Final answer:
Dating cannot fully determine the size and prosperity of the kingdoms of David and Solomon. Archaeological evidence, like the Tel Dan stele, supports their existence but raises questions about the biblical account. Additional sources and research methods are required for a nuanced historical picture.
Step-by-step explanation:
Archaeological dating provides insights into the existence of historical figures and events, yet it cannot fully determine the socio-political context, such as the size and prosperity of the kingdoms of David and Solomon as described in the Bible. The Bible portrays these figures as significant rulers of a large, united monarchy. By contrast, archaeological findings suggest that Jerusalem during this time was not exceedingly large or powerful, housing approximately 5,000 people and recognized more as a hill town than a grand capital.
The Tel Dan stele, dating back to the ninth century BCE, offers tangible evidence for the existence of the 'house of David,' marking the only non-biblical source attesting to King David's reign. However, no such evidence has been found for Solomon, though some of his other works, like the gates at Gezer, Hazor, and Megiddo, have been identified archaeologically. These conflicting accounts make it difficult to ascertain the extent of the kingdom's wealth and size during their rule.
Following Solomon's death, the kingdom divided, suggesting potential governance issues and social unrest that might counter claims of a vast and prosperous dominion. Thus, while dating can affirm certain historical elements, it must be paired with other sources and methods to provide a more nuanced understanding of the era's complexity. The kingdom's prosperity was also tied to its strategic trade position and construction projects undertaken during Solomon's reign, albeit with a significant labor and tax burden that would lead to discontent and eventually the splitting of the kingdom.