the time of Solomon is nothing more than a "mirage" (Finkelstein 2010: 5) clearly demonstrates his position as far as actual first-hand written sources are concerned, for the biblical description of the United Monarchy.…”

Israelite and Judahite History in Contemporary Theoretical Approaches

“…At present, the latest iteration of Finkelstein’s ‘Low Chronology’ suggests that there was no united monarchy, that the crucial Iron IIA period did not begin until around 920 bce, with a second and larger phase beginning already in the early ninth century, and that the urban foundations associated with David and Solomon were instead built by the Omrides (Finkelstein 2013: 7-8; 2010). Mazar acknowledges much of the same evidence, with slightly earlier radiocarbon dates, but his ‘Modified Conventional Chronology’ nevertheless argues for various reasons that the Iron IIA began around 980 bce, and that the united monarchy was ‘a state in an early stage of evolution, far from the rich and widely expanding state portrayed in the biblical narrative’, but nevertheless a puissant regional force (Mazar and Finkelstein 2007: 122; Mazar 2010: 52).…”