The first of two notable written finds at the site is a bulla (seal) of a government official namedJehucal, son of Shelemiah, son of Shevi. This person seems to be mentioned (twice) in the Book of Jeremiah and thus presumably lived in the late 7th or early 6th century BC (i.e. at about the same time as Jeremiah). The second bulla discovered at this site is that of another government official, Gedaliah, son of Pashhur, of that same time period, who also seems to be named in theBook of Jeremiah.
As of 2005 the dig was ongoing, with progress limited by the current occupants of the land atop the ruins. According to the New York Times,
- Mazar continues to dig, but right now, three families are living in houses where she would most like to explore. One family is Muslim, one Christian, and one Jewish.
Stepped Stone Structure
Mazar's dig has demonstrated that the Stepped Stone Structure connects with and supports the Large Stone Structure. Mazar presents evidence that the Large Stone Structure was an Israelite royal palace in continuous use from the 10th century until 586 BCE. Her conclusion that the stepped stone structure and the large stone structure are parts of a single, massive royal palace makes sense of the biblical reference to the Millo as the House of Millo in II Kings 12:21 and II Chronicles 24:25, describing it as the place where King Joash was assassinated in 799 BCE while he slept in his bed. Millo is derived from "fill", (Hebrew milui). The stepped stone support structure is built of fills.
The Millo is described in the Bible as having been built by Solomon and repaired by Hezekiah, without giving an explanation of what exactly the Millo was. However it is mentioned as being part of the City of David. In the Book of Samuel, Millo is mentioned as boundary of King David's construction while building up the City of David after the capture of Jerusalem from the Jebusites. The King James Version (translation into English) footnotes Millo as literally, "The Landfill,"while the New International Version translates it to "supporting terraces" 
Hezekiah's repair of the Millo is mentioned within a list of repairs to military fortifications, and several scholars generally believe that it was something connected to military activity, such as atower, citadel, or simply a significant part of a wall. However, taking into account that the potentially cognate term mulu, from Assyrian, refers to earthworks, it is considered more likely that it was an embankment which flattened the slope between Ophel and the Temple Mount.
As of 2007, archaeologists not affiliated with the Shalem Center, particularly the group centered on Tel Aviv University, of which Israel Finkelstein is the leader, doubted that enough evidence had yet been produced to reliably date the structure. The Tel Aviv University group also suggested that the walls unearthed by Mazar do not belong to a single building, arguing that the more substantial, more regular walls to the west of the site align with a larger rectangular structure, including upper parts of the Stepped Stone Structure, and a mikveh ritual bath believed to have been used in theHasmonean period; while what they consider the flimsier irregular remains on the eastern side of the site should be treated as a separate entity. In 2005 Amihai Mazar suggested that the site may be a Jebusite fortress - the fortress of Zion that the Books of Samuel claim was conquered by David.
Eilat Mazar dated the site by the different types of pottery found above and below the building's remains. The pottery below the foundation is dated by Eilat Mazar to the Iron Age I, and the pottery above is dated to the Iron Age II. Due to the Law of superposition (the empirical rule stating that, in general, the older things are lower down), this implies, according to Eilat Mazar, that the foundation - and hence the building - was constructed somewhere between Iron Age I and Iron Age II (roughly between the 11th and 10th centuries BC). However, Amihai Mazar has pointed out that though the structure clearly dates to after Iron Age I, since there is no floor and the Iron Age II pottery merely occurs between the walls, her terminus-ante-quem is flawed - the pottery gives no way of knowing how much later than Iron Age I the building was constructed (since the building could have been built around pre-existing Iron Age II pottery). Israel Finkelstein has also argued that (Eilat) Mazar's pottery dating is flawed (and motivated by the conclusion she desires), concluding that "all one can safely say is that its various elements post-date the late Iron I/early Iron IIA and predate the Roman period. Circumstantial evidence seems to suggest the dating of most elements to the late Hellenistic period".
Finkelstein et al. underline their concern about Mazar's attitude and approach:
The biblical text dominates this field operation, not archaeology. Had it not been for Mazar’s literal reading of the biblical text, she never would have dated the remains to the 10th century BCE with such confidence.Mazar makes the following arguments for an Israelite royal palace from the early 10th century: 1) That enormous scale of the structure and physical distinctions between it and other contemporary structures. 2) That it was erected outside the walls of the Jebusite city. 3) Pottery and pavements in the structure and dated to the 10th century 4) the fact that latest pottery found beneath the structure is a "sizable and richly varied" assemblage dated to the 12th - 11th centuries BCE. 5) both pottery types and radio carbon dating point to a date around the year 1000 6) potters in the attached Stepped Stone Structure also dates its construction to the 10th century 7) two Phoenician-style stylized ivory inlays and a black-and-red juglet imported form Cyprus attest to a Phoenician connections, a 10th century date, and a luxury lifestyle. 8) bullae with names of royal officials mentioned in the Bible attest to royal use continuing until 586 and "illustrate" the reliability of Biblical sources.
Archaeological support for Mazar's dating and attribution to a 10th-century Israelite king may have increased following finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa, viewed by some archaeologists and paleographers as confirming the existence of a centralized and powerful Israelite kingdom in the early 10th century. According to an article by Hershel Shanks in the Biblical Archaeology Review, the findings refuteIsrael Finkelstein's assertion that at most the Hebrew population that existed in Jerusalem in that era was a "tribal chiefdom". In the article, Shanks contends that an Israelite fortress of this scale establishes the existence of a strong, centralized Israelite kingdom at the time of David. On the other hand, Finkelstein contests the averaging procedure used in the Khirbet Qeiyafa dating, maintaining that, taken properly, the data reflect a lifespan for that site rather than a single date, and that the Khirbet Qeiyafa results "line up with the large number of measurements from late Iron I sites in both the north and south of Israel and support the Low Chronology."