Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Solomon" in Romanian language version.
For conservative approaches defining the United Monarchy as a state “from Dan to Beer Sheba” including “conquered kingdoms” (Ammon, Moab, Edom) and “spheres of influence” in Geshur and Hamath cf. e.g. Ahlström (1993), 455–542; Meyers (1998); Lemaire (1999); Masters (2001); Stager (2003); Rainey (2006), 159–168; Kitchen (1997); Millard (1997; 2008). For a total denial of the historicity of the United Monarchy cf. e.g. Davies (1992), 67–68; others suggested a ‘chiefdom’ comprising a small region around Jerusalem, cf. Knauf (1997), 81–85; Niemann (1997), 252–299 and Finkelstein (1999). For a ‘middle of the road’ approach suggesting a United Monarchy of larger territorial scope though smaller than the biblical description cf.e.g. Miller (1997); Halpern (2001), 229–262; Liverani (2005), 92–101. The latter re-cently suggested a state comprising the territories of Judah and Ephraim during thetime of David, that was subsequently enlarged to include areas of northern Samaria and influence areas in the Galilee and Transjordan. Na’aman (1992; 1996) once accepted the basic biography of David as authentic and later rejected the United Monarchy as a state, cf. id. (2007), 401–402.
|title= (ajutor)My position, to put it mildly, had not received sweeping support from the archaeological community. Indeed, quite the opposite was the case;
Archaeologically and historically, the redating of these cities from Solomon's era to the time of Omrides has enormous implication. It removes the only archeological evidence that there was ever a united monarchy based in Jerusalem and suggests that David and Solomon were, in political terms, little more than hill country chieftains, whose administrative reach remained on a fairy local level, restricted to the hill country.
Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan.
As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of “united monarchy” is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. [...] Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit comprised of Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called “Israel.”
Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. [...] In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the “House of David” in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. [...] Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.
We can look only to the biblical witness to tell us what may have happened in Israel and Judah in the tenth century. That must be done carefully and critically. What we have before us are neither the products of pure fantasy nor absolutely reliable historical accounts, but something in between. The biblical authors were certainly interested in history, but they were not subject to the (modern) ideal of historical objectivity. In what follows, we will apply this premise to the various biblical books that give an account of the early royal period.
New data from archaeological surveys, excavations, and, sadly, from looted artifacts purchased on the antiquities market have advanced knowledge of the Persian period in its local and international aspects (Stern 2001; Grabbe 2004; Betlyon 2005; Pearce and Wunsch 2014; Lemaire 2015). Archaeological discoveries since the 1970s have demonstrated that preexilic Israelite religion was not yet monotheistic and that strictly monotheistic Yahwism gained adherents in the Persian period (Gnuse 1997; Smith 2002; Albertz and Becking 2003). Not surprisingly then, the last few decades have witnessed reassessments of old certainties and new questions about the history, religion, and culture of the people who worshiped Yhwh in the sixth through late fourth centuries BCE.
All things considered, we have a situation where the conditions described in the great kingdom of Solomon closely resemble those of King Manasseh's realm. Well-administered districts and large numbers of corvee laborers building new royal cities; the trading connection with foreign leaders; caravans plodding northward through Judahite territory; and ambassadors from Arabia present in Jerusalem—when combined with the hazier, borrowed memories of northern Israel's commercial hyeday—all bolstered belief in the antiquity and wisdom of King Manasseh's new strategy of wholehearted participation in imperial commerce and diplomacy.
Nonetheless, other archeologists posit that the biblical narrative reflecting the existence of a powerful monarchy in Jerusalem is largely mythical and that there was no strong government to speak of in that era.
Aren Maeir, an archeology professor at Bar Ilan University, said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims. There are remains from the 10th century in Jerusalem, he said, but proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."