Bryant G. Wood1
The revetment wall of Jericho City IV uncovered by Kathleeen Kenyon.
(Photo courtesy of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.)
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 7
Since Jericho has a copious spring (Ain es-Sultan, “Elisha’s Spring”) and a favorable climate, the growing of crops is relatively easy. Because of this, the site has been occupied since earliest times. In fact, it is often called “the world’s oldest city.” And at 250 meters below sea level, it is the lowest town on the surface of the earth.
A great deal has been learned about its history through archaeological excavations. But for the time of the Conquest by the Israelites, Jericho is one of the major problems in biblical archaeology. Accepted dates indicate that the city was unoccupied at the time of the Israelite Conquest, whether one adopts the early (ca. 1400 BC) or the late date (ca. 1230 BC).
Many scholars, therefore, have rejected the validity of the biblical account of the destruction of Jericho and even the account of the Conquest.
A reevaluation of the pottery from Jericho, however, indicates that the final destruction date should be revised.
Garstang Found Joshua’s Destruction
The first excavator to use modem techniques to probe the secrets of Tell es-Sultan was John Garstang. He dug there between 1930 and 1936. Finding a double wall running around the top of the mound, he theorized it was from the time of Joshua (ca. 1400 BC).
On the southeast slope of the tell, he also excavated a residential area of the last Bronze Age (Canaanite) city. He called it “City IV”. It had been destroyed in a violent conflagration. Based on pottery found in the destruction debris and scarabs found in the town cemetery, Garstang dated this destruction to the late 15th-early 14th century BC. He was convinced the Israelites had caused the destruction.
Following the destruction of City IV, there was a long period of abandonment. This was interrupted only by the construction of a large building Garstang called the “Middle Building”. It was above the spring on the southeast side of the site. He dated the structure to the late 14th century BC and associated it with the palace of Eglon, king of Moab (Judges 3).
The next occupation of Jericho was in the Iron Age, during the time of the divided kingdom.
Kenyon Contradicts Him
Kathleen Kenyon reevaluated Garstang’s work in 1951. Because of questions raised by her critique, she excavated further from 1952 to 1958 using the most up-to-date techniques. Her findings differed considerably from those of Garstang.
She determined that the double wall was not from Joshua’s time, as Garstang believed, but was from the Early Bronze Age, some 1000 years earlier. In addition, she re-dated the destruction of City IV to ca. 1550 BC, long before the Conquest.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 8
Plan of Jericho showing the revetment wall, plastered rampart and conjectured line of the city wall of the final Bronze Age city. A and B: areas excavated by Garstang and Kenyon, respectively, where buildings from the final Bronze Age city were found.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 9
Portion of the final Bronze Age city excavated by Kathleen Kenyon. The houses opened onto a street, seen on the left. (Photo courtesy of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.)
One of a number of storage jars full of grain found by Kathleen Kenyon in the final Bronze Age city at Jericho. (Photo courtesy of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.)
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 10
But she did agree with Gar-stang on the date of the Middle Building (late 14th century BC).
Kenyon’s results seemed to indicate that Jericho was unoccupied during the 15th century BC (the early date for the Conquest). Both Kenyon and Garstang agreed there was no occupation at Jericho in the 13th century BC, the time frame agreed upon by most scholars today for the date of the Conquest.
As a result of Kenyon’s conclusions, Jericho (along with Ai) is being used as a showcase example of the “unhistorical” nature of the biblical narratives dealing with the Conquest.
Was Kenyon Wrong?
There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in redating Garstang’s double wall to the Early Bronze period. And no one questions the date of Garstang’s “Middle Building”.
There is very good reason, however, to question Kenyon’s date for the demise of City IV.
Until recently, Kenyon’s opinion for the date of the destruction of City IV was all that scholars had to work with. But now, with the publication in 1982 and 1983 of the pottery she found from this destruction, it is possible to make an independent analysis of the date of the last Late Bronze city at Jericho.
A careful study of the pottery (both Garstang’s and Kenyon’s) from the terminal phase of City IV has been done by the writer. The inescapable conclusion is that Garstang’s date is correct and that the Bronze Age city was destroyed in ca. 1400 BC.
What is more, when the proper date is assigned to the destruction of Jericho, the archaeological evidence and the biblical data harmonize with one another in amazing fashion.
Springtime Battle Fits Biblical Account
The Bible states that the Israelites crossed the Jordan River in flood at harvest time (Joshua 3:15). This would be in the spring. Additional indications that it was spring are that Rahab was drying freshly-harvested flax on the roof of her house (Joshua 2:6), and the Israelites celebrated Passover just prior to attacking the city (Joshua 5:10).
Both Garstang and Kenyon found that Jericho was amply supplied with grain, indicating that the harvest was just completed. Large jars full of grain were found stored in the houses. This testifies to a short siege and that: “Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in” (Joshua 6:1). The people of Jericho had no opportunity to escape with their precious food supply before the end came.
Massive Canaanite Fortification
Kenyon discovered the true nature of the defensive system of the final Canaanite city. It was even more extensive than Garstang thought. At the base of the mound was a stone revetment wall 4.65 m. (almost 15 feet) high. This wall held in place a massive earth embankment covered with a plaster face extending to the top of the tell. Atop the embankment, a wall circled the city.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 11
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 12
The Bible records that after the Israelites marched around the city for seven days, the wall “fell down fiat” (Joshua 6:20). Again, the archaeological evidence accords with the biblical narrative. Although the top of the earthen embankment has eroded away, two-thirds of the revetment wall at the base of the mound has survived. At the only place where excavations were conducted at the base of this wall, Kenyon found “fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment.” She concluded that these bricks “probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank.”2 In other words, the archaeological evidence is clear that the last Bronze Age city wall collapsed and slid down the embankment.
Of interest, too, is the fact that both Garstang and Kenyon found evidence of earthquake activity at the time the city was destroyed. Earthquakes are common in the Jordan valley. And this may have been the means God used to miraculously stop the Jordan River (Joshua 3:16) and bring down the walls of Jericho. The medieval chronicler Nowairi recorded an earthquake in AD 1267, in which part of the cliff along the Jordan River at Damiya (about 17 miles north of Jericho) collapsed and dammed up the river for 10 hours. As recently as 1927, a similar event occurred at Damiya, stopping the Jordan for 21 l/2 hours.
Jericho Completely Destroyed
After the Israelites gained entry into the city, the Bible records that they “burned the city with fire, and all that was therein” (Joshua 6:24). Here, the archaeological confirmation is most striking.
The only area of the tell where the final phase of City IV survived the ravages of nature and man is on the southeast slope (above the spring). Garstang dug an area here of about 35 x 45 meters. Although Kenyon opened up five 8 x 8 meter squares north of Garstang’s area, she found remains of the final Bronze Age city in but two of these squares. Both excavators found that City IV had been massively destroyed by fire. This left a layer of destruction debris a meter or more thick across the entire excavation area. Kenyon described the calamity as follows:
The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt, but the collapse of the walls of the eastern rooms seems to have taken place before they were affected by fire. (Jericho Vol. 3, p. 370.)
Jericho in the Time of Eglon
Above the destruction debris is a thick erosion layer which accumulated during a period of abandonment following the demise of City IV. The thickness of this layer indicates that the period of abandonment was considerable, although one cannot be sure of the exact length of time. This hiatus can be related to Joshua’s curse on
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 13
Plan of the area of City IV excavated by Garstang and Kenyon. The buildings north of the northern-most cobbled street and drain were excavated by Kenyon and the buildings south of this were excavated by Garstang.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 14
the city recorded in Joshua 6:26.
On top of the erosion layer, Gar-stang found the remains of a substantial building. He called it the “Middle Building” because of its stratigraphic position between the City IV ruins below and a large Iron Age structure above. In her two squares, Kenyon found fragmentary remains contemporary with the Middle Building which she labeled “Phase 54.”
Compared with the buildings which preceded it, Garstang’s Middle Building is an impressive structure. It is approximately 14.5 x 12 meters, with a large retaining wall on the downhill side. In addition to its size, the abundance of painted pottery found in and around the building, and an inscribed clay tablet found just outside the east wall attest to a high-level administrative function for the complex. Both Garstang and Kenyon agree that this structure dates to the latter half of the 14th century BC.
Again, this discovery matches the biblical record of events at Jericho. During the period of the Judges, Eglon, king of Moab raised an expeditionary force comprised of Moabites, Ammonites, and Amalekites (Judges 3:12, 13) and “possessed the city of palm trees,” another name for Jericho (Deut. 34:3; 2 Chron. 28:15). Eglon lived in a residency at Jericho, according to the biblical narrative (Judges 3:20–25). This took place toward the end of the 14th century BC (Judges 2:7–10; 3:8, 11, 14), and thus can be equated with the “Middle Building” discovered by Gar-stang.
The archaeological evidence shows that the Middle Building was occupied only for a short period of time and then was abandoned (compare Judges 3:29, 30). Following this, Jericho remained
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 15
Late Bronze IB (end of the Fifteenth century BC) pottery from the Final phases of Jericho City IV, excavated by Kathleen Kenyon. 1–7: bowls, 8: store jar, 9: saucer lamp, 10–12: cooking pots, 13: water jar, 14: dipper juglet.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 16
unoccupied for several centuries until a new city was built in the Iron Age after 1000 BC.
Jericho’s Destruction Matches Biblical Story
In summary, when the final Bronze Age city at Jericho is properly dated, it is seen that there is a remarkable correlation between the biblical narrative and archaeological findings.
What was once thought to be an irreconcilable problem turns out to be another case where archaeology strongly supports the historicity of the Bible.
The points of comparison between the Bible and archaeology suggested in this study can be summarized as follows:
• Attacked at the time of harvest in the spring (Joshua 2:6; 3:15; 5:10).
• Siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
• Walls levelled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
• Inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs. (Joshua 6: I).
• Burned at the end of the 15th century BC – 1400 BC (Joshua 6:24).
• Unoccupied following the destruction (Joshua 6:26).
• Residency constructed toward the end of the 14th century BC -1300 BC (Judges 3:20–25).
• Residency abandoned after a short period of time (Judges 3:29, 30].
• Unoccupied until the Iron Age (I Kings 16:34).
• City strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20).
Editor:
We are happy to present this new possibility for the first time in Archaeology and Biblical Research. Although there may be unfamiliar material for some of our readers in the above article, it is of profound significance and is worth trying to understand.
We do not say Bryant Wood’s proposal is the last word, and we expect controversy over it. However, if he is correct, this find has enormous implications for the archaeology of the Exodus and Conquest.
Those who believe the Conquest of Palestine by the Israelites is real history, and that it was in the fifteenth century BC (about 1400 BC}, have had few new finds to support their case until recently. There may be two major breakthroughs, however, either of which has great implications for the dates of the Exodus and Conquest.
The first is the possibility that the Middle Bronze Age may have ended in Palestine at least a century later than scholars have supposed (1450 instead of 1550 BC). This means numerous MB II destructions may be those of the Israelites. Dr. John Bimson reported on the latest developments for this possibility at the Memphis Symposium.
The second is Bryant Wood’s contention (above) that Kenyon called “LB I” pottery, “MB II”. This makes the destruction of Jericho, which otherwise could be associated with the Israelites, seem much earlier than it really was.
What is worse, by her scheme, the Conquest occurred at 1325 BC, so that when the Israelites arrived to destroy Jericho, there were no walls around it!
This conclusion about Jericho, coupled with the discovery that no one had lived at the supposed site for Ai for one thousand years before the Israelites arrived, has caused many to reject the Biblical record as untrue for this period. Without new research and discoveries, archaeological finds will continue to seem to conflict with the Bible.
BSP 0 (Autumn 1987) p. 17