On the topic of locating the royal house of the Bible’s King David, a somewhat controversial issue in the world of archeology has been whether Eilat Mazar actually found the remains of his palace and thus, its location. On the one hand, critics of Mazar, including Avraham Faust, argue that Mazar did not discover the palace that King David actually built. From this perspective, the findings from Mazar’s excavation indicate a construction date before King David’s time. Alternatively, however, Mazar claims that it was indeed the palace that King David built that she found. In her words, she could “be silent about the palace theory … [and] let the stones speak for themselves” [Mazar, 2]. According to her view, not only do the stones, and other evidence from her excavation, date to the time of King David, but they also fit well into the Biblical narrative of the purpose the structure had. Altogether, the main issue both parties are arguing is whether or not the findings of archeologist Eilat Mazar were adequate evidence to confidently pinpoint King David’s palace. This issue is important because it addresses the role of archeology and its relationship with the Bible.

At the base of Mazar’s argument is the notion that the …show more content…
From this perspective, The “Large Stone Structure” certainly could not be the palace that David built as evidence shows that it is dated to a time, according to the Bible, before David even conquered the city. This leads to the claim (which has more archeological evidence) that perhaps the site was not built by David, but rather was simply expanded by him. Mazar’s interpretation of the Iron Age I pottery is that it is badly worn and must come from the end of that