Folia Theologica 16. (2005)

Solomon Pasala: Archaeological Evidences for Solomonic period

140

S. PASALA

of archaeological data, moreover, this conclusion may stand in contrast to the traditional view which claimed that the emergence of the monarchy in Israel brought with it a significant change in may aspects of the material culture47.The wholesale lowering of tenth century BC strata to the ninth century BC in the opinion of Mazar, appears to be impossible in the light of the dense stratigraphy at several sites, particularly at Hazor. A radical change of that order needs to be based on meticulous typological and quantitative studies of relevant pottery assemblages and on more accurate 14C dates in the future. As long as these are not available, Finkelstein's conclusions concerning the archaeological background of the United Monarchy are premature and unacceptable for A. Mazar48.

4. Evaluation and conclusion

There seems to be a certain amount of realism in the biblical accounts because they narrate not only positive elements but also negative. In such a case, we do not think it is right on our part to label the whole narrative as "Pro-David Deuteronomists". Although parts of biblical tradition make Solomon the wisest man who ever lived, it also recounts his unwise oppression of his own people that led to the breakup of Israel into two small kingdoms more-or-less equal to the others around them. This new weakness probably opened the door to Pharaoh Shishank's invasion of the southern Levant around 925 BC49.

In the second part we have seen two things: the facts (as excavated) and the interpretation of the facts. The facts remain the same but the interpretations are constantly changing, basing on new excavations or even the better understanding of the facts themselves, in light of new techniques in excavation. This means that archaeology has not yet become a sure science to ascertain the facts. However, this does not mean that archaeology cannot contribute anything. It has made positive contributions towards the better understanding of the United Monarchy.

The very mentioning of the "House of David" in two non-Israelite, ninth century BC inscriptions (an Aramaic one form

47 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 164.

48 A. MAZAR. «Iron Age Chronology», 164-165.

49 L.G. HERR, «The Iron Age II Period. Iron IIA», in BA 60:3(1997) 121.