I have said that I have doubts about the claim that the finds at Khirbet Qeiyafa in Israel show that this site was part of the polity of Judah in the 10th century. I have also said that I may have to modify my views.
Here is a new article where Yossi Garfinkel makes a strong case against me. Still, I wonder if Garfinkel is not too focused on his disagreement with the minimalist school. I think there have been plenty of nails already driven into the coffin of minimalism.
Nevertheless, his important conclusion is this:
In light of all these aspects: city plans, nutrition, iron tools, ritual, organization of administration and the language, we are of the opinion that Khirbet Qeiyafa is a Judahite site – not Philistine, Canaanite or belonging to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The site’s ancient name – based on an analysis of the site, its date and the meaning of the name – was in our opinion Biblical Sha’arayim. It turns out that around 1000 BC, a centralized monarchy arose in Judah which was capable of building fortified cities, exacting taxes and conducting extensive trade (Cyprus, Egypt).
We do not know the extent of this kingdom. Did it only control the south of the country or also the north? Current research has no clear data on the matter. However, it is clear that the abundance of new data entirely changes our knowledge of the genesis of the Biblical Kingdom of Judah and attests that the Biblical tradition indeed preserves highly valuable historical information.