Original sentence: No royal inscriptions exist from the 10th century BCE, nor evidence of the existence of a royal bureaucracy (the equivalents to the LMLK seal associated with the Judean royal bureaucracy of the late 8th century BCE), nor any evidence of widespread literacy before that later period.Surveys of surface finds aimed at tracing settlement patterns and population changes have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries BCE, a period which includes the biblical kingdoms of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was never more than a small unfortified hill village, no larger than three or four acres in size, while the entire population of the hill country of Judah was no more than about 5,000 persons
Edited sentence: A somewhat different but related question has to do not with the historicity of King David, that is, whether he existed, but rather with the bible's depiction of his reign.Archeological surveys aimed at estimating the number of inhabitants of Jerusalem have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries BCE, a period which includes the supposed kingdoms of both David and Solomon, it was probably never more than a small unfortified hill village, no larger than three or four acres in size, while the entire population of the hill country of Judah was no more than about 5,000.The archeological evidence does not support the existence of sophisticated, centralised 10th century BCE kingdom centred on Jerusalem: no royal inscriptions exist, no equivalents to the LMLK seal associated with the royal bureaucracy of the late 8th century BCE, nor any evidence of widespread literacy before that later period