Jericho — Archaeological Story

First major excavation

• Austro-German expedition
• Ernst Sellin & Carl Watzinger
• 1907 - 1909 and again in 1911

Garstang Excavation, 1930-36

• Excavated a collapsed double city wall
  • late 15th - 14th BC
  • early date Exodus (1400 BC)
  • late date Exodus (1200 BC)
• Excavated a residential area which he believed was part of the city fortified by the double wall
• “City IV” had been destroyed in a violent fire
  • destroyed about 1400 BCE based on
    • Pottery
    • Scarabs
    • Absence of Mycenaean ware
  • Ascribed the destruction to invading Israelites
  • Controversial even prior to Kenyon

Kathleen Kenyon, 1952-58

• Rigorous stratigraphic excavation techniques
• Concluded Garstang was right about destruction of the double city wall, but wrong on the date
• Dated destruction of City IV to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, about 1550 BC
• Never published a final report before her death

Meaning

• No strongly fortified LBA city at Jericho for Joshua to conquer when biblical chronology said he arrived there.
• Presumes the late date (LBA) conquest, and so Jericho not destroyed in LBA, so the biblical account is wrong

Revived Debate in 1990s

• Bryant Wood
• Specialist in Canaanite pottery

• Re-evaluated Kenyon’s work

• Heiser
  • 90% of Israel has not been excavated
  • But firm conclusions were made

In other words, Kenyon’s analysis was based on what was not found at Jericho rather than what was found. According to Kenyon, City IV must have been destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.) because no imported Cypriote ware – diagnostic for the ensuing Late Bronze I period – was found at Jericho.

Dating habitation levels at Jericho on the absence of exotic imported wares – which were found primarily in tombs in large urban centers – is methodologically unsound and, indeed, unacceptable. Bible Archaeology

Other experts find little fault with Wood’s archaeology, but they are more skeptical about his linking of the evidence with biblical events. Science: Score One for the Bible

Richard S. Hess (late dater)

• Peaceful Infiltration

  The possibility of foreign groups joining in with Israel on its journeys and after its entrance into the land might be remembered in the references to the Midianites (Numbers 22-25), the Kenites (Judg 4:11; 1 Sam 15:6), the Gibeonites (Joshua 9), and others. Further, there are records of areas of the hill country, such as the region around Shechem, which Israel is portrayed as occupying in the book of Joshua (8:30-35; 24:1, 32), but for which there is no account of conquest. Early Israel in Canaan

Israel in the Merneptah Stela

Egypt’s only reference to Israel.

Mike Chu

Conquest of Canaan

• In the introduction video, what is the major reason the majority consensus scholarship rejects the Conquest of Canaan?
  • Watershed moment preliminary evidence on the archaeology of Jericho
• There is more than one way to read the archaeological data

Historical and Cultural Context Article

• What is the Early Date of Exodus? (Internal evidence)
  • 1 Kings 6:1 (1446 BCE)
  • Judges 11:26 (1400s BCE)
  • Uses biblical evidence as main support
• Late is Late Dating of Exodus
  • 1279 BCE based on Exodus 1:11 and archaeological data
  • If “480” in 1 Kings 6:1 is a gematria (as a symbolic number), then further evidence of a 13th century BCE date
    • 480 a multiple of 12
• Wood Article 1
  • John Garstang (early dater)
    • 2nd archaeologist to counter idea disagreed with the first 2
    • Believed Joshua conquest
  • Kathleen Kenyon?
    • Asked by Garstang to take a look at the evidence
    • Agreed with Sellin & Watzinger that Jericho was destroyed in the mid 16th BCE. Was unoccupied except briefly in the 14th
  • Wood’s objection to Kenyon
    • Based her proposals on what was NOT present (imported ceramics) and not the pottery that was there.
    • Only examined of a section of the city that was known to be a poor quarter section.
    • Destruction by the Hyksos or Egyptians are either illogical or archaeological findings contradict known as Egyptian war tactics.
      • Unconsumed food?
  • 4 Points proving Garstang
    1. Ceramic data (match 14th century data)
    2. Stratigraphical considerations (contaminated by Garstang’s dug)
    3. Scarab evidence (they match the time period)
    4. Radiocarbon dating (14th century)
• Bienkouwski and Wood’s Article 2
  • Wood got the last word
• Summary
  • Neither Garstang nor Kenyon have final reports for peer review
  • Both research based on initial data

Summary

• When was Jericho destroyed as affected biblical archaeology.
• First excavations were done 1907, 1909, and 1911.
  • Expensive no new data
• Garstang 1938
• Kenyon’s 1952-1958
  • Used stratigraphic excavation techniques
  • After Kenyon’s initial report, the conversation about Jericho’s existence is sealed
• Only a small part of the mound of Jericho has ever been excavated.
• Wood noticed that Garstang catalogued pottery remains that date to the 1400s.
  • Kenyon dug at poor quarter (no expensive pottery would exist)
• Wood told Heiser that he found in Kenyon’s stored materials the missing pottery that would contradict her proposal.
• Not every city conquered by Joshua was burned.
  • Jericho was interesting example
  • Holy war. Destruction was an act of worship
• Wood’s work revived the early date idea

• With the refusal to treat OT text as textual evidence, then the debate is still in a stalemate

• Richard S. Hess 4 theories on the origins of Israel:
  1. Conquest
  2. Peaceful Infiltration
  3. Peasant revolt
  4. Pastoral Canaanites
• Merneptah Stela
  • The only Egyptian text that mentions Israel
    • Is it mention the people or land?