There is a new report about recent excavations on the summit of the City of David. Led by Hebrew U. professor Eilat Mazar, excavations are underway in the area above “Area G” and the Stepped-Stone Structure. Scholars have long theorized that this massive stone structure supported David’s palace, and now Mazar has a chance to determine if there is any evidence for that. Earlier this summer, I heard whispers around town that she had found something, and the secrecy with which the dig could certainly fuel rumors (a fence was built to block any viewing of the excavations and if you tried to look in through the gate as someone passed in or out, you were told to leave).
What Mazar is claiming to have found is
the partial foundations of a sizable public building, constructed in the Phoenician style, dating from the 10th to 9th centuries B.C., the time of the united kingdom of David and Solomon.
That it dates to this time period does not prove that it is David’s palace. In fact, it might argue against it, as it seems that David’s palace was one that he took over from the Jebusites, the so-called “Fortress of Zion,” which must have been built in the 11th century, if not earlier. But the Stepped-Stone Structure was built before the 10th century, and it obviously supported something massive. It would seem, then, that either there is another building below the 10th-9th century one currently being excavated, or that the dating of one structure or the other is in error. Certainly it is too premature to go very far in this discussion, but it is fascinating to consider the possibility that important finds could be made in these excavations.
Not really related to the above building, but also found in these same excavations, is the discovery of the seal of Jehucal son of Shelemiah son of Nubi, mentioned in Jeremiah 37:3 and 38:1. Two other seals mentioning biblical personages were found in Shiloh’s excavations just down the slope in the early 1980s. For more on this, see Paleojudaica entry with updates. Here is a translation of the Hebrew article in Maariv with more (new) info on the Pool of Siloam.
Would it be correct to say that Ernest Martin would assert that this new find could be a part of Solomon’s Temple?
That’s right. As you know doubt know (but not everyone else who reads this), it’s also true that no scholar agrees with Martin’s theory.