Final answer:
The grandeur of the kingdom of David and Solomon as described in the Bible lacks strong archaeological support. Evidence still points to David's establishment of a more organized state and Solomon's projects that contributed to the kingdom's wealth, but not to the same extent as the biblical narrative suggests.
Step-by-step explanation:
With no archaeological evidence or written records, the kingdom of David and Solomon is far less glorious than the Bible describes. The Bible's account of the kingdom, particularly its size and influence, is not fully supported by current archeological findings. While the Tel Dan stele does reference the "house of David," there is little to no archaeological evidence for many of the biblical claims about Solomon, including the construction of the first temple in Jerusalem.
David did establish Jerusalem as the capital and created a bureaucracy, including a professional army and a caste of scribes, but the kingdom of Israel was small, with Jerusalem being a hill town of approximately 5,000 people at the time. Solomon's rule did lead to an increase in wealth and construction projects, but his heavy taxation and labor demands on the Hebrew people caused discontent. Upon Solomon's death, ten of the twelve tribes formed their own kingdom called Israel, while the smaller remnant retained the name Judah.
The northern kingdom of Israel was more affluent than the southern kingdom of Judah, which was smaller and more conservative. However, Solomon was effective in forming trade relations and managing the kingdom's wealth, which may have led to a somewhat prosperous era despite the growing resentments.