Sorry LB, but i have to disagree with you. Evidence has shown that Jerusalem was a
bit more than a small farming village. You should definately read BAR's "Jerusalem in David and Solomon's Time." Yes, they do have a certain bias, but they bring up many interesting points that seem to prove Jerusalem's relative prominence in the region.
Within the City of David, there is a massive stepped
stone structure that has been traditionally dated to around the 12th century in its first form, putting it before David's conquest of the city, with subsequent add-ons in the tenth century, eith scentury and the second century. this structure reaches about 12 stories tall, so it is a pretty large building. The function of this structure was to support some building. Now to be 12 stories tall, it must logically be supporting something rather large (probably a large fortress housing the city's administrative functions). I am not going to spend time explaining all the reasoning, you can read it in the article, but the major point was that this proves the existance of a reasonably large city with both the resources and the need for such monumental projects - hardly the characteristics of a small farming village.
Briefly, other proofs for the existance of a large city are the
Bronze age channel system from Gihon
Spring, along with large towers protecting both the
spring and the pools that this water suply created in the city. There are also corespondences between
Egypt and the
king Abdi Heba of Jerusalem ("Urusalim" at the time) in the Amarrna Letters, proving that Jerusalem was a city of enough importance to be corresponding with the largest political power in the region.
Ok, I don't have time to repeat every assertion made, but do read the article.
So, all in all, Jerusalem was an important city. Sorry for the rant, but I enjoy this kind of thing.