Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho)

Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho)

Aerial view of Tell Es-Sultan

click on image to open a higher resolution magnifiable image in a new tab

Fullo88 - Italian Wikipedia - Public Domain

Names

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
Tel Jericho	English
Ancient Jericho	English
Tell es-Sultan	Arabic	تل السلطان

Introduction

Tell es-Sultan

History

from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Jericho enters written history as the first town west of the Jordan River to be captured by the Israelites approaching from the east. Joshua's instruction to his spies to "Go, view the land, especially Jericho" (Jos. 2:1) is an illustration of the position of Jericho in the age-long process of penetration by nomads and seminomads from the desert area in the east into the fertile coastal lands. It stood near the Jordan fords between a good valley route down the eastern side of the Jordan Valley and another going up the western mountains. As it dominated one of the few routes leading directly from east to west, it was liable to attack by successive invaders.

The identification of the main mound of the oasis, Tell es-Sultan (map reference 192.142), with the oldest city is generally accepted. The mound rises to a height of 21.5 m and covers an area of about one acre. It stands quite near 'Ein es-Sultan (Elisha's Well). As regards the Jericho of the Book of Joshua, there are some chronological difficulties, as will be seen below. Following its destruction by Joshua, the Bible states, Jericho was abandoned for centuries until a new settlement was established by Hiel the Bethelite (1 Kg. 16:34), in the time of Ahab, in the ninth century BCE. Other biblical references do not suggest that Jericho ever recovered its importance. The archaeological evidence shows that occupation on the ancient site came to an end at the time of the Babylonian Exile. The centers of the later Jerichos were elsewhere in the Oasis.

Biblical History

from Thomas A. Holland in Meyers et. al. (1997)

The first references to Jericho in the Hebrew Bible are in the books of Numbers (22:1, 26:3), where the encampment of Israel is described across the river from the town; of Deuteronomy (34:1, 3), where the site is named; and of Joshua (2:1-3, 5:13-6:26), where it is recorded that spies were sent to examine the city and that the town was surrounded and conquered. The modern name of the mound, Tell es-Sultan, is the medieval name given to the site because it is located at the spring of 'Am es-Sultan ("Elisha's fountain"). During the period of the Judges, when the site was purportedly occupied by Eglon of Moab, the town was also known as the "city of palm trees" (Jgs. 3:13).

Exploration

from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Soundings at Tell es-Sultan were first made by C. Warren in 1868 as part of the early campaigns of the British Palestine Exploration Fund. Warren sank a number of shafts into the mound and concluded that there was nothing to be found. Two of his shafts were identified in the 1957-1958 excavations, one of them penetrating the Early Bronze Age town wall and the other missing the great Pre-Pottery Neolithic stone tower by only one meter.

The first large-scale excavations were those of an Austro-German expedition, from 1907 to 1909, under the direction of E. Sellin and C. Watzinger. The expedition cleared the face of a considerable part of the Early Bronze Age town wall and traced the line of about half of the revetment at the base of the Middle Bronze Age defenses. Within the town, a large area of houses was cleared at the north end and a great trench was cut across the center. Reexcavation in 1953 showed that it had penetrated well into the Pre-Pottery Neolithic levels. The excavations were conducted and published by the best standards of the time. Unfortunately, at that time, there was no accepted chronology, so that the usefulness of this early work is limited.

By the time new excavations were undertaken by the Neilson expeditions, directed by J. Garstang, from 1930 to 1936, the knowledge of pottery chronology had greatly increased. Excavation technique lagged, however, and the absence of detailed stratigraphy still often made the dating of the structures mere guesswork. The dating of the successive Bronze Age defensive systems by Garstang has, in fact, proved to be wrong. No Late Bronze Age wall survives. Also, as knowledge of pottery chronology increased, the dating given to the scanty Late Bronze Age levels from the mound and the tombs was shown to be incorrect. Garstang's most important discovery was that beneath the Bronze Age levels there was a deep Neolithic accumulation, usually of the Pre-Pottery stage. He believed that there was a transition to the use of pottery at the site, but this was a mistake. A third major series of excavations was carried out between 1952 and 1958, directed by K. M. Kenyon on behalf of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.

Archaeological History

from Thomas A. Holland in Meyers et. al. (1997)

Because of its biblical connections, the site of Jericho inspired considerable attention for nearly fifteen hundred years before the advent of modern archaeological research. Many pilgrims and travelers visited the area during the first millennium CE, the first written account, in 333 CE, being that of the Pilgrim of Bordeau (described in Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099-1185, by John Wilkinson, with Joyce Hill and W. F. Ryan, London, 1988, p. 4 [JW: bookmarked to the page at archive.org]). It was not until 1868, however, that the first archaeological investigation of the mound was undertaken by Charles Warren, on behalf of the British Palestine Exploration Fund. Warren excavated east-west trenches on the mound and sank 2.4 sq. m shafts 6.1 m into the earth (Warren, 1869, pp. 14-16) . Although Warren dug through the EB town wall and found artifacts, he did not consider that the excavated material remains (pottery and stone mortars) were very important occupational finds for dating successive historical periods. Warren's conclusion regarding Jericho and other similar sites was: "The fact that in the Jordan valley these mounds generally stand at the mouths of the great wadies, is rather in favour of their having been the sites of ancient guard-houses or watch-towers" (Warren, 1869, p. 210).

The site was more seriously investigated when Claude R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener made a topographical survey of Jericho and its surroundings, published in The Survey of Western Palestine, vol. 3 (London, 1883). The second archaeological expedition to the site was conducted by an Austro-German team directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger between 1907 and 1909 and in 1911, under the sponsorship of the German Oriental Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft); the results appeared in Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Leipzig, 1913). The large portion of the mound excavated revealed much of the Middle Bronze Age glacis, which originally surrounded the town, as well as portions of the EB town walls. Houses belonging to the Israelite occupation of the town (eleventh-early sixth centuries BCE) were discovered on the southeast side of the mound. Controversy over the dating and capture of Jericho by Joshua has centered around two main schools of thought. The first theory conforms essentially to the biblical view that the Israelite occupation occurred with military attacks on Canaanite cities (a view primarily maintained by William Foxwell Albright, G. Ernest Wright, and John Bright). The second theory is that the conquest was a gradual and peaceful assimilation process that occurred in about 1200 BCE, at the beginning of the Iron Age (a view held by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth and more recently discussed by Manfred Weippert [1971], and Israel Finkelstein [1988]).

In an effort to obtain further archaeological evidence concerning this question, excavations were conducted at Jericho from 1930 to 1936 by John Garstang. He led the Marston Melchett Expedition on behalf of the University of Liverpool and the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Garstang excavated many areas on the mound and also located a number of MB and LB tombs in the necropolis associated with the site (Garstang, 1932, pp. 18-22, 41-54; 1933a PP- 4-42; Bienkowski, 1986, pp. 32-102). Garstang originally claimed that the Israelites had indeed destroyed Jericho on the evidence of fallen walls he dated to the end of the Late Bronze Age, but he later revised their destruction to a much earlier period. Although the Joshua controversy was not solved, Garstang did reveal the very early Mesolithic and Neolithic stages of occupation on the site.

In an effort to resolve the Joshua problem and to clarify the results of Garstang's excavations, Kathleen M. Kenyon directed the most recent archaeological work at Jericho (1952-1958), sponsored by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the British Academy in collaboration with the American School of Oriental Research (now Albright Institute) in Jerusalem and the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (Kenyon, 1957, i960, 1965, 1981; Kenyon and Holland, 1982, 1983). The Kenyon expedition excavated a large number of tombs in the necropolis dating from the Proto-Urban period (c. 3400- 3100 BCE) to the Roman period. Although much of the ancient mound had already been dug by the previous two expeditions, Kenyon was able to plot three main trenches on the north (trench II), west (trench I), and south (trench III) slopes of the tell in order to obtain comparative stratigraphical cross-sections of the main fortification systems of different historical periods. She also excavated a number of large squares inside tlie walls of the town in order to crosscheck the results of the former excavations as well as to expose larger areas of the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of occupation; these squares are lettered and numbered

A I—II (grid E4-5, on the highest part of the tell, 24 m high)
D I
D II (grid H4-5, east end of trench I)
E I-V (grid E-F6-7, northeast side of the tell)
F I (grid G4-5, northeast end of trench I)
H I-VI (grid H6-7 , east side of the mound above the spring)
L I (grid G5-6 , center of the mound)
M I (grid F-G5 , overlapping the EB town wall on the northwestern side of the mound)

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, Tables, and Photos

Maps

Fig. 5 Geological sketch
Figure 5

Geological sketch of the Tell es-Sultan surrounding area. Fault traces (Roth, 1970; Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005; Shamir, 2006) and the location of Tell and other major sites of great cultural interest are reported. Photos:
1. fault zone in a Cretaceous deposit northeast of the Tell
2. view from the southeast of a northeast—southwest-trending scarp (red arrows point the crest) along the Nuweime fault trace. Tell es-Sultan is in the background
Alfonsi et al. (2012)
of the Tell es-Sultan and surrounding area from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Location Map from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Map of the main sites at Jericho and its environs, Roman-Byzantine period.

Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 - Location Map

Figure 1

Location Map

Netzer (1975)

from Netzer (1975)

Aerial Views

Normal Size

Fig. 37 Aerial view of

Figure 37

Vertical Air View of the mound of Jericho

click on image to open ina new tab

Kenyon (1978)

the mound of Jericho from Kenyon (1978)
Fig. 1 Satellite view

Figure 1

Satellite view of the Jericho Oasis with the site of Tell es-Sultan and the main geomorphological features

Nigro (2014)

of the Jericho Oasis with the site of Tell es-Sultan and the main geomorphological features from Nigro (2014)
Tell es-Sultan in Google Earth

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tell es-Sultan on govmap.gov.il

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Magnified

Fig. 37 Aerial view of

Figure 37

Vertical Air View of the mound of Jericho

click on image to open ina new tab

Kenyon (1978)

the mound of Jericho from Kenyon (1978)
Fig. 1 Satellite view

Figure 1

Satellite view of the Jericho Oasis with the site of Tell es-Sultan and the main geomorphological features

Nigro (2014)

of the Jericho Oasis with the site of Tell es-Sultan and the main geomorphological features from Nigro (2014)
Tell es-Sultan in Google Earth

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
Tell es-Sultan on govmap.gov.il

Tell es-Sultan

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans

Site Plans

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Site Plan with

Figure 2

Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2006)

excavations areas of Garstang, Kenyon, and the Italian-Palestinians from Nigro and Taha (2006)
Fig. 2 Site Plan from

Figure 2

Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2016)
Fig. 6 Site Plan of EB II

Figure 6

Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

(3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 8 Site Plan of EB III

Figure 8

Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3 Site Plan from

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Kenyon (1957)
Site Plan and Excavation Areas
Tell es-Sultan: plan of the site and excavation areas
1. City wall from Early Bronze Age...
2. Retaining wall of glacis...
3. Glacis;
4. Kenyon's trench I
5. Trench II
6. Trench III
7. Road
8. Pools near spring
Click on image to open in a new tab

Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 Composite sketch

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 1 Composite map of

Figure 1

Composite map of the ancient city of Jericho based on multiple excavations

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

Jericho from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 2 Plan of Pre-Pottery

Fig. 2

Plan of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Town Walls

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Neolithic Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze

Fig. 3

Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze

Fig. 4

Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age town rampart and revetment from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Site Plan with

Figure 2

Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2006)

excavations areas of Garstang, Kenyon, and the Italian-Palestinians from Nigro and Taha (2006)
Fig. 2 Site Plan from

Figure 2

Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2016)
Fig. 6 Site Plan of EB II

Figure 6

Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

(3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 8 Site Plan of EB III

Figure 8

Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho, with Palace G and the nearby temple.

Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

city of Jericho from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3 Site Plan from

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Kenyon (1957)
Site Plan and Excavation Areas
Tell es-Sultan: plan of the site and excavation areas
1. City wall from Early Bronze Age; in west it is built directly above Neolithic wall
2. Retaining wall of glacis from Middle Bronze Age II
3. Glacis;
4. Kenyon's trench I
5. Trench II
6. Trench III
7. Road
8. Pools near spring
Click on image to open in a new tab

Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)
Fig. 1 Composite sketch

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907-1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 1 Composite map of

Figure 1

Composite map of the ancient city of Jericho based on multiple excavations

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

Jericho from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 2 Plan of Pre-Pottery

Fig. 2

Plan of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Town Walls

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Neolithic Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze

Fig. 3

Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age Town Walls from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)
Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze

Fig. 4

Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Age town rampart and revetment from Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Area Plans

Squares EIII-IV

Normal Size

Pl. 315a Phases M, Mi, and

Plate 315a

Squares EIII-IV Plan, Phases M and Mi in hatching key, Phase Q walls re-used

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Q in Squares EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Magnified

Pl. 315a Phases M, Mi, and

Plate 315a

Squares EIII-IV Plan, Phases M and Mi in hatching key, Phase Q walls re-used

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Q in Squares EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Trench III (Site N)

Normal Size

Pl. 267 Trench III Plans
Plate 267

Trench III Plans:
1. XV. lviii. Errata: In hatching key, Plate xl Re-used should be Phase l Re-used an Phase liv Re-Used should be Phase lv Re-Used.
2. XV.lix. Erraturm: In hatching key, horizontal lines of phase lix should be broken lines
3. XVI.lx, lxi. Earratum: In caaption, PHASE XVI.xli should be PHASES XVI.lx and lxi.
4. XVI.lxii.
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Magnified

Pl. 267 Trench III Plans
Plate 267

Trench III Plans:
1. XV. lviii. Errata: In hatching key, Plate xl Re-used should be Phase l Re-used an Phase liv Re-Used should be Phase lv Re-Used.
2. XV.lix. Erraturm: In hatching key, horizontal lines of phase lix should be broken lines
3. XVI.lx, lxi. Earratum: In caaption, PHASE XVI.xli should be PHASES XVI.lx and lxi.
4. XVI.lxii.
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Middle Building

Normal Size

Fig. 55 Middle Building
Figure 55

Middle Building area: composite plan (from Garstang 1934. pl.XIII)
1. Palace Store-Rooms (MBII)
2. Middle Building (LBA)
3. Middle Building Over Palace Store-Rooms
4. "Hilani" (E.I.A.I.)
5. "Hilani" Over Middle Building
6. "Hilani" Over Palace Store-Rooms
7. "Hilani" Over Middle Building and Palace Store-Rooms
8. House In Square H.6
Click on image to open in a new tab

Bienkowski (1986)
composite plan from Bienkowski (1986)
Fig. 56 Middle Building

Figure 56

Middle Building plan and section (from Garstang 1934. pl.XIV)

J 33. Plan of Middle Building (M), Sections EF, MB, showing room below

Click on image to open in a new tab

Bienkowski (1986)

plan and sections from Bienkowski (1986)

Magnified

Fig. 55 Middle Building
Figure 55

Middle Building area: composite plan (from Garstang 1934. pl.XIII)
1. Palace Store-Rooms (MBII)
2. Middle Building (LBA)
3. Middle Building Over Palace Store-Rooms
4. "Hilani" (E.I.A.I.)
5. "Hilani" Over Middle Building
6. "Hilani" Over Palace Store-Rooms
7. "Hilani" Over Middle Building and Palace Store-Rooms
8. House In Square H.6
Click on image to open in a new tab

Bienkowski (1986)
composite plan from Bienkowski (1986)
Fig. 56 Middle Building

Figure 56

Middle Building plan and section (from Garstang 1934. pl.XIV)

J 33. Plan of Middle Building (M), Sections EF, MB, showing room below

Click on image to open in a new tab

Bienkowski (1986)

plan and sections from Bienkowski (1986)

Plans with CoSeismic Effects - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Trench I + Squares FI, DI, and DII

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Section of

Figure 4

Section of Trench 1

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Trench 1 from Kenyon (1957)
Pl. 236 Section A-B of

Plate 236 Square FI. Section A-B

Erratum: Hatching of diagonally dotted lines incorrect for phase FI.xliii between c. 0.75 m. and 2 m. W., 11.40 m. and 12 m. H. and betweeen c. 6.30 m. and 7.50 m. W., 10.70 m. and 11.20 m. H.
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Square FI from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Pl. 240 Tr.I, FI, DI
Plate 240

Tr.I, FI, DI. Sections:

Fl. Section W-A'. Erratum: Phase hatched xlix, betweeen 10.25 m. and 11.80 m. N., 11.80 m. and 12 m. H., should be phase xlixa and is incorrectly hatches

Dl. Section X-Y

Fl. Section QQ-RR. Erratum: Phase FI.xxvi should be FI.xxva

FI, Tr.I. Section V-W, W'-Z. Errata: Phase FI.xxvi, between 3.90 m. and 4.90 m. W., 8.50 m. H., should be FI.xxva. Wall numbered 205 should be 208 and Wall 208 should be 205

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Sections from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Fig. 2 Cross section of

Figure 2

Cross section of Trench I showing the Jericho outer city wall built in Middle Bronze III. The pile of fallen mudbricks in the form of a ramp in front of the stone retaining wall originally comprised a mudbrick wall atop the stone retaining wall.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

Trench I from Kennedy (2023)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Section of

Figure 4

Section of Trench 1

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Trench 1 from Kenyon (1957)
Pl. 236 Section A-B of

Plate 236 Square FI. Section A-B

Erratum: Hatching of diagonally dotted lines incorrect for phase FI.xliii between c. 0.75 m. and 2 m. W., 11.40 m. and 12 m. H. and betweeen c. 6.30 m. and 7.50 m. W., 10.70 m. and 11.20 m. H.
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Square FI from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Pl. 240 Tr.I, FI, DI
Plate 240

Tr.I, FI, DI. Sections:

Fl. Section W-A'. Erratum: Phase hatched xlix, betweeen 10.25 m. and 11.80 m. N., 11.80 m. and 12 m. H., should be phase xlixa and is incorrectly hatches

Dl. Section X-Y

Fl. Section QQ-RR. Erratum: Phase FI.xxvi should be FI.xxva

FI, Tr.I. Section V-W, W'-Z. Errata: Phase FI.xxvi, between 3.90 m. and 4.90 m. W., 8.50 m. H., should be FI.xxva. Wall numbered 205 should be 208 and Wall 208 should be 205

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Sections from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Fig. 2 Cross section of

Figure 2

Cross section of Trench I showing the Jericho outer city wall built in Middle Bronze III. The pile of fallen mudbricks in the form of a ramp in front of the stone retaining wall originally comprised a mudbrick wall atop the stone retaining wall.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

Trench I from Kennedy (2023)

Trench III (Site N)

Normal Size

Plate 273 West Section of

Plate 273

Trench III. West Section. Errata: Metre numbers 0-12 S. at bottom N. end of trench incorrectly numbered 22-12. Lettering of Wall NEN, betweeen 1.60 m. and 2.20 m. S., 11.70 m. H., omitted. Phase lxxvi-lxxviia, between c. 1.50 m. and 3.50 m. S., 15 m. and 16.30 m. H., incorrectly numbered lxxvi-lxxiia.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Trench III from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Plate 274 East Section of
Plate 274

Trench III. Sections and Key.
1. East Section
2. Section III
3. Section IV
4. Section V. Erratum: Wall NCE should be NCP.
5. Section VI
6. Section VII (N.B. Hatching used to deliniate walls on Sections III-VII and X (Pl. 275(c)) is independent of scheme used on 'Key to Hatching of Sections')
7. Key to Positi0n of Sections
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Trench III from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Magnified

Plate 273 West Section of

Plate 273

Trench III. West Section. Errata: Metre numbers 0-12 S. at bottom N. end of trench incorrectly numbered 22-12. Lettering of Wall NEN, betweeen 1.60 m. and 2.20 m. S., 11.70 m. H., omitted. Phase lxxvi-lxxviia, between c. 1.50 m. and 3.50 m. S., 15 m. and 16.30 m. H., incorrectly numbered lxxvi-lxxiia.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Trench III from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Plate 274 East Section of
Plate 274

Trench III. Sections and Key.
1. East Section
2. Section III
3. Section IV
4. Section V. Erratum: Wall NCE should be NCP.
5. Section VI
6. Section VII (N.B. Hatching used to deliniate walls on Sections III-VII and X (Pl. 275(c)) is independent of scheme used on 'Key to Hatching of Sections')
7. Key to Positi0n of Sections
Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Trench III from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Zones A and B of Alfonsi et al. (2012) + Garstang's Trench

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Plate VI Section

Plate VI

Section through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner

Click on image to open in a new tab

Garstang and Garstang (1948)

through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner from Garstang and Garstang (1948)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Plate VI Section

Plate VI

Section through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner

Click on image to open in a new tab

Garstang and Garstang (1948)

through the Excavated Area in the Northeast Corner from Garstang and Garstang (1948)

Site A

Normal Size

Pl. 343a South Section of

Plate 343a

Site A, South Section

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Magnified

Pl. 343a South Section of

Plate 343a

Site A, South Section

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

EIII-EIV

Normal Size

Pl. 321 Section from Squares
Plate 321

Squares EIII-IV, Keys and Section

Key to Hatching of Sections and Key to Abbreviations. Errata: Phase Ji should be broken and three dotted diagonal lines. Hatching lettered phase Qi–D? should be E-D?. Hatching duplicated on sections for Phases Vi and Kii, Phases V–T and M, Phases R–Q and Di, Phases Pi and Ci.

North Section C–D. Errata: Broken Lettering of Pit Bii, between c. 2 m. and 4 m. E., 2.3 m. n., H., omitted. Phase lettered GGi, between 0.25 m. and 6 m. E., should be GGib. Hatching of Phase Ji, between c. 15.30 m. and 17/60 m. E., 4 m. H., incorrect.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Pl. 323 Sections from Squares
Plate 323

Squares EIII-IV, Sections:

Section X–V. Erratum: Location square, EIV, should be EIII.

Section V-W

Section S–T

Section E–F. Errata: Phase Hatched M Mi, between 5.75 m. and 9.89 m. N, 1.50 m. H., should be M Mii. slight error on the hatching of Phase Miii between 3.50 m. and 4 m.,N., 3.75 m. H.

Section H–J. Erratum: Phase Q, between 2.10 m and 2.60 m H. on east of section, is incorrectly hatched and lettered and should be altered to Phases Qi-Ei

Section Q–R

Section N–M. Erratum: Phases Ji-Ei at c. 2.20 m. H. should be Qi-Ei

Section G–A. Erratum: Phases Ji-Ei at c. 2.10 m. H. should be Qi-Ei

Section K–L

Section O–P

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Magnified

Pl. 321 Section from Squares
Plate 321

Squares EIII-IV, Keys and Section

Key to Hatching of Sections and Key to Abbreviations. Errata: Phase Ji should be broken and three dotted diagonal lines. Hatching lettered phase Qi–D? should be E-D?. Hatching duplicated on sections for Phases Vi and Kii, Phases V–T and M, Phases R–Q and Di, Phases Pi and Ci.

North Section C–D. Errata: Broken Lettering of Pit Bii, between c. 2 m. and 4 m. E., 2.3 m. n., H., omitted. Phase lettered GGi, between 0.25 m. and 6 m. E., should be GGib. Hatching of Phase Ji, between c. 15.30 m. and 17/60 m. E., 4 m. H., incorrect.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
Pl. 323 Sections from Squares
Plate 323

Squares EIII-IV, Sections:

Section X–V. Erratum: Location square, EIV, should be EIII.

Section V-W

Section S–T

Section E–F. Errata: Phase Hatched M Mi, between 5.75 m. and 9.89 m. N, 1.50 m. H., should be M Mii. slight error on the hatching of Phase Miii between 3.50 m. and 4 m.,N., 3.75 m. H.

Section H–J. Erratum: Phase Q, between 2.10 m and 2.60 m H. on east of section, is incorrectly hatched and lettered and should be altered to Phases Qi-Ei

Section Q–R

Section N–M. Erratum: Phases Ji-Ei at c. 2.20 m. H. should be Qi-Ei

Section G–A. Erratum: Phases Ji-Ei at c. 2.10 m. H. should be Qi-Ei

Section K–L

Section O–P

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)
EIII-IV from Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)

Tumbled Down EB III City Wall

Normal Size

Fig. 22 Section of the

Figure 22

Section of the tumbled down EB III city-wall at time of Garstang’s excavations (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. XVIII)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

tumbled down EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)

Magnified

Fig. 22 Section of the

Figure 22

Section of the tumbled down EB III city-wall at time of Garstang’s excavations (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. XVIII)

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

tumbled down EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)

Tables

Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:Table 1)

Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE)

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:Table 2)

Town Walls

in English

from Nigro (2006c:Table 2)

Excavation phase	Sellin & Watzinger	Garstang	Kenyon					Italo-Palestinian Mission
Excavation phase	North sector	Whole site	Trench I	Trench II	Trench III	Square M	"Site A"	Areas B & B West	Area L
Sultan IIIb – Early Bronze II	Massive “purple Wall”	Wall of “City A”	Walls A + B and tower	probable tower (?) (XVI/III)	wall (?) NCS + NDE (XVI)	Town Wall I–II	Town Wall 1	–	–
Sultan IIIc1 – Early Bronze IIIA	they do not distinguish the two phases	Wall of “City B” (initially dated to MB, later to EB III)	Inner Wall = E + F + G Outer Wall = K – L	Inner Wall = ODR Outer Wall = ODS	Inner Wall = NFB Outer Wall = NFD (NFF cross wall)	Town Wall III (a–c)	Town Wall 2	Inner Wall = W.1	–
Sultan IIIc2 – Early Bronze IIIB	–	Wall of “City D” (erroneously dated to Late Bronze)	Inner Wall = H Outer Wall = M	Inner Wall = ODR + ODL Outer Wall = ODT + ODW	Inner Wall = NFG Outer Wall = NFJ	Town Wall IV	Town Wall 3	Inner Wall = W.2 Outer Wall = W.55	tops of the structures

in Italian

from Nigro (2006c:Table 2)

Table 2

Stratigraphic subdivision of the defensive structures brought to light by the various expeditions to Jericho.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2006c)

Photos

Normal Size

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 General View of

Figure 2

General view of Area A (2013): sampling destruction layer F.1688 west of Tower A1, from south.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2013)

Area A and sampling of destruction layer F.1688 west of Tower A1 from Nigro and Taha (2013)
Fig. 3 Mudbricks visible

Figure 3

Mudbricks visible on the northern face of Tower A1 Wall W.15; the stretcher one (left) measures 0.59 m, the header 0.36 m.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2013)

on the northern face of Tower A1 Wall W.15 with possible destruction layer above from Nigro and Taha (2013)
Fig. 7 Earthquake crack

Figure 7

The earthquake crack of Stage XIII.liii in Kenyon’s Square EI(after Kenyon 1981, pl. 160b)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 8 Earthquake crack

Figure 8

The earthquake crack n Garstang’s North-Eastern Trench (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. VIIa)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 18 Collapsed mudbricks

Figure 18

EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 20 EB IIIB final

Figure 20

Evidence of the EB IIIB final destruction in Palace G

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

destruction in Palace G from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 21 tumbled down

Figure 21

The tumbled down EB III city-wall (after Garstang - Garstang1948, pl. XVIIa)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 22 Section of the

Figure 22

Section of the tumbled down EB III city-wall at time of Garstang’s excavations (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. XVIII)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

tumbled down EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 23 EB IIIB final

Figure 23

Evidence of the EB IIIB final destruction in Building B1, built at the south-western corner of the EB III city, just inside the EB III city-wall.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

destruction in Building B1 from Nigro (2014)
Plate 200a Collapsed bricks

Plate 200a

Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff)

click on image to open ina new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 200b Collapsed bricks

Plate 200b

Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff/)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Fig. 16 Collapsed bricks

Figure 16

Dune-yellowish mudbricks tumble down from the EB II city wall at Kenyon’s Site A

(after Kenyon 1981, pl. 200b).

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

at Site A from Nigro (2014)
Plate 201a 3rd wall cutting

Plate 201a

Site A. On left, 3rd wall cutting into top of 2nd wall (p.374)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

into top of 2nd wall at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 201b 3rd wall cutting

Plate 201b

Site A. and wall below, cut into by 3rd wall. A rebuild runs from the right up to a straight joint (p. 374)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

into wall below at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 79b Tower built

Plate 79b

Tower built against Town Wall A (p. 97)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

against Town Wall A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 80a Foundations of

Plate 80a

Foundations of tower and face of Town Wall B (p. 97)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

tower and face of Town Wall B from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 100a Stone foundation

Plate 100a

Stone foundation of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM (p.146)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Fig. 38 Collapsed town wall

Figure 38

Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. At the base, beside the survey pole, the stone foundations and, spreading to the right, the face of the brick wall collapsed onto the contemporary surface.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1978)

of the Early Bronze Age from Kenyon (1978)
Fig. 38 Annotated version of

Figure 38

Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. JW: Ordered fall of mud-bricks from the face of the town wall is shaded red while the disordered wall of mud-bricks from the core of the wall is shaded pink.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1978)

the collapsed town wall of the Early Bronze Age from Kenyon (1978) and modified by JW
Fig. 18 Collapsed bricks

Figure 18

EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

and burnt beams in EB IIIA Inner Gate from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 3 Outer wall of Jericho

Figure 3

Houses of mudbrick built up against the outer wall at Jericho

Photo from the Sellin and Watzinger excavations.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 4 Final Bronze Age

Figure 4

Stratigraphic section of the final Bronze Age destruction layer at Jericho from a Kenyon excavated square on the eastern side of the city, showing collapsed building materials, pottery, charcoal, and ash.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

destruction layer from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 5 Burned storage jars

Figure 5

Burned storage jars full of grain uncovered in the fire destruction layer of Jericho 1Vc

Found and photographed in the excavations under Garstang.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

full of grain uncovered in the fire destruction layer of Jericho 1Vc from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 9 The "Middle Building"

Figure 9

The "Middle Building" at Jericho, excavated and photographed by Garstang and dated to the Late Bronze IIA or the 14th century BC

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

at Jericho from Kennedy (2023)
Pl. 62A Middle Bronze Buildings

Plate 62A

Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

overlain by wash of burnt material from Kenyon (1957)
Pl. 62A Middle Bronze Buildings

Plate 62A

Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them.

Burnt material shaded pink (by JW)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

overlain by wash of burnt material (annotated) from Kenyon (1957)

Magnified

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

click on image to open in a new tab

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 General View of

Figure 2

General view of Area A (2013): sampling destruction layer F.1688 west of Tower A1, from south.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2013)

Area A and sampling of destruction layer F.1688 west of Tower A1 from Nigro and Taha (2013)
Fig. 3 Mudbricks visible

Figure 3

Mudbricks visible on the northern face of Tower A1 Wall W.15; the stretcher one (left) measures 0.59 m, the header 0.36 m.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro and Taha (2013)

on the northern face of Tower A1 Wall W.15 with possible destruction layer above from Nigro and Taha (2013)
Fig. 7 Earthquake crack

Figure 7

The earthquake crack of Stage XIII.liii in Kenyon’s Square EI(after Kenyon 1981, pl. 160b)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 8 Earthquake crack

Figure 8

The earthquake crack n Garstang’s North-Eastern Trench (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. VIIa)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 18 Collapsed mudbricks

Figure 18

EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 20 EB IIIB final

Figure 20

Evidence of the EB IIIB final destruction in Palace G

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

destruction in Palace G from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 21 tumbled down

Figure 21

The tumbled down EB III city-wall (after Garstang - Garstang1948, pl. XVIIa)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 22 Section of the

Figure 22

Section of the tumbled down EB III city-wall at time of Garstang’s excavations (after Garstang - Garstang 1948, pl. XVIII)

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

tumbled down EB III city-wall from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 23 EB IIIB final

Figure 23

Evidence of the EB IIIB final destruction in Building B1, built at the south-western corner of the EB III city, just inside the EB III city-wall.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

destruction in Building B1 from Nigro (2014)
Plate 200a Collapsed bricks

Plate 200a

Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 200b Collapsed bricks

Plate 200b

Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff/)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Fig. 16 Collapsed bricks

Figure 16

Dune-yellowish mudbricks tumble down from the EB II city wall at Kenyon’s Site A

(after Kenyon 1981, pl. 200b).

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

at Site A from Nigro (2014)
Plate 201a 3rd wall cutting

Plate 201a

Site A. On left, 3rd wall cutting into top of 2nd wall (p.374)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

into top of 2nd wall at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 201b 3rd wall cutting

Plate 201b

Site A. and wall below, cut into by 3rd wall. A rebuild runs from the right up to a straight joint (p. 374)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

into wall below at Site A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 79b Tower built

Plate 79b

Tower built against Town Wall A (p. 97)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

against Town Wall A from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 80a Foundations of

Plate 80a

Foundations of tower and face of Town Wall B (p. 97)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

tower and face of Town Wall B from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Plate 100a Stone foundation

Plate 100a

Stone foundation of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM (p.146)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon et al. (1981)

of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM from Kenyon et al. (1981)
Fig. 38 Collapsed town wall

Figure 38

Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. At the base, beside the survey pole, the stone foundations and, spreading to the right, the face of the brick wall collapsed onto the contemporary surface.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1978)

of the Early Bronze Age from Kenyon (1978)
Fig. 38 Annotated version of

Figure 38

Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. JW: Ordered fall of mud-bricks from the face of the town wall is shaded red while the disordered wall of mud-bricks from the core of the wall is shaded pink.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1978)

the collapsed town wall of the Early Bronze Age from Kenyon (1978) and modified by JW
Fig. 18 Collapsed bricks

Figure 18

EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east.

click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2014)

and burnt beams in EB IIIA Inner Gate from Nigro (2014)
Fig. 3 Outer wall of Jericho

Figure 3

Houses of mudbrick built up against the outer wall at Jericho

Photo from the Sellin and Watzinger excavations.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 4 Final Bronze Age

Figure 4

Stratigraphic section of the final Bronze Age destruction layer at Jericho from a Kenyon excavated square on the eastern side of the city, showing collapsed building materials, pottery, charcoal, and ash.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

destruction layer from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 5 Burned storage jars

Figure 5

Burned storage jars full of grain uncovered in the fire destruction layer of Jericho 1Vc

Found and photographed in the excavations under Garstang.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

full of grain uncovered in the fire destruction layer of Jericho 1Vc from Kennedy (2023)
Fig. 9 The "Middle Building"

Figure 9

The "Middle Building" at Jericho, excavated and photographed by Garstang and dated to the Late Bronze IIA or the 14th century BC

click on image to open in a new tab

Kennedy (2023)

at Jericho from Kennedy (2023)
Pl. 62A Middle Bronze Buildings

Plate 62A

Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them.

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

overlain by wash of burnt material from Kenyon (1957)
Pl. 62A Middle Bronze Buildings

Plate 62A

Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them.

Burnt material shaded pink (by JW)

click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

overlain by wash of burnt material (annotated) from Kenyon (1957)

Archaeoseismic Chronology

Phases, Stages, and Radiocarbon Dates

Entire Site

Nigro (2016)

from Nigro (2016)

Table 1

Correlation between Archaeological Periodization and the Stratigraphic Phases of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2016)

Nigro (2006)

from Nigro (2006)

Table 1

Correlation between Kenyon’s periodization and the stratigraphic phases of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition.

Click on image to open in a new tab

Nigro (2006)

LBA Chronology - Bienkowski (1986)

from Bienkowski (1986)

LBA Chronology

Period	Date	Greece	Egypt	Kenyon's Pottery Groups
LBI	c.1550–1400	LHI, LHIIA and LHIIB	Start of 18th Dynasty – early Amenophis III	A, B and C
LBIIa	c.1400–1300	LHIIIA1 LHIIIA2	Amenophis III – Amarna Amarna – start Seti I	D
LBIIb	c.1300–1200	LHIIIB	Seti I – Ramesses III yr 1	E and F

Kenyon in Stern et al. (1993 v. 2)

from Chat GPT GPT-5.1 Thinking, 23 November 2025
from Kathleen Kenyon in Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Phase	Period	Date	Description (verbatim from Kenyon)
Epipaleolithic	Natufian culture	9687 BCE ± 107 to 7770 BCE ± 210	"The earliest remains, found in an area near the north end of the mound, belong to the Natufian culture. Carbon-14 dates for the deposit range from 9687 BCE ± 107 to 7770 BCE ± 210. The nature of the remains is not clear, but an oblong structure enclosing a clay platform, with a group of sockets for uprights set in a wall, too close together to be structural, may represent a sanctuary. It is possible that this was a sanctuary set up by hunters near the spring of Jericho."
Proto-Neolithic	Transitional to PPNA	late 10th–9th millennium BCE (implied)	"At this spot, the very lowest deposit consisted of a layer 4 m thick, composed of a close succession of surfaces bounded by slight humps. The humps clearly represent the bases of flimsy walls, perhaps little more than the weighting down of tents of skins, although rudimentary mud bricks were present in the form of balls of clay. ... The surfaces that made up this 4 m of deposit represent the remains of a succession of slight structures, huts, or tents seemingly suitable to the needs of a nomadic or seminomadic group. But the creation of this great depth of deposit indicates that these people were no longer nomadic, or at least that they returned to Jericho at regular and frequent intervals, perhaps practicing some form of transhumance. It is a truly transitional stage of culture, and the flint and bone industries are clearly derived from the Epipaleolithic Natufian."
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A	PPNA walled town	late 9th–8th millennium BCE (C-14 ca. 8340–6935 BCE)	"Above this deposit, the solid structures appear already fully developed, but their circular plan, usually single roomed, is clearly derived from that of a primitive hut. These circular structures are built with solid walls of piano-convex mud bricks, often with a hog-backed outline. ... The construction of these solid houses marked the establishment of a fully sedentary occupation, and the expansion of the community was rapid. Over all the area occupied by the subsequent Bronze Age town, and projecting appreciably beyond it to the north and south, houses of this type have been identified. The total area covered was almost 10 a. ... The expansion of the settlement was soon followed by a step of major importance, the construction of a town wall. ... On the west side, the first town wall was associated with a great stone tower (8.5 m in diameter and preserved to a height of 7.75 m) built against the inner side of the wall. ... Tower and wall together furnish evidence of a degree of communal organization and a flourishing town life wholly unexpected at a date that, as will be seen, must be in the ninth millennium BCE. ... The carbon-14 datings obtained for different stages in the deposits of this period range from 8340 BCE ± 200 to 6935 BCE ± 155."
Pre-Pottery Neolithic B	PPNB town	7379 BCE ± 102 to 5845 BCE ± 160	"The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B culture arrived at Jericho almost fully developed and differed from its predecessor in almost every respect. The most immediately obvious contrast was the architecture. The houses were far more elaborate and sophisticated. The rooms were comparatively large, rectangular in plan, and grouped around courtyards. ... Floors and walls were covered with a continuous coat of highly burnished, hard lime mortar. ... Bowls and dishes of white limestone, some of them very well made, became very common. ... The most remarkable evidence bearing on religious practices was the discovery of ten human skulls with features restored in plaster, sometimes with a high degree of skill and artistic power. ... These plastered skulls were most likely associated with a cult of ancestor worship. ... The Pre-Pottery Neolithic B settlement seems originally to have been undefended, for the earliest town wall found was later than a long series of house levels. ... The carbon-14 datings range from 7379 BCE ± 102 to 5845 BCE ± 160."
Pottery Neolithic A	Early Pottery Neolithic	after PPNB, before PN B	"The evidence for the next period of occupation appears in the form of pits cut into this eroded surface. These pits, which often were as deep as 2 m and about 3 m across, and in one instance as deep as 4 m, ... are therefore clear that these were occupation pits, or the emplacements of semisubterranean huts. ... The first pottery appears in these pits at Jericho. Analysis of it suggests that two different and successive groups are represented, called Pottery Neolithic A and Pottery Neolithic B. The A pottery, consisting of vessels decorated with burnished chevron patterns in red, and also of extremely coarse, straw-tempered vessels, corresponds with that ascribed to stratum IX by Garstang."
Pottery Neolithic B	Later Pottery Neolithic	after PN A, before EB	"The B pottery, consisting of jars with bow rims, jars and bowls with herringbone decoration, and vessels with a mat red slip, corresponds with that ascribed to stratum VIII. ... With the appearance of pottery there was a change in the flint industry, most noticeably the use of coarse, instead of fine, denticulation for the sickle blades. By far, the greatest amount of finds from the period came from the pits. Above the pits, however, there were some scanty remains of buildings. Too little was found to establish any house plans, but their characteristic feature was the round and the plano-convex bricks, not found at any other period."
Gap / erosion	Post-Neolithic pre-EB	Ghassulian period (probable)	"Between the Pottery Neolithic and the next stage at Jericho there is another gap, perhaps covering the period of the Ghassulian culture. The gap is indicated by the usual erosion stage and by a complete break in the artifacts, particularly the pottery."
Proto-Urban EB	Proto-Urban (Early Bronze)	toward the end of the fourth millennium	"Toward the end of the fourth millennium, a completely new people arrived in the country. It is probable that some of the earliest evidence of their arrival is to be found at Jericho. ... The newcomers, for the first time, buried in rock-cut tombs, a practice that was to become standard at least until the Roman period. They brought with them pottery in simple forms—bag-shaped juglets and round-based bowls. ... The Jericho evidence suggested that the newcomers could be divided into A, B, and C groups. ... It is for this reason that the classification Proto-Urban is suggested."
Early Bronze Age	Urban EB town	3rd millennium BCE	"From the amalgamation of influences emerged a culture responsible for the walled towns that at Jericho, as elsewhere, are the country's characteristic feature for the greater part of the third millennium BCE. Jericho at this stage had grown into a steep-sided mound beside the spring responsible for its continued existence. Around its summit can be traced the line of mud-brick walls by which the Early Bronze Age town was defended. ... The section that was cut completely through the walls on the west provided evidence of seventeen stages. ... The remains, however, showed a succession of solidly built and spacious structures that confirms the impression that this was a period of full urban development. ... The end of Early Bronze Age Jericho was sudden. A final stage of the town wall, which in at least one place shows signs of having been hurriedly rebuilt, was destroyed by fire."
Intermediate EB–MB	Intermediate EB–MB (MB I)	Amorite expansion (late 3rd–early 2nd millennium BCE)	"Between the layers associated with the two types of houses was an accumulation of a new type of pottery associated with newcomers who apparently were not yet building houses but must still have been living in tents. The stage (elsewhere called Middle Bronze Age I) is best called the Intermediate Early Bronze- Middle Bronze period, for it represents an intrusion between the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze ages, differing from both in every important respect. The newcomers were nomads and pastoralists. Even when they started to build houses, they did not develop a true urban center. The houses straggle down the slopes of the mound and over the surrounding country, and there is no evidence of a town wall. The tribal and nomadic character of the population is shown by its burial customs. The dead were buried individually in separate tombs, a feature that sharply distinguishes this period from the preceding and succeeding ones."
Middle Bronze Age (early)	Middle Bronze Age (MB II)	probably end of MB I / late 19th c. BCE onward	"An abrupt cultural break marks the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (according to Kenyon's terminology, it is more often called the Middle Bronze Age II). The evidence at Jericho is very clear. The break is again in type of settlement, burial customs, tools and weapons, and pottery. ... The exception to this considerable erosion was in the center of the east side of the town, immediately adjacent to the spring. Here, there was a crescent- shaped hollow, presumably because access to the spring prevented the accumulation of the earlier levels. The Middle Bronze Age levels have survived in the hollow. ... The evidence is sufficient to show that from the earliest stages the buildings were substantial. In this respect and in the regularity of their plans, they resemble those of the Early Bronze Age and not those of the Intermediate Early Bronze- Middle Bronze period. ... It is probable, therefore, that the site was first occupied at the end of the Middle Bronze Age I (more commonly referred to as Middle Bronze Age II), perhaps toward the end of the nineteenth century BCE."
Middle Bronze Age (glacis)	MB II fortified town	later MB II, destroyed c. 1560 BCE	"For the final stage of the Middle Bronze Age, something more of the town plan can be established. The houses excavated in the 1930-1936 and 1952-1958 expeditions were small dwellings, with small and rather irregular rooms, lining two roads that in parts had shallow cobbled steps going up the slopes. ... This quarter of the town may have been one in which corn millers lived, for in one house that had grain stored on the ground floor, no fewer than twenty-three grinding querns were found in the debris that had fallen from the upper story. ... It is reasonably certain, however, that these building phases belonged to the new type of defenses that appear at Jericho, as at many other sites in the country—the type in which the wall stands on top of a high glacis. The surviving portion at Jericho consists of a revetment wall at the base (without the external ditch found at some sites), an artificial glacis overlying the original slope of the mound and steepening the slope to an angle of 35 degrees, and the face of the glacis surfaced with hard lime plaster. ... Three stages of this glacis can be traced. ... The final Middle Bronze Age buildings at Jericho were violently destroyed by fire. Thereafter, the site was abandoned. ... The date of the burned buildings would seem to be the very end of the Middle Bronze Age, and the destruction may be ascribable to the disturbances that followed the expansion [JW: expulsion?] of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1560 BCE."
Late Bronze Age II	LB II town	reoccupied soon after 1400 BCE; abandoned in 2nd half of 14th c. BCE	"The site was abandoned during most of the second half of the sixteenth century and probably most of the fifteenth. ... Only very scanty remains survive of the town that overlies the layers of rain-washed debris. These include the building described by Garstang as the middle building, the building he called the palace (although there is no published dating evidence and it could be Iron Age), and fragments of a floor and wall in the area excavated from 1952 to 1958. Everything else disappeared in subsequent denudation. The small amount of pottery recovered suggests a fourteenth-century BCE date. This date is supported by the evidence from five tombs excavated by Garstang that were reused in this period. It is probable that the site was reoccupied soon after 1400 BCE and abandoned in the second half of the fourteenth century."
Iron Age II	Iron Age occupation	mainly 7th c. BCE	"According to the biblical account, Hiel the Bethelite was responsible for the first reoccupation of Jericho in the time of Ahab (early ninth century BCE). No trace of an Iron Age occupation as early as this has so far been observed, but it may have been a small-scale affair. In the seventh century BCE, however, there was an extensive occupation of the ancient site. Evidence of this does not survive on the summit of the mound but is found as a thick deposit, with several successive building levels, on its flanks. On the eastern slope, a massive building from this period was found, with a tripartite plan common in the Iron Age II. The pottery suggests that this stage in the history of the site lasted until the period of the Babylonian Exile."
Persian & later	Persian period and later reuse	Persian to Early Arab	"A few finds, including jar handles with the seal impression yhwd (Yehud), the name of the satrapy of Judea, belong to the Persian period. Thereafter, the site near `Ein es-Sultan was abandoned. Later periods are represented only by some Roman graves and a hut from the Early Arab period."

Jericho vol. III (Kenyon et al., 1981)

Appendix C - Radiocarbon Dates

from Kenyon (1981)

Appendix D - Index of Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981)

Appendix E - Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981)

Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage

from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Chronological Background Info

Chronological Divisions

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

Bronze Age of the Levant

Pharaohs/Egypt

Sultan 1a Earthquake - Natufian - ~10500 - ~8500 BCE

Discussion

References

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

... The excavations therefore consisted of a series of soundings designed to establish the history of the site rather than to provide a large exposure of the structures of any one period. It is felt that in the present state of knowledge of Jericho and of the history of early urban development in Palestine in general, this is the approach that was required. Nevertheless, as the plans show, quite considerable areas of a long succession of buildings were exposed at sufficiently widely spaced points on the mound to give a clear indication of the plans of structures.

Each site is recorded separately, for only a stratigraphical link could prove the relationship of phases in different sites. In each site the deposits as recorded in the field are linked into phases by relation to structures, starting with i at the bottom. Normally, the construction levels, floor levels, and make-up and contents of walls are numbered, e.g. M I. xiv, though it is of course recognized that such levels probably contain mainly derived material. Occupation deposits would be numbered xiv a, with possibly xiv b as well, etc. Material from these deposits is thus more certainly contemporary with the structures. Very slight alterations in plan or structure may be numbered, e.g. xiv c, but normally an appreciable alteration would be called, e.g., phase xv. Usually between building phases there is a layer of collapse debris, which is numbered, e.g. M I. xiv-xv. It may contain material belonging to the last occupation of the structure, but could include objects dropped by later inhabitants tidying up the site, and could also include much earlier objects incorporated in bricks forming part of the collapse. The number of phases in most sites may seem large, but it must be remembered that when a wall has been reconstructed from a low level, a very considerable collapse of that building is indicated.

These structural phases are in each site grouped into Stages, indicating a main alteration in plan. Usually a new Stage is given when there is a complete break in plan. Some of the Stages cover a large number of phases, in which one building continues throughout though the others may change; an example is in E I, II, V, phases ix to xiv, where building E 3 continues throughout.

These Stages likewise cannot be applied from site to site. What possible connections there are are discussed in Jericho IV. The only exception to this is Trench I, and Squares F I, D I, and D II, where the phases in the different areas can be linked by their relationship to the defenses and in part by direct connections.

The only exception to this method of numbering the phases is Squares L I–IV. The pottery from the upper levels of this site was partly published by Professor J. B. Hennessy, at a time when it was still classified under the working annotations with A at the top, and so on downward in letters. It was felt that it would cause confusion to introduce new designations, and those used by Professor Hennessy, from Q up to A, have been retained. Some further excavations in this area were carried out after the end of the main excavations, and this system has been retained, back to Z, followed by AA, BB, as late as NN.

Incidentally, all sites were in origin sorted under letters, though normally with A at the bottom since the site had been excavated to bedrock. Museums and other collections where the material is deposited have been provided with correlation lists between the notations with which the object is marked and published designations, and also with the field notebook numbers.

The position of the excavation areas is shown on fig. 1. Since the areas were selected without strict reference to the main grid plan, which would in any case have been difficult, measurements are related only to the original excavations. In some cases, a key plan shows the discrepancies that arose in the various areas.

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

The complex of walls shown on pl. 254a can only be interpreted on grounds of probable sequence, since the trenches of the earlier excavations have removed almost all stratigraphical evidence. Structurally, the first wall is OCQ, which has a return to the west OOS at the north end, which in W.W. section is obscured by robbing. Against this wall was built wall OCR, in phase lxiv incorporated in a town wall. Against wall OCR were built walls OCP and OCM, and between wall OCQ and wall OCP was built wall OCX. As the plan, pl. 251c, shows there are butt joints at all these junctions, but, in the absence of stratigraphical evidence, they are all taken as contemporary, and the butt joints are interpreted as structural features only.

The lower courses of wall OCP are continuous with a return to the east, wall OCN, as are those of OCQ with a return to the west, ODA. Wall OCN stops 0.85 m. short of wall OCM, leaving a doorway which is maintained through three building periods (pl. 102b). It is for this reason that it is presumed that wall OCO belongs to a later period, since the gap would make no sense if there were a wall immediately to the south, for c. 1.25 m. of the first build of this wall survived above the floor level belonging to the room. There is, however, a complication about wall OCN. As already stated, the lower courses are continuous with wall OCP. The upper courses, however, have a butt joint against the existing wall on this line (see pls. 103b and 104a), which is later than the phase lxi rebuild of wall OCO (see below, p. 159). One interpretation could be that wall OCN was never more than a sill-wall. This is not very probable, since its surviving height is c. 1.00 m. above the contemporary surface. It seems more likely that there had been butt joints between walls OCP and OCQ against the superstructure of wall OCN, perhaps as an anti-earthquake device, and that in a destruction preceding phase lxi wall OCN had collapsed, leaving the butt-ends of wall OCP and OCQ standing. In the absence of stratigraphical evidence, there can be no certainty

The southern ends of walls OCM, OCP, and OCQ were subsequently incorporated in town wall ODR of phase lxiii (see pl. 104b; at the stage this photograph was taken, the trench had not been extended to the east to reveal wall OCM), and wall OCR was incorporated in town walls ODS of phase lxiv. It was therefore at first thought that they were casemates in a defensive system. This hypothesis must be discarded on a number of grounds. None of the walls which eventually made up the wall ODR complex, as shown in the east section, 0 m. N., was in itself thick enough to form a town wall. Even if there were not the difficulty of the doorway through wall OCN, wall OCO would not be strong enough to constitute a town wall on its own, against which a casemate complex might subsequently have been built. Individual walls in casemates can be thin, but are only a substitute for a solid thick town wall if at least the lower part of the space between is filled with earth; this was certainly not the case, for the floor level remained at the level of the foundations of the walls (c. 51.30 m. H.), at least until phase lxii. Finally, wall OCQ runs through well to the north of the subsequent town-wall lines, forming a large room that is certainly not a casemate, and effectively dissociates the complex from a possible defensive plan.

Chapter VII Squares E III-IV

Squares E III-IV

Proto-Urban and Early Bronze Period

Proto-Urban Period

Phases M (Major building alterations), Mi (Occupation levels), Mii (Rebuild of wall ZZ), Miii (Secondary occupation surfaces), M—L (Destruction) (plan pl. 315a)

from Kenyon (1981:325)

This phase represents a major break in the history of the site. All the previous buildings were abolished. It does not appear that this is the result of the collapse of the terrace wall for this seems to have continued into the next phase. This destruction was certainly not followed by any erosion, for the stumps of the walls are covered by bricky debris piled against their faces and over their tops (see, e.g., section E–F (pl. 323) between 1.37 and 8.85 m. N., and c. 3.20 and 3.55 m. H., and section C–D (pl. 321), between 3.55 and 6.65 m. E., c. 3.50–4.05 m. H. against walls ZV and ZX). It seems likely therefore that the collapse was due to a severe earthquake.

The new building was on entirely different lines. But this was so completely destroyed in the subsequent erosion and in phase L that the remains are entirely disjointed and nothing can be made of the plan. The walls are still on varying alignments, and not on the plan orientated approximately on the points of the compass, which was established in phase J. The curved wall ZY in the north-west corner may perhaps be part of an apsidal building. Thus though the stratigraphic and structural break was complete, there probably was not a break in architectural tradition.

Within the phase, there was some rebuilding, with wall ZZ being refaced. A considerable bricky collapse marks the end of this period, and precedes the midden fill of phase L.

Early Bronze Age

Phases H (Building alterations), Hi (Occupation levels), H—G (Destruction), H—G (2) (Two Pits) (plan pl. 316b)

from Kenyon (1981:328)

In this phase the western building remains unaltered within the area excavated, with a slightly raised floor level. The eastern house is almost completely rebuilt. Wall ZBG takes the place of ZAT just to its east; ZAN remains in use, and also ZBA, the presumed property boundary to the south. The rest of the house is completely rebuilt, on new lines, which perhaps suggests the expansion of a building to the north at the expense of that to the south. A wall, ZBD, may mark the main boundary of the northern property; its continuation to the west, where its foundations stepped up with the slope, was destroyed by later walls, but it probably ran up to ZAW. Against wall ZBD was a small raised area of white bricky floor, seen in section Z–AA at 0.05–1.95 m. N., 4.52 m. H., bounded by a thin wall, which only in part survives and which may have been no more than a kerb. This was probably a hut or shed belonging to the southern property. Running north from wall ZBD was wall ZDX. The evidence of the floor against ZDX on section C–D (pl. 321) between c. 9.75 and 11 m. E. is that there was a step-down of surface to the east of c. 0.25 m.

The western building was destroyed by fire at the end of phase H; the fire may have extended to the buildings to the east, but the evidence there was less clear. The whole of the sloping courtyard was covered by burnt wood and debris, particularly thick round the line of posts and by the doorway in ZAV–ZAW. Pl. 176b shows some of the burnt beams, and also the steeply sloping floor.

In position on the floor at the time of the fire were a number of vessels near the line of posts, a stone vessel of unusual form with upright strap handles (fig. 15:3), split in half by the heat of the fire, a small pot (fig. 11:10), both shown in pls. 177a and 177b, and a large jar, crushed into fragments. Beside the easternmost post at this time of final use was a hearth, perhaps the cause of the fire.

In erosion following this destruction, there was a collapse of at least the southern end of the terrace wall ZAO; the combination of a collapsed terrace and a fire may suggest that the cause was an earthquake. The east end of wall ZBA is truncated at 12.12 m. E., and the line of erosion cuts down through the phase K destruction level on which ZBA was built and through that level where it cuts down against the truncated end of wall ZAD. To the erosion period may belong a pit seen in section A–B (pl. 322) between 7.70 m. and 10.50 m. E., base at 4.45 m. H., cutting into wall ZBA, and a smaller one between 7.05–7.95 m. E., both of which cut into the bricky debris on the phase H floor. They are hatched H–G (2).

Appendix A The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials

F I. Burial 6 (fig. 161, pl. 61b)

from Kenyon (1981:400-401)

... Burial group 6B seems to tell a story similar to that deduced from Burials 3 and 4. Skull robbery was the apparent motive for rummaging the group to its very bottom layer. This remained relatively undisturbed once the object of the search had been achieved, while the bones higher up in the mass had clearly been first taken up bodily and then replaced in confusion. Some lingering respect for, or fear of, the dead had, perhaps, prompted the fairly orderly replacement of the group of disjointed long bones near the summit of the collection.

It would appear, then, that the bodies were first interred entire, if unceremoniously, one on top of the other. This possibly bespeaks a hasty evacuation of the city following a deadly plague—for not one of the bones bore signs of violence such as might have been expected as the result of a massacre.Shallow common graves were dug¹, the bodies heaped in without regard to age or sex, but with a certain care as to their attitudes. Where any natural arrangement at all could be observed, the bodies seem to have been laid, flexed or contracted, on their sides, not thrown in with limbs outspread as might have been the case with enemy casualties treated as unrespected carrion .

Later—after no long interval—came the skull-quarriers, intent only on their thorough search, for not one cranium in the whole mass escaped them. Legs and arms, whole trunks they dismembered, wrenching the mandibles from the skulls as they were found and throwing them down among the rest of the unwanted, rotting remains. Whether these ghouls were strangers, or the surviving kin of the deceased intent on ritual preservation of the most characteristic parts of their late relations, cannot now be told for certain, but the existence of the plastered skulls points to some such motive. Doubtless there are other caches of the numerous missing skulls somewhere about the tell.

Footnote

1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]

End of Sultan Ib Earthquake - PPNA - ~7500 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

The Tell Es-Sultan: Tectonic And Archaeological Setting

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:640,643)

The ancient town of Jericho is located within the DST fault zone (Fig. 1). The DST is approximately a 1,000-km-long, north–south-striking, left lateral fault system of the active boundary between the Arabian and African plates (e.g., Garfunkel et al., 1981). The DST shows relatively low level of activity in modern time, but larger-magnitude seismic events were documented in the historical reports (Guidoboni et al., 1994; Ambraseys, 2009). One of the main fault strands of the transform zone system is the Jericho fault bounding the Dead Sea basin on the west side (Reches and Hoexter, 1981; Gardosh et al., 1990). A linear escarpment at approximately 6 km south east of modern Jericho is thought to be the surface expression of the Jericho fault on land (Begin, 1974; Lazar et al., 2010). The 1927 earthquake with an M 6.2 (Ben-Menahem et al., 1976; Shapira et al., 1993) is the most recent event that caused widespread damage and casualties in the modern Jericho settlement. The revised 1927 epicenter is approximately 30 km south of the Jericho site (Avni et al., 2002; Fig. 1). Direct evidence of this event at the historical site of Jericho has not been reported by the post earthquake expeditions in the archaeological stratigraphy. Instead, archaeological traces suggest earth quake devastation back in time (Table 1).

The separation of earthquake-related damages in the archaeological layers of Jericho was made possible by the intrinsic characters of the site resulting in the classical Tell structure, where subsequent archaeological levels firmly seal the preceding occupation soils. When the village experienced destruction, there was no possibility, or need, to remove the debris completely, and the inhabitants continued to build on top of the ruins. The superposed archaeological layers in the last 11,000 yr constitute the artificial hill of the ancient Jericho up to about 10 m above the surrounding ground level (Fig. 2). This setting prevents buried and older archaeological levels from severe damaging associated to the younger shaking events.

Town wall encircling the inhabited quarters and the monumental public structures, such as the Neolithic tower (Fig. 2), appeared since the PPNA (8,500–7,500 B.C.), testifying to the presence of an organized social community. The favorable geographical position of the Oasis of Jericho and the environmental conditions are the cause of the continuous occupation of the area. Indeed, the presence of perennial water springs and the climate favored the persistent occupation of Tell es-Sultan from the Natufian (ca. 11,000 B.C.) up to the Iron Age (ca. 1,200 B.C.), with a flourishing occupation during the Neolithic stages. The artifacts of the Neolithic masonry and buildings are made on massive mudstone boulders and on sun-dried brick constructions. These constructions are vulnerable, and local collapses may occur even without earthquakes. Hence, it is critical that the archaeoseismic analysis of the deformation identifies a specific cause to the observed damage, that is, earthquake, fire, flash flood, or deliberate destruction (Marco, 2008).

Archaeoseismic Observations In The Ppnb Strata

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

Figure 2 and Table 2 present a set of features recognized as seismically induced effects at Tell es-Sultan in the archaeological PPNB period (7,500–6,000 B.C.). Both the map and the table were based on our review of the archaeological documents, including the analysis of the stratigraphy, that enhance seismic shaking activities undefined in number and timing. We excluded in the map damage caused by human invasions, structural collapses, fires, or natural hazards other than earthquake. Although the distribution in the map does not reflect the complete damaged field of the Tell, it gives significant information on the nature and extension of the damage itself. Furthermore, when this picture is framed in a chronological context, it allows inferring the time–space occurrence of the individual elements (see the section Time Constraints on the PPNB Earthquakes Occurrence).

In the following paragraphs, we describe the significant damage elements, although more than one effect coexist at several points, that is, a set of fractures associated to major collapse and human skeletons trapped under the fallen structures. In general, the observed fractures appeared to the excavators as well-preserved open elements while removing the fillings. No calcification of the fracture was observed to be prevented by the climate of the Jericho area. The fractures did not result from lateral spreading because

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). The houses were rebuilt, and Kenyon (1981) suggested that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake destruction (see also Table 2).

The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). We used the original pictures and sections to define the position and orientation of these fractures and then to determine the relative movement along their trace. Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). A group of human skeletons was also found not in burial position, whose deaths may be attributed to sudden events such as collapse and destruction (Fig. 4, point 11).

Time Constraints On The Ppnb Earthquakes Occurrence

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

In Figure 4, we project the stratigraphic position of the seismically induced deformation observed at zones A and B (Fig. 4, dashed boxes and referred points). Once placed in archaeological correlation, the highly deformed layers at different sites of excavations allow a definition of the temporal sequence of the events.

The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. The effects observed at points 4 and 2 (zone B) occurred within layers of the same time interval. Hence, we assumed that all these shaking effects resulted from the same seismic event (Fig. 4, green stars). The position of the event horizon relative to the archaeological periodization suggests the occurrence of the event at about 7,000 B.C., well after the beginning of the PPNB period. The only radiocarbon age from the deformed layer at the early stage of PPNB, consistent with the archaeological periodization and of good quality, is 7,683–7,484 B.C. (calibrated age, 2σ range; sample BM-1320, 8;540 65 B.P.; Kenyon, 1981); this age would predate the event (Fig. 4, zone A, square MI).

A younger event was recognized through the analysis of points 3, 15, and 16 from zones A and B of the map (Fig. 4, red stars). The effects were observed within layers dated to the end of the PPNB. In particular, the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). These observations constrain the occurrence of the second seismic shaking of the studied period approximately 6,000 B.C., and not later.

In summary,we isolated two deformation events related to seismic shaking. We identified their event horizons: The older event is set within the first half of the PPNB period, that is 7,500–7,000 B.C., and the younger one, close to the upper time limit of the PPNB, that is, approximately 6,000 B.C. The two events were separated by undisturbed archaeological strata, including rebuilding phases, that were marked as stage XIV in zone B by Kenyon (1981)and corresponded to layers XII–XIII of Garstang and Garstang (1948), matching the first half of the PPNB period.

Earthquakes Findings

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our interpretation of the archaeological observations provides the isolation of two deformation events striking the Tell es Sultan in the 7,500–6,000 B.C. interval (PPNB), the younger event approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one likely at approximately 7,000 B.C. We attribute the deformation to earthquakes. We further interpret the absence of other damages within the PPNB as evidence that no other major earthquakes affected the Tell during this interval of time. The two PPNB events are not cited in the archaeological literature of the region. Historical earthquakes were evidenced from trenching by Lazar et al. (2010) and Reches and Hoexter (1981) and from lake seismites analysis by Kagan et al. (2011) (see Fig. 1 for location). More than 30 km south of the Jericho site, evidence for earthquake occurrence within our time interval was reported by Enzel et al. (2000), who described faulting and liquefaction features on fan-delta sequence associated with the activity of the Jericho fault between 9,500 and 7,000 yr B.P. Migowski et al. (2004) inferred that the older seismites (~5,000–7,000 B.C.) in their laminated sedimentary cores (see Fig. 1 for location) can be correlated with the disturbances of Enzel et al. (2000). The authors cannot correlate their older records to any earthquake, because the current dataset of archaeoseismological and paleoseismological literature lack of clear earthquake determination back to ~6;000 B.P. At least two deformed layers in the Migowski’s sequence between 5,600 and 6,800 B.C. possibly correlate with our seismic events. Further evidence for seismic events in the time interval analyzed in this work comes also from damaged speleothems at the Soreq and Har-Tuv caves, nearly 40 km west of Tell es-Sultan (Fig. 1), where earthquake evidence at ~8:6 ka has been found (Braun et al., 2009).

In this context, the earthquakes' timings defined in this work, that is, the two Neolithic events at ~7;000 and 6,000 B.C., represent an independent check for the earthquake occurrences reconstructed with different approaches and for correlation among different records.

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Our results show that Tell es-Sultan was seismically shaken twice in 1,000–1,500 yr, most probably 1,000 yr, by damaging earthquakes. Moreover, at Jericho, evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site. A wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986). Assuming this interpretation credible and placing it as the immediate antecedent earthquake of the two events recognized in this work, we infer a rough average recurrence interval for earthquake shaking at the site of 750 yr (two interevents in 1,500 yr, 7,500–6,000 B.C.). Although this estimate refers to seismic shaking in a limited period at Tell es-Sultan, in which the seismic sources are unknown, it falls in the range of previously published recur rence values in a comparable time window for the Dead Sea area. Migowski et al. (2004) defined an earthquake recur rence interval of 500 yr for the period 8,000–5,500 B.C. from paleoseismites within the Dead Sea. Also accounting for a larger time window, the average repeat time for strong earth quakes (M ≥6.5) based on paleoseismological, archaeological, and seismological studies in the fault system of the Dead Sea basin, converges to ~500 yr during the past 60,000 yr (Hamiel et al., 2009 and references therein).

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Solely on the basis of our data, we cannot determine the faults responsible for the prehistorical recognized earthquakes. However, a reconstruction of the active fault system of the DST in the area of Tell es-Sultan (Shamir et al., 2005) and the observed young scarps indicate that the system includes the main approximately north–south-trending left lateral Jericho fault to the east and the broad zone of distributed faults west of it (Fig. 5). One of these latter, the northeast–southwest-trending Nuweime fault bounds the area of Tell es-Sultan (Begin, 1974; Shamir et al., 2005). The right lateral normal motion is attributed to this fault based on current seismicity (Shamir, 2006).

A morphological step is observed along the southeastern margin of theTell (Fig. 5, picture), and its southern and northern extension traces the position of the Nuweime fault. Paleo seismic investigation could impose tighter constraints on the activity of the Nuweime fault. In a seismic context, the activity of the Nuweime fault would contribute to the vulnerability of theTell area, being one of the possible faults responsible for the seismic shaking damages at the Tell and surrounding region.

Conclusions

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Finally, the more extended is the reconstruction of the seismic history at a site, the more reliable is the seismic hazard estimation affecting the population and the cultural heritage. This is particularly crucial in the case of Jericho, often called “the oldest city in the world,” where past archaeological records are one of the possibilities to investigate such prehistorical events, especially when original data vanish with time.

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

VII A. D II. xiv-xv (Debris between phases xii and xv), xiv–xv a (Pit), xv a (Debris), xv a (House CH), xv xvi (Pit–debris) (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 208b)

from Kenyon (1981:42)

After a presumably fairly long life the buildings of phase D II. xiv are abolished and covered by a thick layer of debris. On top of this an entirely new house CH is constructed. This would appear to be a round house of unusual size. Only the western part of its circumference lies within the excavated area, and its diameter must have exceeded 6 m.; if the curve of the walls was approximately regular, its diameter must have been about 6.50 m. The only other house approaching this size was house MJ in Square M I. The question of its construction is discussed on p. 230 below.

Before the construction of house CH, a considerable pit was cut or eroded into the floor of the other house, and into the underlying levels (section K–L, pl. 243).

VII A. Tr. I iv

from Kenyon (1981:42)

Against the face of the upper part of TW. III, of brownish soil and not apparently a midden tip. The layers only extend as far west as c. 15.75 m. W., only a little beyond the outer lip of the original ditch. Beyond that, the rock must have been virtually bare. The layers that are assigned to this phase are those that run up to the town wall at a gentle slope. The succeeding ones are obviously tipped or washed over the denuded top of the wall and tower, and are therefore assumed to belong to Stage IX. The layers in question must therefore have accumulated during the long series of building phases covered by Stages VII and VIII. The total depth is only about 0.75 m., so care was obviously taken to keep the face of the wall clear.

Stage VIII. Tower Phase 5. F I. xii, D I. xvi, D II. xvi, VIII A. xvi a (see App. E) (plan pl. 210)

from Kenyon (1981:42-43)

There is visual evidence of at least one more major rebuild of the tower, involving a rebuilding of the skin wall to the extent of some 2.50 m. of the surviving height, in fact from the contemporary ground level. This rebuild is indicated by a change in the character of the masonry, with the use of smaller stones, more regularly laid, and there is no evidence that the surface was ever plastered. This change in character is most clearly visible in Square D I (pl. 26b). In F I less of the rebuild survives, since a part of the tower here collapsed to a lower level in the final destruction, but the new type of masonry is visible in pl. 7b appearing immediately above the level to which the walls of the phase F I xiii enclosures were destroyed; a further portion beyond the break in the tower is visible in pl. 5. In Square D II the rebuild must precede the phase D II xvii rebuild of house CH, for that is associated with phase D I xxi. Section K–L (pl. 243) suggests that it is contemporary with the second phase of house CH, at the level at which appear the angular stones which pl. 26b suggests form the lowest course of the rebuild.

It would appear that there was always a tendency for the skin wall to peel away from the original core, perhaps as a result of earthquake. It has already been remarked (p. 37) that on the east side of the tower a portion of the core must also have collapsed, as here the original face of the core is not apparent on the surface, and an irregular wedge projects inwards into the tower from the skin wall. Since this is immediately over the entrance of the passage it is highly probable that it is due to a weakness caused by the existence of the passage. It cannot, however, mean that the passage collapsed at this stage, for there was now certainly no access to it from either end, and it was found intact. It must therefore mean that an earlier patch, after the collapse which must certainly have preceded Stage IV, D II iv (p. 20), had also peeled off in the preceding collapse.

In F I the enclosures of phase F I xiii were abolished at the time the skin wall was rebuilt. They were buried in a bricky fill which in places is as much as 1.20 m. deep (section B–C, pl. 238). The fill was almost entirely of solid bricks and bricky material, but there were a few greyish streaks that look like household debris. The bricky material is presumably derived from a collapse of the superstructure of the enclosures, the walls of which must therefore have been considerably higher, but the debris streaks presumably represent levelling material imported in tidying-up operations in the present constructional period. The collapse of the superstructure of the enclosures would be due to the same cause as the collapse of the skin wall, probably an earthquake. The level of the fill coincides with that to which the plaster on the face of the tower survives (pl. 7b).

It is not certain whether there were any contemporary buildings in F I, or whether the area adjoining the tower was open. As section A–B (pl. 237) shows, the denudation of Stage X has destroyed all deposits and structures in the western part of the area to below the level of phase F I xiii. It cannot be said whether enclosure AK shared the fate of the other enclosures or not. Since the western wall of the enclosure in fact formed the superstructure of the town wall at this point, it is probable that this at least survived, for the rebuild of the tower shows that the defences were still functional at this stage. The building AO that at the east end overlies the deep fill is cut into an ashy layer on top of the fill (section B–C, pl. 238), so it is on the whole likely that there was an interval before it was built.

In Square D I the area adjacent to the tower was certainly an open space, but in the south-east corner of the area excavated to this level house BE continued in use. It is probable that its next stage, BE 4 (sections B–C, pl. 238, and C'–D with D–E, pl. 239), comes at this period, but the levels sloping up against the tower are so close together that it is impossible to be absolutely certain as to the one which is exactly contemporary with the rebuild of the skin wall. The south section C'–D shows that BE 4 was a complete rebuild to below the contemporary external level. In section B–C the external building level to the east was not so low, but the floor level connecting with the south segment shows that the interior face of the wall had collapsed to an equally low level. Within house BE 4 and sealed by the original floor was a deep grave containing the skeletons of four or five children. The skeletons were much crushed, but were apparently in a crouched position facing east.

In Square D II house CH remained in use, but was completely rebuilt as CH 2. In the northern part of the area exposed this rebuild took the form of a new wall built inside the earlier wall from the original floor level, with an exterior level covering the stump of the earlier wall (section G–H, pl. 243). In the southern part, however, the curve of the new wall was flatter, and it is outside the old one, with the interior surface covering the stump of the latter (section H–J, pl. 242). Phase xvi a represents successive floor surfaces of CH 2.

Stage XVII A. F I. xxxi., D I. xliii a, D II. xxx-xxxi

from Kenyon (1981:77-79)

Overlying the surface of Stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeeded by new buildings in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction or decay. The break affects especially Square F I, where the house had disappeared in the previous stage, and Square D II, where a completely new building appears at the next stage. In Square D I, the buildings remain substantially the same, but there is an added fill in the north-west corner. In this part of D I and over the whole of F I there was a bricky fill, only some 25 m. thick at the crest of the slope, along the line of section B—C (pl. 238), but thickening to the west where it was up to a metre deep (section V—W, W'—Z pl. 240). There is no evidence as to whether this fill was retained to the west by a terrace wall. It certainly precedes the town wall TW. IV, as all the sections show. It can be a levelling up for the Stage XVIII house with which TW. IV is associated, if the fill was put in first and then the wall built against it with a packing, which is a method of building not found in any other instance. It seems more likely that the filling represents a destruction and decay level.

The most striking point about this filling is that it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty, mostly without crania, and some of them dismembered at a stage when the various parts of individual limbs were still held together by the ligaments. Dr. Cornwall, in his description of the individual groups in Appendix A, suggests that this dismembering was connected with the search for, and removal of, crania. This must be associated with the preservation of skulls, perhaps with plastered features, of which the evidence is found in Stage XVII (p. 77).

The fact that in some cases the crania were present but displaced might also suggest that there was an element of belief that if the cranium was detached from the body, the ghost would not haunt its old body.

The bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves. The exception is those on the crest of the slope, where the deposit of this stage was shallow, and the bodies were in pits cut into the preceding levels. Two levels could be distinguished in the fill, though the material was much the same. It may be significant that of the bodies in Square F I in which the crania were present, burials 1 and 2 were certainly in the lower level and burial 9 possibly. Moreover, the complete body in burial t-2 is lying in a different position from the rest, prone as if in the position in which the individual collapsed. This may also be so in the case of one body, partly destroyed by a Pottery Neolithic pit, in the north-west part of Square D I, in which the individual lies on the plastered floor of Stage XVII (pl. 60a). These two bodies at least suggest that a number of individuals were killed in the destruction of the buildings of Stage XVII and left to lie where they fell. It is tempting to interpret the deaths as a result of enemy action, for at the next stage the settlement, somewhat restricted in size, is surrounded by a defensive wall. The examination of the skeletal remains, however, provided no evidence of wounds, and though much of any such evidence might have disappeared owing to the fragile condition of the bones, it is improbable that no evidence should have survived. A more probable explanation therefore is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake. Injuries received in this way would be indistinguishable from the crushing the bones underwent as a result of soil pressure. The bodies in the lower layer would then be those buried in debris and left where they fell. The bodies in the upper layer would be those of other casualties, gathered together and incorporated in a levelling over of debris. It was these bodies from which the crania were removed. Dr. Cornwall suggests that the bodies were first buried and then ransacked for skulls.

In Square D I, the ascription of the levels was rendered difficult by the fact that the Pottery Neolithic pits cut down to this level, and by the fact that the buildings of Stage XVIII onwards were cut into the earlier levels. There is, however, a strong possibility that the burials described below belong to this stage. Details as to the stratigraphical evidence are appended to the descriptions. Dr. Cornwall's description of the skeletal remains is given in Appendix A.

Footnotes

1 The appearance of the great mass of skeletal remains of this stage was the first indication that they enabled the provision of important anthropological evidence. As a result of an SOS, Dr. Ian Cornwall was enabled to visit Jericho for a fortnight in 1954, by kind permission of the Director of the University of London Institute of Archaeology on a special grant from the British academy, for which one must put on record our gratitute for the support of Sir Mortimer Wheeler.

STAGE XXI-XXII. F 1. xxxv-xxxvi, D I. xliv-xlv, D II. xxxii-xxxiii (see Appendix E) STAGE xx1I. F I. xxxvi, xxxvi a, D I. xlv, xlv a (see Appendix E), D II. xxxiii, xxxiii a (plan pl. 225)

from Kenyon (1981:85-86)

The long-lived buildings in Square F I come to an end with a considerable collapse, indicated by a fill up to o•6o m. thick of fallen mud-bricks on the plastered floor of the principal room (section V—W, pl. 240). East of the courtyard, the buildings in Square D II were also entirely rebuilt. In Square D I, the alterations were less considerable.

The new building in Square F I is on approximately the same plan as that of the preceding stages. The new north wall 102 of the central room was built on top of the vats of Stage XXI. At the west side of Square F I, 102 made use of the north side of wall 99 of the preceding phase, and in the earthquake destruction that ended phase F I. xxxvii, it slid off the underlying wall, and here does not survive at all. The position of its southern face is indicated by the edge of the contemporary floor, seen in Section W—A, pl. 240 at 16.22 m. N., 10.45 m. H. Wall 104 replaced wall 87 as the eastern boundary of the main area, slightly to the west. The western boundary must also have been moved westward, and lies beyond the area surviving the destruction caused by the Pottery Neolithic pits. The western boundary of the building may still have been TW. V, but there is no evidence owing to the truncation of all levels by these pits. The position of the southern boundary of the central room is also uncertain owing to the pits.

North of the new wall 102, wall 98ii replaced wall 98 on almost the same line, with a doorway leading to the east in the same position. Walls 100 and 101 probably continued in use. The area bounded by these walls was not, however, raised in level as was the area to the south, and was therefore c. 0.60 m. lower than it. The arca does not have a plastered floor, but since there is a suggestion of roof collapse at the end of the period (p. 88), it may have been roofed. The plan of the buildings in Square D I remained the same, though it is probable that at this stage wall 70 is replaced by wall 105 and wall 51 is also rebuilt as wall 106. Their line is, however, that of the preceding ones. The continuation of wall 105 into Square D II can, unlike its predecessor 70, now be traced. The complex in the southern part of the area remained in use. It is, however, possible that at this stage wall 107, certainly secondary to walls 77ii and 71ii, is built, and also wall ro8, similarly secondary on the west side of 77ii. Wall 107 bounded the area to its south to form a new small bin, at a higher level than those in room 73-74-75-76, and wall to8 also bounded a bin, of which the western edge has been destroyed.

Wall 104, bounding the central room in Square F I on the eastern side, was pierced by openings as was its predecessor stall 87. That at the southern end is not certain, but since no continuation of the wall was observed when the baulk between Squares F I and D I was removed, it is probable that it existed. To the east, however, the courtyard seems to have run right up to this wall, without the intervening boundary suggested for Stage XVIII onwards, for the levels arc charcoal-stained and cut by fireplaces. This thickish deposit of burnt surfaces and silt is marked F I xxxvi a on section B-C (pl. 238). The building to the east of the courtyard was completely rebuilt, with the main west wall ii1-13 approximately on the line of the preceding wall 8g, but with different room walls to the east. In this rebuild, wall no (ascribed to Stage XXI) against which wall 113 win built, was incorporated. In a final stage of the occupation above the D II. xxxiii surface, there may have been a slightly raised level in the centre of the courtyard, bounded to the east by a brick kerb.

STAGE XXIII. F L xxxvii, D I. xlvi, xlvi a, b (see App. E), D II. xxxiv, xxxiv a (plan pl. 226)

from Kenyon (1981:87)

The next stage is marked by partial rebuilding. In the central room in Square F I, there was a succession of plastered surfaces. With the final one of these goes the addition of wall 116 to the east of wall 104. On section I (pl. 236), the surfaces coincide, as seen at 11-12 m. N., see 90 m. H. in section B-C (pl. 238). This wall is of a rather slight character, not aligned accurately on the axis of the building. It may therefore bound a terrace and not enclose a room. It is not shown on section I, pl. 20 since between 3 m. and 9 m. E. the section is drawn on the south side of Square F I, 2.30 m. to the south of the immediately lower part. At a later stage it was probably roofed as a veranda (p. 88), but the evidence for this is lacking at this stage. In it there was one central door leading to the courtyard, and a second one was probable. The foot of the wall against the courtyard to the east was faced with orthostats, a feature also found in walls bounding a courtyard in Square E. A slight wall 117 was built parallel to wall 103, bounding the courtyard to the north, which is probably contemporary.

The floor associated with wall 116 is the first that seals the foundation trench of what is probably a final rebuild of wall 105, though the junction of the floor with the wall is cut by a subsequent pise thickening (p. 89). This rebuild is contemporary with a further rebuild, 77iii, of part of 71, the only stage of the wall to survive to any height in section B-C (pl. 238). The same floor can be traced across the courtyard to link with a rebuilding of the structures to the east. Wall 118 takes the place of wall 111-13 on approximately the same line; the mud-brick of the wall is denuded almost to floor level, and the line can in parts only be traced by the stone foundations. It would seem that the courtyard was reduced in size on the east side as well as the west, for the surfaces to the west of wall 118 show traces of white plaster, which seem to run up to wall 121, only fragmentarily preserved. The alignment of this wall with wall 118 is not very exact, and that of its successor, wall 126 in Stage XXIV, is still more askew. It is possible that the area it enclosed was a veranda rather than a room, as is suggested was the case with wall 116 on the west side of the courtyard. This wall does not show in section K—L, pl. 243, and there may have been a doorway here. East of wall 118 there are apparently no room walls. At an early period there was a stone paving here, but since it was succeeded by a series of white plastered floors, the area was probably a room and not an open space. Moreover, though the paving was drawn on the D II. xxxiv plan, section K—L suggests that it belongs to the latest phase of wall 114. The sections are, however, too incomplete for certainty.

STAGE XXIII—XX1V. F I. xxxvii-xxxviii, D I. xlvi-xlvii, D II. xxxiv-xxxv (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:87-88)

The buildings of Stage XXIII were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from the north end of Square F I. Here, wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the final floor of the central room to the south. As seen in section W—A', pl. 240, it sheered off the top of the underlying wall 99 upon which it was founded. As found, the face of the wall was prone but intact, and the back of its bricks gave the appearance of forming a brick pavement (pl. 71 a). Wall 102 did not, however, collapse direct on to the contemporary surface, which as mentioned on p. 85, was lower than that to the south, in the final stage by c. 0.75 m., but on to a completely irregular layer of mud-bricks (section A—B, pl. 237), the top of which could only be traced by the plastered face of the fallen wall. The collapse of wall 102 therefore came at the final stage of the earthquake. It was preceded by the collapse of walls 98ii and 101, and, since the debris extends over the whole floor, perhaps by the collapse of a roof, though that would be the only evidence that the area was roofed. South of wall 102, there is no debris of collapse, and the succeeding floor is only slightly above that of the preceding stage, so in the rebuilding the debris within the house must have been cleared away.

In Square D I there is no evidence of similar collapsed walls in situ, and there are the difficulties that have existed throughout in linking the levels with those of F I. There is, however, a phase of major rebuilding on the same lines, as was the case in F I, preceded by the filling up of the room bounded by walls 105 and a new wall 123 on the line of 71 with a very deep fill of broken brick. It is probable that these collapses are to be attributed to the same earthquake. In Square D II, the buildings of the preceding stage are so very ill preserved that there is no evidence whether they required rebuilding for their reuse in the next period.

STAGE XXIV. F I. xxxviii, xxxviii a, D I. xlvii, xlvii a, STAGE XXIV-XXV. D I. xlvii-xlviii, DII. xxxv, xxxv a, STAGE XXIV-XXV (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 227)

from Kenyon (1981:88-90)

In the rebuilding after the earthquake, the main features of the plan in all the squares were preserved. The greater part of Square F I continued to be occupied by a main room with a burnished plastered floor, though increasingly less of this survives the pits of the Pottery Neolithic period. The collapsed northern wall was replaced by wall 122 (section pl. 241d), built against the line of its predecessor’s inner face, with the stump of the old wall 102, of which a length of c. 1 m. at its junction with wall 104 had not collapsed so low, apparently left standing above the external ground level. Wall 122 is built abutting on the nib that had projected from wall 102 to form the respond of the doorway in wall 104. The latter wall continued in the same position, but it was too ill preserved to provide evidence of the extent to which it required rebuilding. As already mentioned, the new plastered floor was only slightly above the preceding one and was not separately identified in section I (pl. 236). At this stage it was clear that the area bounded by wall 116, bordering the courtyard, was roofed, for the plastered floor ran through the doorways in wall 104 and was in fact better preserved to the east than the west of 104. As section X—Y (pl. 240) shows, the level between 104 and 116 was considerably raised. As has already been suggested (p. 81), from alignment and structure wall 116 does not look as if it were a house wall. It seems probable therefore that it bounded a roofed veranda at this stage, and possibly also in Stage XXIII, though since the plaster floor does not survive for that stage, the area may have only been a terrace.

The buildings in the area to the north of the main room were not, however, restored, and it was clearly now an open space, with fireplaces cut into the underlying debris (section A—B, pl. 237). Wall 98ii was certainly abolished. The top of the debris does not seal the remains of wall 100, but the fill may have sagged, and the fact that a fireplace is cut into the surviving top of the wall suggests that it too was abolished at this stage.

Since the level in the main room in Square F I remained so very much the same as in the preceding stage it was difficult stratigraphically to link the sequence of events between Square F I and Square D I. There are, however, a number of features that seem to be associated with a considerable rebuilding on the same plan, which seem to fit in here. The first is that associated with a new floor level that still runs up to wall 103 and its exterior terrace wall 116, there was a considerable strengthening of wall 105 with a pise thickening, 105a, on its north side (section B—C, pl. 238), which was continued down well below ground level (thereby complicating the ascription of the previous stages in the wall to their contemporary surfaces). The strengthening of the wall almost certainly goes with the piling up against its south face of a great depth of brick debris, sealed only by a surface 1.15 m. above that of the preceding period. This could very well represent the clearing up of brick debris adjoining areas. This brick fill is cut by the foundation trench of a wall, 123, which with its return to the south exactly follows the line of walls 71-2 and wall 73, and is clearly a rebuild of this wall, though it is in an entirely different style, built of stones and not mud-brick (pl. 71b). Though wall 123 cuts through the bricky fill, its foundation trench is sealed by the only floor that seals the fill, while on its south side its foundation trench cuts a similar fill some 0.75 m. lower (section B—C, pl. 238). It would appear that the sequence of events was that first wall 105 was strengthened, secondly the brick debris of the collapse was piled back against it, and then wall 123 was built on the remains of 71 to divide the higher level to the north from the lower level to the south. The collapse of the parallel walls 72 and 73 was irregular, and the foundations of walls 123-4 follow these irregularities; the only alteration in the preceding plan is that 124 abolishes the doorway that had existed at the north end of 72. Section C'—D (pl. 239) shows it resting directly on the threshold of the earlier wall, and pl. 71b shows how it steps down at this point.

The room bounded by walls 105, 106, and 123 therefore was used as a dump of debris from the previous collapse, with a surface perhaps on first-floor level. It is possible that to this stage belongs wall 106a, which would appear to block the earlier doorway between walls 77ii—107 and wall 106 but it was too much denuded for the evidence to be certain.

The position west of wall 124 is also not certain. Much of this area was destroyed by the Pottery Neolithic pits. Section C'—D shows that against the west face of 124 is a thick fill of yellow clay and bricks. This, however, could well be derived from the preceding general collapse, but it certainly runs up to the face of 124. It is probable that it represents a levelling over and consolidating of the debris after the construction of 124. The alternative would be that the bins in the room 73-74-79-76 were cleared out and remained in use, for there was no intervening surface, and this seems improbable.

In Square D II, the level that links with the strengthening of wall 105 (junction of sections B—C, pl. 238, and K—L, pl. 243) shows that the main house wall, 118, continued in use, but that the place of wall 121 in advance of it is taken by wall 126, like 121 very ill preserved. This wall is even less accurately aligned on the main axis of the building than was 121, but it seems nevertheless to have bounded a roofed area rather than to have been a yard wall, for the area between it and wall 118 had a plastered floor (section K—L). This would seem to be further support for the suggestion that in Stages XXIII and XXIV the courtyard was flanked, on the east and west sides at least, by verandas. Section F—G (pl. 243) does however show against the west face of wall 118 a considerable fill above occupation layers and hearths. This fill would have been bounded on the south by wall 119, which must be one of the walls beneath the excavation steps not disentangled in the rapid excavation of Square D II; there is no equivalent fill shown in section K—L c. 5.50 m. to the south. It may be an area into which debris was piled, similar to that south of wall 105.

There seems thereafter to have been a decay period, or at least a period of more slovenly occupation in which the spread of charcoal and some hearths appear above the plastered floor of the main room in Square F I. The period must have lasted some time, during which the level rose some 15 cm. to a new surface on which there was at least one cobble-lined fireplace, and, as section W—A' (pl. 240) shows, there was also some wearing down into later levels (F I. xxxviii a). In the later stages in D II, D II. xxxv a, wall 126 is abolished, and the area is covered with charcoal spreads and hearths.

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Appendix A The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials

F I. Burial 6 (fig. 161, pl. 61b)

from Kenyon (1981:400-401)

Footnote

1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

TRENCH I

EARLY BRONZE AGE

XXXIV xxxviiia (Occupation of phase xxxviii, p. 97). xxxviii-xxxix (Collapse of the tower, p. 97), xxxix-xl (Earthqake Collapse, p. 97)

TRENCH I - ADJACENT AREA D II

PRE-POTTERY NEOLITHIC B

XXII-XXIV xxxiv—xxxv (Bricky collapse caused by an earthquake between phases xxxiv, p. 87, and xxxv, p. 88, shown on section K—L, pl. 243b).

1st Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~7000 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photos

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

The Tell Es-Sultan: Tectonic And Archaeological Setting

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:640,643)

Archaeoseismic Observations In The Ppnb Strata

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Time Constraints On The Ppnb Earthquakes Occurrence

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

Earthquakes Findings

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Conclusions

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Summaries

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Trench I

from Kenyon (1981:11-14)

By the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period, the accumulation of deposits against and ultimately over the tower, and successive collapses of the town wall which had let part of the deposits slip over the edge of the town wall above the ditch, had converted the walled town into a mound, over the top and slopes of which were spread the latest houses of the period. The slope of the mound was no doubt accentuated after the destruction of the final Pre-Pottery Neolithic A houses, which are denuded to floor level and on the edge of the mound covered with sloping layers of debris.

The houses of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B appear abruptly, as everywhere on the site, without any transitional structures. In the earlier stages, starting with Stage XII, the area of Squares F I and D I, situated on the crest formed by the underlying Pre-Pottery Neolithic A town wall, was too steep for convenience and was not built up. The first buildings to appear are therefore those of Stage XII west of the summit.

At this stage the area of Trench I provided a relatively level space, down to which the erosion area on the summit sloped. This level area extended as far west as 27.80 m. W., where it is cut by the erosion that destroyed the Stage XVI A building. Wall CW running diagonally across the trench may belong to Stage XII and may have been an enclosure wall.

The Stage XII structures on the summit appear to consist of two substantial buildings, containing large rooms with the burnished plastered floors characteristic of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B. In front of each building there would seem to be a terrace supported by a substantial retaining wall. In Stages XIII and XIV the buildings remain essentially the same, while the terrace walls are advanced gradually to the west, to extend the level area of the summit. In Stage XV the terracing is advanced still further, and there is a complete rebuilding of the structures within the area excavated. For the first time the structures on the lower terrace can be stratigraphically related with those on the summit.

Stage XVI marks a major development in the site. The terracing is advanced yet further to the west, to approximately the final line of the upper terrace. For the first time the area of Square F I is built up, though still with a floor sloping down appreciably to the west, and still at a lower level than the area of Square D I, where at each previous stage the terracing had been carried further to the west. In Square F I there is a large building with a principal room orientated north and south, having an excellent floor of burnished plaster. To the south, in Square D I, are more irregular auxiliary structures. The connection with the buildings in Square D II was at this stage difficult to establish, for the excavation of the upper levels in this area was carried out at speed in the final season’s excavation, in order to clear the base of the tower, and it was not possible to spend time on the details of the stratification and on tracing the much denuded walls. It would seem probable, however, that there was a separate building in this area. On the lower terrace at this period there was an important building, consisting of a rectangular room with a central basin, flanked to the east and west by curved structures, probably domed. This building is not domestic in character, and it is possible that it was a temple.

At the end of Stage XVI the terrace wall collapsed, at least to the west of the buildings in Square F I, and in Stage XVII the area reverts to being an open space. The building on the lower terrace was also overwhelmed in the collapse of the terrace wall. There was not the similar collapse and erosion of levels to the south, at least within the area of Square D I, because the soil here was more consolidated by the earlier terrace walls. There was, however, an almost complete rebuilding, which included a large room with a floor based on carefully laid bamboos or reeds, which may have been for storage. In the southeast corner there was a large room with a burnished plastered floor. At the time of the construction of this room, seven skulls with plastered features were buried in the fill. The building in Square D II continued in use unaltered.

This stage was also followed by a major collapse, in which the whole area of Square F I and part of D I was covered by a thick bricky fill. In the lower level of this fill were some skeletons which apparently lay as they had fallen, perhaps buried by the collapse of the building in an earthquake. In the upper layer were the remains of some twenty-seven whose bodies had apparently been ransacked for the crania at a time when decay of the flesh had begun but was by no means complete. These bodies may be those of individuals also killed in the earthquake and placed in the fill derived from it. The removal of the crania is no doubt associated with the same cult of skulls as that indicated by the plastered skulls of the preceding period (see p. 77).

In Stage XVIII there is a rebuilding that is on a completely new layout, except that the terracing in Square D I is reconstructed with some slight alterations. The most important feature is the construction of the terrace wall in a form that was certainly defensive as well. A massive town wall, TW. IV, cuts back into the preceding building levels and their overlying debris on the summit. To the west of this wall all buildings are abolished, and the earlier buildings lie beneath the debris above the building of Stage XVI. The line of occupation is raised at least 1.3 m on the west side and probably by about 1 m in Square D I. This is evidence of a similar restriction contemporary with the building of a similar wall; perhaps the earliest surviving evidence of defences of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic II settlement, but the new line perhaps took the place of an earlier line some 30 m to the west (see p. 79).

Wall TW. IV formed the western boundary of a new building covering the whole of Square F I. Its principal room overlay that of Stage XVI, but was orientated in the opposite direction, with an east–west axis. It is probable that the whole of the area excavated in the three squares formed part of one building, with a courtyard covering most of the area of Square D II, and that this remained essentially the same until Stage XXVI. It was, however, only for the later stages that walls joining the western and eastern structures could be traced, and here, as in Squares L I, II, V, there is not absolute certainty whether the furnaces were central features within the house or divided adjacent houses. The former is, however, more probable, for the successive phases of the houses correspond very well.

The next two stages relate to the history of the town wall, without much alteration to the buildings within it. The first event was a serious collapse of TW. IV, and in Stage XIX it was rebuilt, partially at the southern end of the length exposed, perhaps completely at the northern end. The house to the east of it remained unaltered, with its floor at the same level, but since TW. IV formed its western wall its superstructure must in fact have required considerable rebuilding.

In Stage XX the town wall TW. IV was replaced by another, TW. V, 5–7.5 m to the west, perhaps because the earlier one had once more collapsed, perhaps simply in order to increase the area of the town. Like TW. IV, TW. V is cut back into earlier debris, and the levels in front of it are truncated, this time down to the surface of the buildings of Stage XVI. The building in Square F I was at the same time extended to the west, presumably up to the line of TW. V, but very little of the extension survives the cutting down of the Pottery Neolithic pits. Some alterations were at the same time made in the northern part of the area cleared, but the main plan remains the same, with a floor at the same level.

The alterations of Stage XXI are less considerable. The main buildings in Squares F I and D II remain the same. To the north of the main room in F I, however, the level, hitherto below that of the rest of the building, is raised, and along the north wall of the main room are constructed some vats, perhaps to store rainwater from the roofs. Some modifications in the rooms east of the courtyard perhaps also belong here. There is no evidence from this stage on as to the position of the town wall, as the deposits to the west have been removed by the Pottery Neolithic pits.

At the end of Stage XXI the buildings east and west of the courtyard suffered a complete collapse, and both are rebuilt over a considerable depth of debris. The main lines of the building of Stage XXII remain the same, but the positions of the interior divisions are altered. In Square F I the dimensions of the main room were increased, and the line of the western subdivision lies outside the area that has survived the Pottery Neolithic pits. For the first time a wall along the southern side of the courtyard can be traced, though it can be presumed that an earlier one existed on the same line. The buildings in Square D I remained the same, with some rebuilding and some minor modifications.

The main alteration of Stage XXIII was that the courtyard was restricted in area by terraces on the east, north, and west sides. These terraces were certainly roofed as verandahs at a later stage, and it is very probable that this was so now. These buildings were undoubtedly destroyed by an earthquake, which left its traces in one wall lying flat on its face and the subsequent need for rebuilding walls from their foundations and the clearing up of a great mass of brick debris. The succeeding buildings of Stage XXIV were reconstructed on almost exactly the same lines, except that the collapsed north wall of the central room in Square F I was built inside the line of its predecessor, and the area to the north was no longer enclosed by walls. The debris on the floors inside the house, which were only slightly raised, was cleared up, and some of it was piled up in the room in the northeast corner of Square D I, which must have gone out of use at ground-floor level.

In Stage XXV, the last to survive of Pre-Pottery Neolithic II, there is a major alteration. From Stages XVIII to XXIV, the main plan of the area excavated remained the same, with a courtyard surrounded to the west, south, and east by buildings, presumed to be all part of the same house. In Stage XXV a massive wall was constructed running right across the area excavated from northwest to southwest, with no structures to the east. It would appear that a large part of the house property had been alienated. Such a boundary wall flanking an open space is unique among the sites examined. It is possible that it was a public building, for which purpose the land was alienated. To the west of the boundary wall the building was reconstructed with the same general layout, but with small rooms of reduced proportions.

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Chapter V Square MI

Square MI

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

XI. Phases lxiv (Building alterations and occupation between walls MBE and MBC); lxiv a (Occupation surfaces within enclosure) (plan pl. 284a)

from Kenyon (1981:243)

Section J–K (pl. 297f) shows that within the life of MAZ, wall MBE, seen at 11.50 m.–12.12 m. NW., 8.40 m. H., took the place of MAO, cutting into its face. In the west section B–C (pl. 296), MBE is seen at 8.50 m.–10 m. N., 8.48 m. H., and is probably splaying to divide into two branches. It abolishes walls MBA and MBB, but to the north is still associated with MBC, with the intervention of a subdivision formed by wall MBF at 1.60 m.–2 m. E., 8.60 m. H. in the north section C–D (pl. 296). A substantial crack in section J–K (pl. 297) at 9.87 m.–10.30 m. NW., in the surface at 8.22 m. H., which precedes MBE, may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake.

In the west section, the base of a wall running apparently between walls MAX and MAZ in a secondary stage just impinges on the sections. It could come here or in lxv.

The south section A–B (pl. 295) shows a thickening against the last face of MAR–MAX, at 1.62 m.– 2.12 m. E., base at 8.27 m. H. This probably comes in phase lxiv, since a succession of surfaces overlies the contemporary surface beneath the lxvi fill.

Chapter VI Squares EI, EII, EV

Pre Pottery Neolithic B

XIII. Phases liii (Building alterations and occupation), liii a (Courtyard floor levels) (plan pl. 3060

from Kenyon (1981:298-300)

This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was terraced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii a courtyard levels (pl. 160b) could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably to be associated with the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack, but Professor Zenner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards.

The process of encroachment into the courtyard from the west was continued in phase liii, but only by the slight advance of the southern end of the range. For the first time, this wall bounding the courtyard runs directly, without an angle, across the excavated area. From this phase until phase lxi, the eastern wall of the range remains on the same line, though it was frequently rebuilt or strengthened. Wall E 172, the southern portion of this wall, was only traced for a short distance, for its junction with the spine wall E 171 collapsed, and had to be rebuilt in phase liv. North of wall E 161, the rest of the wall E 173 survived to a height of some 0.50 m. above both the interior and exterior levels, so that it is clear that at this stage it was not merely a veranda wall. In the centre, opposite the entrance between walls E 175 and E 176, it was very ill preserved, and though nibs adjoining an entrance were suspected, they could not be proved; the footings of the wall certainly appeared to continue across, perhaps as a kerb between house and courtyard surfaces.

Wall E 172 was cut down into the thick debris level covering the remains of phase li, and was deliberately constructed with a level 0.50 m. higher within the house to the west than in the courtyard where it was at 5.30 m. H. against the wall (section A–B, pl. 311). Neither the contemporary surface within the house nor any walls of the phase survive south of wall E 161. This, however, may be because the rooms of phase liv here may have been cut below the level of phase liii. It may therefore be that there were small rooms here as in the preceding and succeeding phases.

Section A–B (pl. 311) shows to the east of wall E 172 several successive small hollows. They do not represent foundation trenches, as might first appear, for it has already been noted that E 172 cuts down into the preceding fill and the large number of successive surfaces to its east do not appear to the west and must have run up to E 172. The hollows are brick-filled; they can best be interpreted as repairs to gulleys caused by eaves-drip, or a precautionary measure against such gulleys.

Wall E 161 and all the walls to the north of it were extensively rebuilt. Wall E 161 did not completely collapse, but large stretches of its faces did. The remaining section in fact showed a series of patches and refacings which were very difficult to ascribe to the different phases. The walls of the rooms to the north were all completely rebuilt on top of the debris fill, but all are on approximately the lines of their predecessors, except that E 177 is slightly to the west of its predecessor E 167, thus being more directly opposite the corresponding wall E 178. The plan is now a good example of the typical one of a screen wall pierced by a central opening and probably one against each of the side walls, already referred to in connection with phase 1 (p. 295). The floors and walls of the rooms were covered with a good burnished cream-coloured plaster. On the wall there were some streaks and blotches of brownish colour which almost suggested a painted design.

Wall E 168 probably still bounds the courtyard on the east side, but subsequent lowerings of level and disturbances have cut the actual connecting surfaces. As in phase li, these disturbances may have removed the traces of other walls in the eastern range.

The courtyard of this phase showed the typical alternation of surfaces and charcoal spreads previously described, and a series of hearths were found. A long succession of courtyard floors fall within this structural period. A typical view in section of those of this and preceding and succeeding periods is shown in pl. 164b. An occasional posthole may be evidence of installations in the courtyard. An interesting feature was a drain running in a north-easterly direction across the courtyard (pl. 164a), presumably from the western range, but its western end had been destroyed. It was floored and edged by irregular slabs of stone, and not apparently waterproofed by clay with any care. Only a few capstones were in position. They were probably removed to be incorporated in a nearby drain of phase liv. The line of the two converged near the northern edge of the area, and the phase liii drain does not reach the section.

The phase liv drain on its west side cuts through the li a and lii a courtyard surfaces but on its east side cuts an earthy fill which crosses the top of wall E 168. It would appear that there had been erosion here similar to that in phase 1 (p. 296), in which wall E 168 was destroyed. This erosion was made good, and it could be suggested that the phase liii drain was inserted to try to combat this erosion.

Appendix A The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials

F I. Burial 6 (fig. 161, pl. 61b)

from Kenyon (1981:400-401)

Footnote

1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

2nd Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~6000 BCE

Figures, Tables, Sections, and Photos

Figures

Normal Size

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone A at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Zone B at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Map of coseismic

Figure 2

Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

effects in Entire Tell at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 2 Legend for Map

Figure 2

Legend for Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Tables

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 2 - Earthquake-Induced Damage from Archaeological Reports for PPNB (7,500–6,000 BCE) - Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Sections

Normal Size

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Magnified

Fig. 4 Archaeoseismic

Figure 4

Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

stratigraphic sections from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photos

Fig. 1 Oblique Aerial View

Figure 1

General view of the site of Tell es-Sultan, from the south.

Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ

Nigro (2016)

of Tell es-Sultan from Nigro (2016)
Fig. 3a Coseismic Effects

Figure 3a

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3b Coseismic Effects

Figure 3b

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3c Coseismic Effects

Figure 3c

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3d Coseismic Effects

Figure 3d

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3e Coseismic Effects

Figure 3e

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(e) The Garstang excavation as appears today (same shot position). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)
Fig. 3f Coseismic Effects

Figure 3f

Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2).

(f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948).

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Photo from Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Discussion

References

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

The Tell Es-Sultan: Tectonic And Archaeological Setting

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:640,643)

Archaeoseismic Observations In The Ppnb Strata

from Alfonsi (2012:643-645)

the weight loading the fractured layers is not so high
the observed fractures are always accompanied with other features in an extended deformed area
most of them occur in the flat central sector of the Tell.

Time Constraints On The Ppnb Earthquakes Occurrence

from Alfonsi (2012:645-646)

Earthquakes Findings

Events Recognition

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Earthquake Shaking Recurrence at Tell es-Sultan

from Alfonsi (2012:646)

Implications for the Earthquakes Source

from Alfonsi (2012:646-647)

Conclusions

from Alfonsi (2012:647)

The merging of archeological and geological data in the area of Tell es-Sultan leads us to the following conclusions:

Two events damaged parts of Tell es-Sultan in the PPNB. The youngest event occurred approximately 6,000 B.C. and the previous one at approximately 7,000 B.C., separated by an ~1,000-yr interval.

Considering an older event documented at the end of the PPNA (approximately 7,500 B.C.), we infer a rough average recurrence interval for damaging earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan of 750 yr. This value is comparable with other estimates from analysis of different records of seismic features in the area.

The Nuweime active fault that bounds the Tell is a plausible source for local seismic shaking, contributing to the vulnerability of the area.

This case study highlights the possibility to cover lack of information on the prehistory of a seismically prone area through the analysis of archaeological documentations of past expeditions as precious source for archaeoseismic investigators.

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Summaries

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Trench I

from Kenyon (1981:11-14)

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Chapter V Square MI

Square MI

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

XI. Phases lxiv (Building alterations and occupation between walls MBE and MBC); lxiv a (Occupation surfaces within enclosure) (plan pl. 284a)

from Kenyon (1981:243)

Chapter VI Squares EI, EII, EV

Pre Pottery Neolithic B

XIII. Phases liii (Building alterations and occupation), liii a (Courtyard floor levels) (plan pl. 3060

from Kenyon (1981:298-300)

Appendix A The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials

F I. Burial 6 (fig. 161, pl. 61b)

from Kenyon (1981:400-401)

Footnote

1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

Sultan IIIa1 Earthquake - EB IA - ~3400-3200 BCE

Discussion

References

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter 7 - The Early Bronze Age

from Kenyon (1957:167-185)

THE HISTORY of Jericho in the Early Bronze Age is perhaps the one concerning which our knowledge is at present least satisfactory, and which will require more re-writing than any other when all the material has been fully worked out and all the areas at present in progress fully excavated.

... The result of this state of our knowledge as it affects Jericho is that one cannot immediately ascribe one of the Early Bronze Age strata to its relative position within the six hundred years of the Early Bronze Age on the strength of the associated pottery and other finds. Jericho itself may supply the deficiency when the excavation of the various Early Bronze Age levels has been completed and when all the finds from these levels have been thoroughly analysed. But at the moment our information from Jericho remains disjointed.

Excavation of Early Bronze Age levels at Jericho has been carried out by the present expedition on seven sites (Fig. 3). ...

We can therefore take it that the Middle Bronze Age town once covered the whole mound, and that there was a Late Bronze Age town, though its extent is less certain. The greater part of the ruins of these towns, and a considerable amount of the ruins of the Fairly Bronze Age town, have disappeared, and the agency in this is undoubtedly natural erosion. The foot of the mound is surrounded by layers of wash, as is shown in the section of Trench I. Thick layers of typical rain-wash overlie the Iron Age level, and represent the period from c. 600 B.C. to the present day; and beneath the Iron Age level are other wash levels representing the period between a 1350 B.C. and 800 B.C. It is clear that when the site was not occupied, the process of gradual growth, which went on while it was occupied, was reversed, and the heavy rains of winter and the dust-producing drought of summer gradually reduced the height of the mound. As is described below (pp. 259-6o), there is visual evidence for this in a period of abandonment between c. 1580 B.C. and 1400 B.C.

There is also evidence that much of this denudation took place in antiquity. One of the reasons why the remains of the Early Bronze Age are so fragmentary is that everywhere that we have excavated on the summit of the tell, there are great stone-filled pits immediately under the surface. These somewhat resemble the pits of the Pottery Neolithic period (pp. 77-8), and their purpose was undoubtedly the same, to obtain decayed mud-brick material either for making new mud-bricks or for soil to fertilise the fields. These pits are dated to the Byzantine period by a fair amount of pottery of that period in their fill. But the rest of the pottery in them is almost entirely of the Early Bronze Age. Therefore, by perhaps the fifth century A.D., all the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze levels in these areas had already been washed away, for if they had been dug through in the process, pottery of the period would certainly have been included in the debris thrown back into the pits.

Kenyon (1978)

from Kenyon (1978)

I found nothing.

Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

1400 BC Jericho

It is generally believed that an earthquake occurred during the siege of Jericho (Tell el-Sultan) by the Israelites in c. 1400 BC. This event caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse, allowing Joshua to take possession of the place and burn it down. The Bible, the only literary source for this earthquake, does not attribute the collapse of the walls of Jericho to an earthquake, but rather to the besieging Israelites, who ‘by shouting and blowing their horns caused the walls to come tumbling down’ (Josh. vi. 20–21). If the timeline of the Bible is followed, then the invasion of the Israelites into Palestine is usually placed 440 years before the foundation of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon in 960 BC. Jericho, therefore, would have been destroyed about 1400 BC, but not necessarily by an earthquake. Alternatively, if the views of those scholars who have attempted to reconcile the description of events with Egyptian history are accepted, a date of 1260 BC is inferred. Another option would be to follow those who reject the historicity of Joshua in favour of belief in peaceful conquest and accept a date far later than 1400 BC (Lemonick 1990).

Turning to the question of what archaeology can contribute to this impasse, the earliest excavation at Jericho, at the beginning of the last century, concluded that the city had already been abandoned before the invasion of the Israelites and that it had been destroyed, probably by earthquake, before 1400 BC (Selling and Watzinger 1913). A second series of excavations in the 1930s supported the biblical account of an earthquake in c. 1400 BC (Garstang 1948). A third series of excavations at Jericho in the 1950s, however, found no archaeological evidence to corroborate the biblical account of the fall of Jericho, dating the event back to a period well before 1400 BC (Kenyon 1957). The walls of Jericho were repaired or rebuilt no fewer than 16 times in its known history and, of the layers identified by Kenyon, not one could be singled out as providing special hints for destruction by the hand of Joshua rather than another conqueror, or by earthquake.

In 1997 a limited excavation by Nigro and Marchetti on the fringes of Kenyon’s trenches, which was shrouded in political intrigues, found no evidence for destruction from the time of Joshua (Nigro and Marchetti 1998). Wood (1990), however, who examined the results of the excavations by Kenyon, Nigro and Marchetti, claimed that they had found the same evidence as that which in earlier excavations had fitted the Biblical story of the destruction of Jericho in c. 1400 BC. The conclusion is that the date or the period of the earthquake, if an earthquake did in fact occur at all, remains highly debatable, and archaeology does not help much to establish the invasion period with any degree of certainty. In Jericho and in other sites in the region the evidence points more towards deliberate human destruction.

From the examination of the available data, taking into consideration the doubts regarding Kenyon’s dating raised by Wood, and those regarding Garstang’s raised by Kenyon, it is prudent, until archaeologists come up with a better unbiased evaluation, to accept tentatively Kenyon’s estimates. Until a better consensus is reached it is important to be aware that the time of the siege and destruction of Jericho by Joshua is very uncertain, being bracketed within a rather broad chronological range.

It is natural for archaeologists to seek earthquake effects in strata belonging to the conventional period of the fall of Jericho in c. 1400 BC, which dating, as we have seen, is far from being certain. It was to be expected, with Jericho located in the Dead Sea fault zone, which is capable of producing destructive earthquakes, that there is no lack of archaeological evidence to show that during the Bronze Age the site of Jericho was damaged a number of times, probably by more than one earthquake of unknown location and magnitude.

The problem here is that archaeological evidence for an earthquake is rarely unambiguous, and its dating is frequently based on, or influenced by, literary sources, which often, as in this case, provide examples of how their assumed accuracy, coupled with occasional inaccurate commentaries, may influence archaeologists’ interpretations and dating. This then develops into a circular process in which the uncertain date of an earthquake is transformed into a fact and used to confirm the dates of the proposed destruction strata.

From Kenyon’s estimates there are three layers in Jericho that show some good evidence of earthquake damage, namely during the periods of 8500–7000 BC (stratum PPNB), 3400–3100 BC (stratum EBA I) and 2300–1950 BC (stratum EBA IIIB), none of which, however, can be associated with Joshua and the fall of Jericho.

Neither does archaeological evidence from c. 1400 BC support the interpretation of a catastrophic earthquake. If the fall of Jericho had been due to an earthquake that was strong enough to flatten the massive walls of the city, it should have razed to the ground all the rickety dwellings within the city, the granaries and the water supply, with great loss of life, for which there is no evidence. Indeed, it is known that part of the city wall on the north side of the site was left standing (Heb. xi. 30–31). Joshua also says that the Israelites entering Jericho ‘utterly destroyed all that was in the city, men and women alike’. Had there been a destructive earthquake that flattened the city walls, the Israelites would have found very few standing houses to destroy, or people alive to slaughter. It seems unlikely that the prophets or later chroniclers would not have mentioned such a ‘newsworthy’ event as a catastrophic earthquake.

It is natural to attribute the presence of skeletons buried under rubble to a sudden death caused by the collapse of a building in an earthquake. However, in the case of Jericho this is not a safe assumption. If the normal burials around Jericho, which date to the Middle Bronze Age, and Garstang’s finds, which are not dated, are excluded, the only dated skeleton on site was not an earthquake victim. It belongs to a woman found in a room by the city wall and provides evidence for violence against the people. The woman was tightly contracted, suggesting that she had been bound in that position before being decapitated, the vertebrae of the neck having been severed (Kenyon 1981, 217).

Regarding the earthquake in Jericho, some Bible readers have supposed that an earthquake toppled the walls of the city. However, the account of Israelites conquering the city contains no reference to earthquakes. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence to associate the fall of Jericho with the earthquake damage preserved on the site of the old city, or with the damming of the River Jordan at Al-Damieh, which may be the result of a series of earthquakes over a long period of time (Kenyon 1978a, 36). Archaeological reports give little or no technical justification to support the conclusion that destruction was due to an earthquake and, if so, due to the very same earthquake as that mentioned by Amos. Available stratigraphic data cannot rule out the possibility that the observed damage was the result of later earthquakes.

Notes

Jericho Estimated period of occurrence c. 2300–1950 BC. Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

Trench I

‘Intermediate Early Bronze Age–Middle Bronze Period. In Stage XLI there was apparently a period of EB–MB camping occupation during which there is no evidence of solid buildings. During this period the W-shaped ditch of Stage XXXIX gradually silted up. In the silt were shards of EB–MB pottery.

In Stage XLII, phase 1IV, the first EB–MB houses appear. They are terraced into the underlying deposits. An area of erosion between a western and eastern complex has removed any stratigraphical links. The western complex is built over the stage XLI fill in the ditch. In it were two solid clay blocks in adjacent rooms, which might be altars. A foundation burial beneath the dividing wall and a bin that could have been for offerings could support the suggestion of a cult center, but this is not certain. The eastern complex, of irregular plan, on three widely different levels, is terraced into the EB deposits, on the south side cutting back into the final EB town wall. All the walls are of the characteristic EB–MB type, a single brick-course thick, and the bricks are of the distinctive greenish clay of the period.

After a period of which the length is indicated by a considerable number of occupation levels, and some rebuilding, there was in phase 1IV a considerable rebuilding. In the eastern complex this consisted only of slight extensions of the middle terrace and a considerable raising of level in the western terrace. In the western complex most of the original walls are rebuilt and the wall dividing the original two rooms disappears, as do the solid clay blocks. A new division in the eastern part of the complex is only just within the excavated area.

In the western complex there is above the phase 1IV floors a considerable collapse and a raised floor, with a new wall creating a passage.

The collapse of the final EB–MB buildings is marked by a tumble of bricks on the floors. A ragged gully that has removed the western walls of the eastern complex may be evidence of an earthquake. The collapse and the gully are covered by a silt wash that must indicate a period of abandonment and erosion before the MB bank was constructed. Within this erosion period, a gully cut down deeply on the south side of the excavated area and was then refilled’ (Kenyon 1981, 16).

‘XLII. Tr. I In the eastern complex, wall JD is at the north side of the trench cut down into the burnt debris against the face of EB Town Wall M (pl. 88a), the final EB town wall, and into the underlying fill, to the depth of 2 m. To the east, the contemporary floor sealed the EB wall, while to the west the floor was nearly at the foot of wall JD; the difference in level was 1.85 m. The original wall JD only survives for a short distance beyond the earlier line, and is then extensively patched in stone. To the south, beyond the patch, the wall angles sharply back to the south-east, and cuts right into the brickwork of wall M, with its foundations resting on the stone foundations of that wall (pl. 88b). At the point where wall JD angles back, wall JE runs up to it from the west.

The original west wall of the room west of wall JD was JF, which likewise cuts down into the EB levels. The original level to the west of JF was presumably at the foot of the wall, and therefore 0.55 m below that to the east. The existing surfaces, however, run up to a steep slope at the foot of wall JF, and the earliest surviving is 0.50 m beneath the foot of the wall. This was presumably the result of erosion, followed by a period when occupation levels gradually raised the floor nearly to the base of the wall. The pit against the western foot of JD may also be the result of erosion, filled by subsequent occupation. The fill of these erosion areas is hatched as 1IV (E) b.

The western end of this complex is lost in a ragged gully (section I, pl. 236, c. 17 m W.), which cuts it off from the western complex. Presumably somewhere in the area destroyed by the gully there was a wall bounding this terrace, and there was either a lower terrace joining the two complexes, or a connecting surface; in either case evidence was removed by erosion at the end of the EB–MB period. The gully is covered by the wash of this erosion period; it could be a rain-water gully, but is perhaps more likely to be in origin an earthquake crack’ (Kenyon 1981, 106–107).

A collapse of EB–MB buildings (indicated by the fall of bricks on the floors) was apparently caused by a gully which could suggest evidence of an earthquake. The collapse and the gully are covered by a silt wash that must indicate a period of abandonment and erosion before the MB town was constructed.

Estimated period of occurrence: c. 1365–1275 BC.

‘L’étude minutieuse à laquelle nous nous sommes livrée, nous a permis d’établir que les couches de destruction et d’incendie de Beit Mirsim, niveau C1, celles du Bronze Récent II de Jéricho... ont été la conséquence du même tremblement de terre qui a ravagé Ugarit vers 1365 avant notre ère’ (Schaeffer 1948, 5).

‘Selon ces indices et étant donné la nature des trouvailles, il est permis d’admettre que la destruction du second palais et d’une partie de la ville de Jéricho par un tremblement de terre correspond à la destruction due à la même cause du niveau C1 de Beit Mirsim et de l’Ugarit Récent 2, vers 1365. Cette date est donc plus basse que celle proposée par le fouilleur pour la destruction du second palais, env. 1425 avant notre ère.

Une tablette incomplète et brûlée en cunéiformes a été retirée de la couche correspondant au second palais. D’après Mr. Sidney Smith, la tablette semble être du XIVe siècle et il pense qu’elle n’est pas plus ancienne que l’époque d’El Amarna. Étant donné son état de conservation, il y a donc une forte chance qu’elle soit antérieure au tremblement de terre et à l’incendie de Jéricho de 1365.

Cette conclusion s’accorde avec le fait qu’à Ras Shamra toutes les tablettes jusqu’ici trouvées sont aussi antérieures au séisme de 1365. Comme nous l’avons observé à Ras Shamra, à Jéricho aussi les bâtiments avaient été relevés ou réparés après le tremblement de terre et utilisés pendant la dernière période du Bronze Récent. Ils ont tous été détruits de nouveau, cette fois au cours d’une conflagration générale qui avait consumé la dernière ville du Bronze, appelée ville D par le fouilleur. La destruction a été suivie par un hiatus et une occupation intermittente’ (Schaeffer 1948, 139).

‘The LB II levels at Jericho appear to end c. 1275 BCE, so that Schaeffer’s c. 1365 BCE date is much too high’ (Dever 1992, 31 n. 3).

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Early Bronze Age

STAGE XXXIV. Tr. I xxxviii¹, xxxviii a, xxxviii—xxxix (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 229b)

from Kenyon (1981:97)

This stage is marked by the appearance of the first Early Bronze Age town wall, A. It is seen in section W'—Z (pl. 240), but as pl. 79a (where it is on the left) shows, it is broken half way across the trench. Its single course of stone foundations is set in a very slight foundation trench in the underlying Neolithic level of phase xxxvi. There are here no Early Bronze Age levels preceding the construction of the first town wall. Its superstructure was of distinctive white bricks; the dimensions of a typical example were 43X29X7 cm.

Against the face of wall A was a semi-circular tower, of which little more than the stone footings survive (pl. 79b). It is not bonded into wall A, and is likely to be structurally secondary since on section W'—Z it looks as though the foot of wall A had been slightly eroded before the tower was built, and the bricks of the tower were drab and not white. It is in fact not certain whether the tower belongs to wall A or to the rebuild, wall B, on the same line, in phase xxxix. As pl. 8oa shows, the foundations of the tower are somewhat lower than those of wall B. This need not be significant. In the collapse of the tower are mingled drab bricks from the tower and the distinctive white bricks of wall A. But since the southern part of wall A certainly continued in use with the repair to the north, wall B, this would allow of the tower being destroyed only when wall B was destroyed. There is no conclusive evidence as to whether the tower was an addition to wall A continuing in use with wall B, or was added only to wall B.

There is relatively clear evidence that the tower, like wall A+B, was abolished at least by the time of the earthquake at the end of phase xxxix. The fallen bricks in section W'— Z do not show the toppled-forward face of the wall so suggestive of an earthquake that is seen in section I (pl. 236) (also visible in pl. 8oa), but the surface covering due tumble is the same in each section. In section I, the foundation trench of wall C cutting through the tumble is visible. In section W'—Z, pl. 240, wall C is founded on wall A at the level of the surface.

Footnotes

1 From this stage onwards the phases in Squares FL and DI on the crest of the mound have only a tenuous link with those on the slope, and are therefore dealt with separately (see p. 103).

XXXIV. Tr. I. xxxix, xxxix—xl (sec Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:97-98)

Wall B, built to replace the collapsed northern part of A, is seen in the north section at 3.62 W., 3.55 E., 10.25 H., and in elevation on section A-JJ (pl. 241). Its foundations of one course were set in a collapse of broken bricks from its predecessor, which spread well down the slope, and included a number of almost complete bricks. Wall B is seen on the right in pl. 79a. An average brick from wall B measured 40 x 28 x 8 cm.

The collapse of wall B is a good example of earthquake action. In the north section it can be seen how the face of the wall collapsed down the slope as a whole, leaving the core and the eastern face standing. The collapsed bricks are also seen in pl. 80a. The brickwork of the eastern face survives to a height of a metre, and though at that point the collapse of wall C has removed all evidence, it is unlikely that B ever survived higher, since only 0.25 m. of width was left at that point, which would have been quite unstable.

XXXIV. Tr. I. xl, STAGE XXXIV-XXXV. Tr. I. xl a, xl b (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 230)

from Kenyon (1981:98)

The earthquake damage was made good by wall C, cut into the debris of collapse and filling, and filling in the raw edge of wall B. In the north section, it only survives, as has just been said, to the surviving height of wall B. In section W'—Z (pl. 240) to the south, wall B, which must have been founded on wall A at the level shown in pl. 79a, has disappeared completely. Wall C is founded directly on wall A, and is built in a mixture of white, drab, orange, grey and brown bricks. A height of 1.45 m. survives above the top of wall A. As described above, it is likely that the contemporary surface west of wall C is that sealing the top of the brick fill. A level to the east of the line of wall C is ascribed to this period, but this is only a presumption, since the foundations of wall D of phase xli have cut the connections.

It is possible that to this phase belongs the earliest ditch, Ditch I. This is seen in the north section with its V-shaped bottom at 24.75 m. W., and its western lip cut by Ditch VI at 26 m. W. Its eastern slope was cut by Ditch VI of phase xlv, which also cuts two flat-bottomed Ditches II and III on its east side. These two ditches can be related to phases xliii and xliv, and the slope of these periods cuts the gentler slope of the earlier periods. It therefore seems probable, though not certain, that the V-shaped Ditch I belongs to the gentler early slope. It cannot in fact be excluded that the ditch is a Pottery Neolithic pit, since its junction with Pit 0 is ill defined. The nature of the fill and the profile of the cut are different from the Pottery Neolithic pits. The conclusion is that it is probable but not certain that there was a ditch associated with an early phase of the EB defences.

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Chapter IV Trench III, Site N

Trench III, Site N

Early Bronze Age

XV. Phase lix - Stage XVI. Phase lx (Destruction level between phases lix and lx)

from Kenyon (1981:202)

no text under this sub-heading.

XVI. Phases lxi—lxii (Major destruction), lxi—lxii a (Erosion line of subsequent collapses), lxi—lxii b (Silt levels)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

The destruction at the end of phase bd was a major one, for it involved all three terrace walls and all the interior structures except NDS, the west end of NDR and NDQ. It may be presumed to have been caused by the collapse of a wall further south, probably the town wall, for the line of erosion dips down steeply south of NDT, an erosion line followed in subsequent collapses. At the north end of the trench silt levels accumulated over NCT and NCS-NDE to a height of about 11.30 m. H.

XVI. Phases lxii (Building alteration and occupation), lxii a (Successive levels not illustrated on sections), lxii b (Occupation on floor which seals wall NCT) (plan pl. 267d)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

Though the composite wall between c. 6.75 m. and 8.75 m. that had grown up by successive constructions since phase xliii at last disappears, it has a successor NDY on the same line. At the west end this rests on NDO, and is of the same width. The distinction between the earlier and later walls is probably at the level of the brick projecting above an eroded face, at 8.65 m. S., t 1.25 m. H. To the east it narrows with a set-back of its southern face. At the east end it does not survive, but in the east section the foundation trench of NED of phase lxiii can be seen cutting the level, at a height of 11.30 m. H., that must have run up to NDY on the north side and also silt above NCV on the south side which is earlier than the destruction level of phase lxii. An intermediate narrow wall therefore intervened between NDB-NCV and NED.

At the north end, the floor that seals NCT goes with wall NDX (east section 2.42 m. – 3 m. S., c. 11.50 m. H.; west section 2.05 m. – 2.75 m. S., 11.50 m. H.). This is on approximately the same line as its predecessor NCS, and on the west side rests upon it, but on the east side is separated from it by c. 0.37 m. of silt.

To the south of NDY the presumed silo NDR–NDQ remained in use, but the continuation to the east of NDR was rebuilt as NEA, again with a silt layer between it and its predecessor. Wall NDS also remained in use, but the erosion line has completely removed the southern boundary wall which may be presumed to have replaced NDT, and also the continuation of NDS. Into the angle of NDR–NDQ was built a silo NEC (pl. 120a). It had walls of orthostat bricks and a similar wall dividing it into two compartments; a course of flat bricks formed the floor. Contemporary with this silo was a thin wall NDZ, which disappears further north. A smaller silo NEB belongs to the same period.

XVI. Phases lxii-lxiii

from Kenyon (1981:204-205)

The destruction at the end of phase lxii was a severe one, which resulted in the collapse of all the structures in the southern half of the trench. It was accompanied by heavy burning, and fallen burnt timbers were especially noticeable in the area south of NDY (east section 9.25 m. to 13 m. S., c. 10.50 m.– 10.80 m. H.). The collapse of wall NDQ into the area between it and NDR showed that this area had remained open, down to the original floor level until this period. The tilting of NDQ suggests that the collapse may have been due to an earthquake, and the disappearance of the higher levels that must have existed between NDR and NDS together with the upper part of these walls suggests that once more a wall further south must have collapsed. The whole complex NDQ, NDR, NDS, and silo NEC were buried in debris and disappeared.

XVII. Phases lxix—lxx (Fill over silo NEH—NEJ), lxix—lxx a (Collapse of wall NEN)

from Kenyon (1981:207)

Following this period of occupation, there was apparently. some collapse, especially marked in a fill of burnt debris into the continuing sag over silo NEH–NEJ, seen in the west section at 9.95 m. – 11.10 m. S., 11.50 m.–11.87 m. H. It is possible that to the same stage belongs the collapse of wall NEN in a tumble of bricks, seen in the east section at 3.75 m. - 4.75 m. S., c. 11.62 m. H., and in the west section at 3.25 m.–4.37 m. S., c. 11.75 m. H., which is suggestive of an earthquake.

Chapter VII Squares E III-IV

Squares E III-IV

Proto-Urban and Early Bronze Period

Early Bronze Age

Phases H (Building alterations), Hi (Occupation levels), H—G (Destruction), H—G (2) (Two Pits) (plan pl. 316b)

from Kenyon (1981:328)

Chapter IX Sites A and L

Summary (Site A)

from Kenyon (1981:372)

ME area excavitated lay to the west of the inner line of the Early Bronze Age defences on the west side of the town. It was in an area in which both faces of the wall had been exposed by a continuous line of trenches in both the 1907–9 and the 1930–6 excavations. The line of the wall thus exposed is visible in the air photograph (Frontispiece) and in pl. 143h. The stratification associated with the uppermost walls was therefore destroyed, but the trenching did not go very deep.

The lower part of the sounding was restricted by the fact that the face of the lower wall was 1.25 m. to the west of the uppermost, and it was therefore not possible to reach the base of the Early Bronze Age deposits.

The lowest levels reached belonged to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Above was clear evidence of a wall, A.TW. 1, destroyed by earthquake. Over the debris of this collapse was constructed A.TW. 2. Above it, and cut slightly into its top was A.TW. 3. There was at least one and possibly two further rebuildings; on the evidence of the face of the wall, stratigraphical evidence having been destroyed by the earlier trenches.

The western edge of the area excavated was formed by the cut made by the previous excavators into the Middle Bronze Age plaster-faced rampart. This here survived to the greatest height found anywhere, and on its summit were the foundations of the wall that crowned it. It was not excavated, but the previous excavators’ cut could be sufficiently cleaned to draw the section (pl. 343).

The deposits are designated from the bottom up, but since they only provide a succession with an arbitrary beginning, they are given an alphabetical and not a numerical designation.

Site A

Early Bronze Age

Stage B. Phases G, F ii, F i, E (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:372-373)

Above the Stage A levels there appears evidence of the earliest town wall within the area excavated. It must be emphasized that this town wall is not necessarily the earliest of the period on the site, for an earlier one could well be slightly to the east, and to this could have belonged the deposits of Stage A.

The in situ evidence of wall A.TW. 1 is minimal. Section pl. 343 and pl. 100a, however, give vivid evidence of the collapse of a wall from its foundations. In pl. 100a on the left at the base of the trench is visible a single course of stone foundations. The section shows that they were set in a shallow foundation trench cut into the Stage A deposits. At the height of the top of the foundation stones was a level of mud plaster, probably the contemporary surface, but possibly derived from the face of the wall.

On to this plaster level the face of the wall fell in such a way that the bricks are vertical. The surviving remains show that a height of 1 m. of the face of the wall fell forward in one piece, before there had been in this area any building up of levels, and this feature extended to the west beyond the excavated area. Above the fallen face is the evidence of the collapse of the core of the wall, at first of broken fragments and bricks, then, above that, of complete bricks higgledy-piggledy. The top of this level is seen on pl. 200b.

This destruction phase is certainly to be interpreted as an earthquake collapse, with a first sharp collapse, followed by more gradual crumbling. The evidence closely resembles that in Trench I, where wall B provides similar evidence, though there the collapse of the face was not right to the foundations. It could be that the destruction on both sites belongs to the same earthquake, but this cannot be certain over a distance of nearly 70 m. in a wall so frequently destroyed. At any rate, both come early in the history of the Early Bronze town, probably in E.B. I.

Stage E. Phases A iii, A ii, A i (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:374)

Wall A.TW. 3 appears as a solid wall right to the surviving summit. Pl. 201a and b, however, show a well-marked straight joint starting at a height of about 1 m. above the base of the wall. It is just possible that this is constructional, but it is more likely that it represents one side of a gap, subsequently filled in.

If this is the correct interpretation, it follows that it is likely that the original A.TW. 3 survives only to the base of the straight joint, and the appearance of the wall supports this suggestion. The lower part as seen in pl. 201a and b is distinctly better built, with longer and rather thinner bricks.

In the suggested rebuild A.TW. 3a there would be a gap to the south of the straight joint. All the other straight joints found, for instance in Trench I and M I, belong to cavities interpreted as anti-earthquake devices. Here, however, it is much more likely to be a postern gate, for it comes right to the face of the wall, which the cavities do not. In the next phase, the part of A.TW. 3a south of the opening must have collapsed, and the gap was then closed by wall A.TW. 3b, of a build similar to A.TW. 3a. In it were three small rectangular sockets, 7 × 6, 11 × 6, and 8 × 8 cm. Their depth of penetration was 38, 16, and 9 cm. One had traces of burnt wood, but they were clearly pegs rather than structural timbers. A similar hole at a lower level was in wall A.TW. 3.

Unfortunately, these suggestions for stages in the life of A.TW. 3 must remain hypothetical, as the level which would have provided stratigraphical evidence was precisely that reached by the trench of the previous excavations. This trench is responsible for the blurred appearance of the face of the wall sloping down to the right in pl. 201b, rather than this representing another building phase, as it might appear at first sight.

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage

from Alfonsi et al. (2012:Table 1)
Neither Ben-Menahem (1991) nor Ambraseys (2009) write about this earthquake

Sultan IIIb2 Earthquake - EB IIB - ~2850-~2700 BCE

Discussion

References

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Early Bronze Age

STAGE XXXIV. Tr. I xxxviii¹, xxxviii a, xxxviii—xxxix (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 229b)

from Kenyon (1981:97)

Footnotes

1 From this stage onwards the phases in Squares FL and DI on the crest of the mound have only a tenuous link with those on the slope, and are therefore dealt with separately (see p. 103).

XXXIV. Tr. I. xxxix, xxxix—xl (sec Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:97-98)

XXXIV. Tr. I. xl, STAGE XXXIV-XXXV. Tr. I. xl a, xl b (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 230)

from Kenyon (1981:98)

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Chapter IV Trench III, Site N

Trench III, Site N

Early Bronze Age

XV. Phase lix - Stage XVI. Phase lx (Destruction level between phases lix and lx)

from Kenyon (1981:202)

no text under this sub-heading.

XVI. Phases lxi—lxii (Major destruction), lxi—lxii a (Erosion line of subsequent collapses), lxi—lxii b (Silt levels)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

XVI. Phases lxii (Building alteration and occupation), lxii a (Successive levels not illustrated on sections), lxii b (Occupation on floor which seals wall NCT) (plan pl. 267d)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

XVI. Phases lxii-lxiii

from Kenyon (1981:204-205)

XVII. Phases lxix—lxx (Fill over silo NEH—NEJ), lxix—lxx a (Collapse of wall NEN)

from Kenyon (1981:207)

Chapter VII Squares E III-IV

Squares E III-IV

Proto-Urban and Early Bronze Period

Early Bronze Age

Phases H (Building alterations), Hi (Occupation levels), H—G (Destruction), H—G (2) (Two Pits) (plan pl. 316b)

from Kenyon (1981:328)

Chapter IX Sites A and L

Summary (Site A)

from Kenyon (1981:372)

Site A

Early Bronze Age

Stage B. Phases G, F ii, F i, E (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:372-373)

Stage E. Phases A iii, A ii, A i (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:374)

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter 7 The Early Bronze Age

from Kenyon (1957:172-176)

... As has been already said, the Early Bronze Age in Palestine is marked by a growth of towns. The population of the towns was certainly derived from the descendants of the groups whose arrival is described in the last chapter. But it seems probable that an impetus was given by the arrival of yet another group. The most distinctive pottery of the period consists of vessels covered by a highly burnished red slip, a technique which is used on bowls, jugs, juglets and large jars alike. This practice of burnishing hardly appears at all in the Jericho tombs of the preceding period. At Megiddo, it appears abruptly in Stage IV (the fourth stage from the bottom of a clearance on the slopes of the hill), and then continues to the end of the Early Bronze Age. At Jericho, we may again have a pointer enabling us to disentangle elements which appear combined in the heart of the country. Cut in to the filled-up tomb A 94 of the Proto-Urban period is another tomb, A 108. This contains excellent specimens of the burnished pottery, but none of either the Proto-Urban A or B pottery. This would seem to suggest that a new group bringing in the burnished pottery appears at this time. The newcomers mingled with the existing groups and presumably became established as the dominant inhabitants, for it is this new pottery which becomes the characteristic one for the succeeding centuries.

It is the excavation of the defences which has given us the most vivid impression of the Early Bronze Age town of Jericho, for it has emphasised how vitally important these defences were to the inhabitants of the town. There is evidence in Trench I that the original wall was rebuilt no less than sixteen times. The earliest wall probably does not date from the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age. The combination of the various tribal groups into urban communities obviously would take time. But in due course the whole of the ancient mound was occupied and a community organisation established which could undertake the building of a town wall.

The need of town walls may have been in part due to jealousies and even struggles for supremacy between the towns of Palestine itself. But also, and perhaps especially at Jericho, it reflects the age-long struggle between the inhabitants of the relatively fertile, settled land and those of the bordering deserts. The preceding Proto-Urban period shows us the arrival of groups with a nomadic background, and the Pottery Neolithic phase probably represents a similar stage. Down almost to the present day, the Bedouin of the desert have been liable to make sudden raids into the settled lands. This background of depredatory, nomadic neighbours is that against which the life of the towns of Early Bronze Age Palestine must be viewed. Defence against raiders must therefore have been an ever-present necessity.

An impression of the complexity of the walls of Jericho is given by the view (Pl. 36) of the interior of the wall in Site M. At intervals in this elevation appear rows of foundation stones. This indicates that at some stage the wall had collapsed to what was then the contemporary ground level, and had had to be rebuilt with a new set of foundations. This site also illustrated two of the complexities in working out the sequence of the walls. As one looks at this wall face, one imagines that the whole of the lower wall will have vanished and the new stone foundations will run horizontally through the width of the wall. But in all the areas where the walls have been investigated, stages have occurred in which this was not so. For one reason or another, the face of at any rate the lower part of the wall alone has collapsed, leaving a cone-shaped core standing. The new wall, therefore, has been built in the shape of an inverted U, with two thin bases resting on new stone foundations on either face, and thickening as it rose over the diminishing core of the earlier wall. This gives the complication that if thereafter further erosion has taken place, the later wall easily disappears at the base, and appears at irregular heights depending on the local degree of erosion. This makes the tracing of the different phases very difficult even when a whole length of the wall is exposed.

The second complication is due to a curious structural feature which persists through many phases. The walls were built in a series of sections. These sections are divided for most of the width of the wall by a series of cavities about three feet wide, only the faces of the walls being continuous. The cavities are much too small to have been towers to be manned, and can only have been for structural reasons. The most obvious interpretation is that they were intended to localise any collapse, for instance from earthquake. This they certainly did, for in a number of instances the wall on one side of the cavity has collapsed while the other has remained standing. A good example of this is visible in Site M (Pl. 86). The wall on the right has an upper section standing to a height of 3.75 m above its foundations, ending just to the left of the metre stick in a straight vertical joint. The contemporary wall to the left, separated by the usual three-foot cavity, which has a separate, later, filling is standing to a height of only 0.70 m. Above, there is a row of foundation stones indicating a rebuilding. This feature emphasises the fact that any rebuilding may be a local feature. Therefore, though there are the seventeen phases in Trench I, there may be fewer, or more, in other sections of the wall.

Another complication is indicated in Trench I. Here, as the section shows, the original line of wall was at different stages strengthened by a wall behind and a wall in front. This feature would of course not show if either face alone was cleared, for only a section cut right through would show the successive phases.

It is of course a matter of interest to deduce what was the cause of so many collapses. One cause is probably simply that of erosion. Like the Pre-pottery and Pottery Neolithic structures, town and house walls of Early Bronze Age Jericho were built of mud-brick, though of very different character. The earlier bricks were hand-made, with the individual characteristics of the different periods which have already been described. From the Early Bronze Age onwards to the present day, they are flat and oblong, of somewhat varying sizes, but usually about 10 cm thick, and 40 cm by 25 cm in plan, and are made in box moulds. Such mud-bricks are an excellent building material, cheap and quick to make. But they are liable to decay in wet weather, and the face and summit of the walls requires constant attention.

Similarly, water collecting at ground level would very soon undermine the base of the wall. A probable instance of this could be seen in Trench III, where there was a hollow in the ground in front of the wall, presumably due to water erosion, and the wall had tipped forward into it. Any neglect of the defences, perhaps in peaceful periods, would in a very few years lead to the collapse of sections of the wall.

Other reasons for collapse were of a more violent nature. Earthquakes undoubtedly played their part. Owing to the cataclysmic terrestrial upheavals which resulted in the formation of this great cleft, the Jordan Valley is peculiarly liable to earthquakes. A seismograph in fact shows several earth-tremors there each day. Major earthquakes are believed to be not quite so numerous now as formerly, but they still average four a century. It is highly probable that some of the collapses of the town walls are due to this cause, and it has already been suggested that the method of construction with cavities was intended to minimise the effect. The excavations have revealed several instances of a collapse which strongly suggests an earthquake, for example that shown in the section of Trench I, where the face of the wall has collapsed outward in a tip of intact bricks. The clearest example was in Site A at the north-west corner of the tell. There the face of the wall can be seen fallen outwards from the stone foundations and to be lying with the bricks vertical on the contemporary surface (Pl. 37A). Above is a confused tumble of bricks, which presumably represents the more gradual crumbling of the core of the wall. Above again, on the resulting layer of debris, is built the succeeding wall.

There is no evidence in the excavated areas that any of the collapses were due to breaching or undermining by enemies. But in a number of places the walls have been destroyed by fire, which is almost certainly the work of enemies. As has already been explained, it is difficult to correlate successive stages of the walls on different sites, so one cannot deduce how many destructions by fire are represented by burnt sections of wall in three widely separated areas, Trench III at the south end of the tell, Trench I in the centre of the west side, and Site A at the north-west corner. There are, however, probably more than one, for the wall burnt in Trench I is certainly, as will be seen, the last of the Early Bronze Age ones, while that in Trench III has successors.

Nigro (2006c)

4.2 The First Walls on the Western Side

English

from Nigro (2006c:358-360)

To the west, the walls of the earliest phase were already reached by Sellin and Watzinger in the long trench midway down the tell. In the detailed and general plans of this sector, a curved protuberance protruding toward the outside of the city is clearly visible (Fig. 14)³⁶, which could be interpreted as a semicircular tower of the first fortification circuit, a characteristic element of Palestinian defense systems in the Early Bronze Age II³⁹. On this side, Tell es-Sultan looks toward the rocky cliff that ripples at the foot of Jebel Quruntul. The limestone plateau slopes steadily ⁴⁹, and the presence of a fortification must have been essential to protect the city, which would otherwise have been located downstream and at a lower altitude than potential attackers coming from the road that cuts across the Judean Desert to the north as far as Tell and Bethel. The walls were therefore erected on top of the prominent Neolithic settlement, the remains of which already rose at least 8 meters above the surrounding level ground. The very choice to build the walls on the highest edge of the tell, so that they would be in a dominant position and could use the slope as the flank of a moat, imposed precise limits on the shape of the Early Bronze Age II city, probably causing a reduction and a concentration of the built-up area compared to the previous Early Bronze Age IB village. The city found itself, so to speak, squeezed between two fixed and unchangeable topographical and urban planning elements: the ancient western fortified limit of the Neolithic settlement, transformed into a raised ridge, and the spring of 'Ain es-Sultan, on the edge between the limestone plateau and the Jordan alluvial plain, located about 100 meters to the east and 10 meters lower than the former. These two invariants would remain for more than a millennium, determining the urban structure of ancient Jericho, a city that developed on a north-south axis and gradually sloped from west to east.

In Trench I, on the west side of the tell, the Bronze Age fortifications were identified by Kenyon in squares FI-DI⁴¹. The oldest structure that can be interpreted as a defensive boundary of the original village from the Early Bronze Age and which effectively marks its transformation into a city was called "Wall A." It is a wall built with a foundation of medium-sized, single-row stone, with a raised elevation of whitish unbaked bricks measuring 0.43 × 0.29 × 0.07 m. The thickness of this wall was not particularly significant (1.1 m), but the structure was supported on the outside by a semicircular tower, of which only the stone foundation was preserved (Fig. 15), similar to the one probably identified by the Austro-German mission a little further north. The tower was not accessible at ground level and must therefore have been connected to the walls against which it leaned via a staircase. Wall A was replaced (and partially incorporated) by Wall B, which was in turn destroyed by a violent earthquake (both structures constitute, in Kenyon's reconstruction, "Town Wall I"). It is not easy to establish a relationship between this line of walls and the large defensive structure identified to the northwest by Sellin and Watzinger. Further north, just beyond the aforementioned short section exposed by the east-west trench of the Austro-German mission, the Early Bronze Age II walls were reached by Kenyon in square M I (there called "Town Wall I" and "Town Wall II")⁴⁵, where the limits of the excavation trench do not allow us to identify their overall thickness, but only their orientation and the construction technique with the large light bricks typical of the first city walls of Sultan IIIb (Fig. 16). Further north, still on the west side of the tell, in the trench known as "Site A," Town Wall I was exposed for a short stretch down to the foundations, and its collapse was again confirmed due to an earthquake⁴⁶. At the northwest corner, the fortification line extended into the "Massif" identified by the Austro-German mission described above, then proceeding eastward on the north side.

Footnotes

39. Kenyon 1981: pl. 316-317 [ZAQ-ZAO wall], 323g, e.

38. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: 30, pl. 19.

39. Semicircular towers or bastions with curved corners characterize the early Palestinian and Trans-Jordanian cities of the Early Bronze Age II, as shown by the well-known examples at Tell 'Arad (eleven towers excavated to date: Amiran 1978: 11-13, plates 149, 150, 177, 178, 180, 182, 187), Khirbet el-'Alya (Braun 1989b: 96-98, fig. 1), and at Tell, where several towers are associated with “Wall C,” the main fortification of the Early Bronze Age II: two semicircular towers on either side of the “Eastern Gate” (the northwest tower, respectively: Marquet-Krause 1949: 3, plate C; Callaway 1980: 72-73, figs. 49-51, and the southeast tower: Marquet-Krause 1949, pl. C, wall 200; Callaway 1980: 73-81, fig. 49), Tower C in semi-elliptical Area A, which protected the “Citadel Gate” (Callaway 1980: 65-68, figs. 8, 38, 42); the almost completely circular tower at the “Corner Gate” (Callaway 1976: 26). During the same Early Bronze Age II, the semicircular towers were replaced by square or rectangular towers.

40. So much so that some have speculated, somewhat fancifully, that the wadi that would have formed on rare rainy days would have threatened the original prehistoric settlement, thus inducing the ancient inhabitants of Jericho to build the imposing defensive structures of the Aceramic Neolithic (Bar-Yosef 1986).

41. Kenyon 1981: 97, pl. 229b, 79a, 240. In actually, in an older stratigraphic phase (stage XXXII), Kenyon identified a 2.4 m thick enclosure wall (EO wall), which could also be attributed to an early phase of the Early Bronze Age I, rather than to the late Pottery Neolithic B (Kenyon 1981: 96, pls. 77a, 78, 229a); This structure is similar to others from the same chronology identified in Trench II and Quadratus EPI (Wall ZA), which show how the construction of the first public works began as early as the Early Bronze Age I, at the turn of the millennium.

42. Kenyon probably identified Wall A as the most archaic element of the fortification line, which constituted the western curtain of a more monumental structure that also included Wall B. It cannot be ruled out, however, that although later in the construction sequence, the two were actually part of a single structure, the first to enclose the settlement on this side.

43. Kenyon believed that the tower was "structurally later" than Wall A, as evidenced by traces of erosion visible on the exterior of the wall, on which the semicircular structure would later be based; Furthermore, the bricks used in the elevation of the tower were brownish and different from those used in Wall A; the tower may therefore have belonged to the first reconstruction of the defensive line, Wall B (Kenyon 1957a: pl. 35a; 1981: 97, pl. 80a).

44. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: 30, pl. 19 (cit. in note 20).

45. Kenyon 1981: 257-260, pls. 290, 296b; In this case too, as with Walls A and B of Trench I, the construction expedient of building the wall in separate sections side by side has led to the distinction of two structures that actually appear to be contemporary: Town Wall I and II together constitute the first fortification structure of Sultan IIIb (Early Bronze Age II).

46 Kenyon 1981: 373; plates 200-201, 343a; in this case Kenyon (perhaps because it is on the external side of the inner wall) correctly distinguished the superimposed walls as Town Wall I (= Sultan IIb, Early Bronze II); Town Wall 2 (Sultan IIc1, Early Bronze IIB); Town Wall 3 (= Sultan IIc2, Early Bronze Age IIB).

Italian

from Nigro (2006c:358-360)

Ad ovest, le mura della fase più antica furono già raggiunte da Sellin e Watzinger nel lungo saggio in profondità a metà del tell. Nella pianta dettagliata e in quella generale di questo settore si distingue chiaramente nelle mura una protuberanza curva aggettante verso l’esterno della città (Fig. 14)³⁶, che potrebbe essere interpretata come una torre semicircolare del primo circuito di fortificazione, un elemento caratteristico dei sistemi difensivi palestinesi nel Bronzo Antico II³⁹. Su questo lato Tell es-Sultan guarda verso la falesia rocciosa che si increspa ai piedi del Gebel Quruntul. Il pianoro calcareo è in pendenza costante⁴⁹ e la presenza di una fortificazione doveva essere essenziale per proteggere la città, che altrimenti si sarebbe trovata a valle e ad una quota inferiore rispetto a eventuali assalitori provenienti dalla strada che taglia a nord il Deserto di Giuda fino ad et-Tell e Bethel. Le mura furono dunque erette sulla sommità dello svettante insediamento neolitico, i cui resti si innalzavano già almeno 8 m al di sopra del circostante piano di campagna. Proprio la scelta di costruire le mura sul margine più elevato del tell, in modo che si trovassero in posizione dominante e potessero sfruttare il pendio come fianco di un fossato, impose dei limiti precisi alla forma della città del Bronzo Antico II, probabilmente provocando una riduzione e una concentrazione dello spazio edificato rispetto al precedente villaggio del Bronzo Antico IB. La città si trovò per così dire stretta tra due elementi topografici e urbanistici fissi e non modificabili: l’antichissimo limite fortificato occidentale dell’abitato neolitico, trasformatosi in una cresta rilevata, e la sorgente di ‘Ain es-Sultan, al margine tra il pianoro calcareo e la piana alluvionale del Giordano, situata circa 100 m ad est e 10 m più in basso del primo. Queste due invarianti resteranno per più di un millennio a determinare la struttura urbana dell’antica Gerico, una città sviluppatasi sull’asse nord-sud e in graduale pendenza da ovest verso est.

Nella Trincea I, sul lato ovest del tell, le fortificazioni dell’Età del Bronzo furono identificate dalla Kenyon nei quadrati F I-D I⁴¹1. La più antica struttura che può essere interpretata come una delimitazione difensiva dell’originario villaggio del Bronzo Antico e che segna di fatto la sua trasformazione in città fu denominata “Wall A”. Si tratta di un muro realizzato con una fondazione in pietrame di medie dimensioni di un solo filare, con un alzato in mattoni crudi biancastri di 0,43 × 0,29 × 0,07 m. Lo spessore di tale muro non era particolarmente significativo (1,1 m)⁴², ma alla struttura era addossata all’esterno una torre semicircolare, della quale era conservata solamente la fondazione in pietra (Fig. 15)⁴³, analoga a quella probabilmente individuata dalla missione austro-tedesca poco più a nord⁴⁴. La torre non era accessibile al livello del pianterreno e doveva essere dunque comunicante con le mura alle quali è addossata attraverso una scala. Il muro A fu sostituito (e in parte inglobato) dal B, distrutto a sua volta da un violento terremoto (entrambe le strutture costituiscono, nella ricostruzione della Kenyon, il “Town Wall I”). Non è semplice stabilire una relazione tra questa linea di mura e la grande struttura difensiva individuata a nord-ovest da Sellin e Watzinger. Più a nord, poco oltre il già citato breve tratto messo in luce dalla trincea est-ovest della missione austro-tedesca, le mura del Bronzo Antico II furono raggiunte dalla Kenyon nel quadrato M I (ivi denominate “Town Wall I” e “Town Wall II”)⁴⁵, dove i limiti del saggio di scavo non permettono di riconoscerne lo spessore complessivo, ma solo il loro orientamento e la tecnica costruttiva con i grandi mattoni chiari tipici della prima cinta muraria di Sultan IIIb (Fig. 16). Ancora più a nord, sempre sul lato ovest del tell, nel saggio denominato “Site A” il Town Wall I fu portato alla luce per un breve tratto fino alle fondazioni e se ne constatò nuovamente il crollo a causa di un terremoto⁴⁶. All’angolo nord-ovest la linea di fortificazione si estendeva nel “Massiv” identificato dalla missione austro-tedesca descritta in precedenza, procedendo poi sul lato nord verso est.

Footnotes

39. Kenyon 1981: tavv. 316-317 [muro ZAQ-ZAO], 323g, e.

38. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: 30, tav. 19.

39. Torri semicircolari o bastioni con angoli curvi caratterizzano le prime città palestinesi e trans-giordane del Bronzo Antico II, come mostrano i noti esempi di Tell ‘Arad (undici torri scavate sinora: Amiran 1978: 11-13, tavv. 149, 150, 177, 178, 180, 182, 187), Khirbet el-‘Alya (Braun 1989b: 96-98, fig. 1), et-Tell, dove diverse torri sono associate al “Wall C”, la principale fortificazione del Bronzo Antico II: due torri semicircolari ai lati della “Eastern Gate” (rispettivamente la torre nord-ovest: Marquet-Krause 1949: 3, tav. C; Callaway 1980: 72-73, figg. 49-51, e la torre sud-est: Marquet-Krause 1949, tav. C, muro 200; Callaway 1980: 73-81, fig. 49), la torre C nell’Area A semiellittica, che proteggeva la “Citadel Gate” (Callaway 1980: 65-68, figg. 8, 38, 42); la torre quasi completamente circolare presso la “Corner Gate” (Callaway 1976: 26). Durante lo stesso Bronzo Antico II le torri semicircolari verranno sostituite da torri quadrate o rettangolari.

40. Tanto che c’è stato chi ha ipotizzato, un po’ fantastiosamente, che il wadi che si sarebbe formato nei rari giorni di pioggia avrebbe minacciato l’originale abitato preistorico, inducendo pertanto gli antichi abitanti di Gerico a realizzare le imponenti strutture difensive del Neolitico Aceramico (Bar-Yosef 1986).

41. Kenyon 1981: 97, tavv. 229b, 79a, 240. In realtà, in una fase stratigrafica più antica (stage XXXII) la Kenyon identificò un muro di recinzione spesso 2,4 m (muro EO), che potrebbe essere anche attribuito ad una fase iniziale del Bronzo Antico I, invece che alla fine del Neolitico Ceramico B (Kenyon 1981: 96, tavv. 77a, 78, 229a); tale struttura è simile ad altre della stessa cronologia identificate nella Trincea II e nel Quadrato EPI (muro ZA), che mostrano come la costruzione di prime opere pubbliche inizi già nel Bronzo Antico I, al volgere del millennio.

42. La Kenyon ha probabilmente individuato come elemento più arcaico della linea di fortificazione il Muro A, il quale costituiva la cortina occidentale di una struttura più monumentale che includeva anche il Muro B. Non si può escludere, tuttavia, che sebbene successivi nella sequenza costruttiva, i due fossero in realtà parte di un’unica struttura, la prima a cingere su questo lato l’insediamento.

43. La Kenyon ritenne che la torre fosse “strutturalmente successiva” rispetto al muro A, come avrebbero mostrato tracce di erosione visibili all’esterno del muro, sulle quali si sarebbe poi impostata la struttura semicircolare; inoltre, i mattoni impiegati nell’alzato della torre erano marroncini e diversi da quelli utilizzati nel muro A; la torre potrebbe essere dunque appartenuta alla prima ricostruzione della linea difensiva, il Muro B (Kenyon 1957a: tav. 35a; 1981: 97, tav. 80a).

44. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: 30, tav. 19 (cit. a nota 20).

45. Kenyon 1981: 257-260, tavv. 290, 296b; anche in questo caso, come per i Wall A e B della Trincea I, l’espediente costruttivo di realizzare il muro in setti separati affiancati ha provocato la distinzione di due strutture che appaiono in realtà coeve: Town Wall I e II costituiscono insieme la prima struttura di fortificazione di Sultan IIIb (Bronzo Antico II).

46 Kenyon 1981: 373; tavv. 200-201, 343a; in questo caso la Kenyon (forse perché sul lato esterno del muro interno) ha distinto correttamente le mura sovrapposte come Town Wall I (= Sultan IIb, Bronzo Antico II); Town Wall 2 (Sultan IIc1, Bronzo Antico IIB); Town Wall 3 (= Sultan IIc2, Bronzo Antico IIB).

4.3 The First walls on the southern side of the tell

English

from Nigro (2006c:360–361)

On the southern side, the possible identification of the city's first defense structure is also very problematic. Austro-German archaeologists excavated against the inner face of the Early Bronze Age III walls and, a short distance from the survey toward the interior of the city, cut the tell with an east-west trench, in which no traces of fortifications are visible, apart from the Early Bronze Age III walls on the western side⁴⁷.

Further south, in Trench III of the Kenyon, the identification of the walls from the Sultan IIIb phase is problematic. The Kenyon excavations extended from the inner line of the more recent Sultan IIc walls (Early Bronze Age III) to the foot of the Middle Bronze Age III embankment. The stratigraphic sequence appears complex, and the remains of architectural structures recognizable as fortifications have been explored in parts and present numerous interpretative difficulties. The most obvious of these is the fact that remains of residential structures emerged up to the southern limits of the excavation in both the Early Bronze Age I and the Early Bronze Age II, thus demonstrating that the settlement extended beyond the reconstructable limits on the crest of the current mound (on the other hand, recent excavations by the Italian-Palestinian mission have demonstrated that a large lower city was located on this side of the tell in the subsequent Sultan IV period). The oldest southern fortification line could alternatively be identified with a double line of walls, consisting of the terracing wall NCS+NDE of Stage XVI, on the northern edge of Trench III⁴⁸; Wall NCV, with several reconstructions as early as Stage XV, could also be considered part of the fortification line, still in use in Stage XVI⁴⁹. The dating of all these structures, however, is uncertain. In the case of Wall NCV and its associated NCA, Kenyon considered them to be the dock and perimeter wall of a small sanctuary with a curved south wall, datable to the Early Bronze Age I⁵⁰. The structures were, however, reused and rebuilt in Stage XVI, taking on the appearance, if not the function, of a defensive wall or, at least, of an imposing terracing structure. This latter interpretation is supported by the presence outside the aforementioned wall alignments of further structures, mostly silos, of irregular shape. Even in this case, therefore, we are faced with a structure whose liminal position and defensive function are not at all evident. If this is not the defensive line of Sultan IIIb, we can only hypothesize, as in the north, a more advanced line than the Early Bronze Age III, which would, however, have been in a lower, apparently less favorable position. The question therefore remains open.

If the walls were even further south, the dimensions of the city of Sultan IIIb (Early Bronze Age II) would be significantly larger than those of the subsequent city, an indication that would not be discordant with what is attested in the major urban centers of the region, where this very period seems to mark the first great flowering of the Palestinian cities⁵¹.

Overall, therefore, understanding the urban and planimetric configuration of the first city of Jericho, as it was delimited by the circuit of the earliest fortifications, is very difficult to establish on the basis of the data collected by the great English archaeologist in the three transverse trenches excavated on the northern, western, and southern sides of the tell. The remains, not so much of the Early Bronze Age II walls, which, with the exception of Trench I to the west, are not clearly legible at the presumed northern and southern edges of the city and therefore remain of uncertain interpretation, but especially of the settlement of this period, extend both north and south beyond the limits of the later fortified city, thus giving the impression of a settlement with a very distinctive physiognomy, strongly elongated on the north-south axis (with a length exceeding 300 m and a maximum width of only 120 m). The location and number of possible entrances to the city during this period are also undetermined, although it remains likely that they opened on the eastern side, towards the oasis and the spring.

Footnotes

47. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: figs. 21-24.

48. Identified by Kenyon in "Site IV" (Kenyon 1981: plates 266a-c, 267a).

49. Kenyon 1981: pl. 267c.

50. Kenyon 1981: 196-197, pl. 265c.

51. One thinks of the results of recent investigations at Megiddo, where it is likely that the phase of great monumentalism of the scara area should be dated precisely to the Early Bronze Age II (rather than the Early Bronze Age IB: contra Finkelstein-Ussishkin 2003).

Italian

from Nigro (2006c:360–361)

Sul versante meridionale l’eventuale identificazione della prima difesa costruita della città è anch’essa assai problematica. Gli archeologi austro-tedeschi scavarono contro la faccia interna delle mura del Bronzo Antico III e, a poca distanza dal sondaggio verso l’interno della città, tagliarono il tell con una trincea est-ovest, nella quale non si notano tracce di fortificazioni, a parte le mura del Bronzo Antico III sul lato occidentale⁴⁷.

Ancora più a sud, nella Trincea III della Kenyon l’identificazione delle mura della fase di Sultan IIIb è problematica. Gli scavi della Kenyon si estesero dalla linea interna delle mura più recenti di Sultan IIc (Bronzo Antico III) fino al piede del terrapieno del Bronzo Medio III. La sequenza stratigrafica appare complessa e i resti di strutture architettoniche riconoscibili come fortificazioni sono stati esplorati a tratti e presentano numerose difficoltà interpretative, la più evidente delle quali è costituita dal fatto che resti di strutture abitative sono emersi sino ai limiti meridionali dello scavo sia nel Bronzo Antico I sia nel Bronzo Antico II, in tal modo testimoniando che l’insediamento si estendeva oltre i limiti ricostruibili sulla cresta dell’attuale monticolo (d’altra parte i recenti scavi della missione italo-palestinese hanno dimostrato che da questo lato del tell si trovava una vasta città bassa nel successivo periodo Sultan IV).

La più antica linea di fortificazione meridionale potrebbe in alternativa essere identificata con una doppia linea di mura, costituita dal muro di terrazzamento NCS+NDE dello Stage XVI, sul limite nord della Trincea III⁴⁸; anche il muro NCV, con diverse ricostruzioni già nello Stage XV potrebbe essere considerato parte della linea di fortificazione, ancora in uso nello Stage XVI⁴⁹. La datazione di tutte queste strutture è però incerta. Nel caso del muro NCV e di NCA che gli si lega, la Kenyon considerò che si trattasse della banchina e del muro perimetrale di un piccolo santuario con muro sud curvilineo, databile al Bronzo Antico I⁵⁰. Le strutture vennero tuttavia reimpiegate e ricostruite nello Stage XVI, assumendo l’aspetto, se non la funzione, di un muro difensivo o, almeno, di un’imponente struttura di terrazzamento. Quest’ultima interpretazione è suffragata dalla presenza all’esterno degli allineamenti murari citati di ulteriori strutture, in gran parte silos, dalla forma irregolare. Anche in questo caso, dunque, ci si trova di fronte ad una struttura la cui posizione liminare e funzione difensiva non sono affatto evidenti. Se non è questa la linea difensiva di Sultan IIIb, non resta che ipotizzare, come a nord, una linea più avanzata rispetto al Bronzo Antico III, che si sarebbe trovata, tuttavia, in una posizione bassa, apparentemente più sfavorevole. Il problema resta dunque aperto.

Se le mura fossero ancora più a sud, le dimensioni della città di Sultan IIIb (Bronzo Antico II) sarebbero sensibilmente più grandi di quelle della città successiva, un’indicazione che non sarebbe disarmonica rispetto a quanto attestato nei maggiori centri urbani della regione, dove proprio quest’epoca sembra segnare la prima grande fioritura delle città palestinesi⁵¹.

Nel complesso, dunque, la comprensione della configurazione planimetrico-urbanistica della prima città di Gerico, come era delimitata dal circuito delle più antiche fortificazioni, è assai difficile da stabilire sulla base dei dati raccolti dalla grande archeologa inglese nelle tre trincee trasversali scavate sui lati nord, ovest e sud del tell. I resti, non tanto delle mura del Bronzo Antico II, che, ad eccezione della Trincea I ad ovest, non sono chiaramente leggibili ai presunti margini settentrionale e meridionale della città e restano quindi d’incerta interpretazione, ma specialmente dell’abitato di questo periodo, si estendono sia a nord che a sud oltre i limiti della città fortificata successiva, dando così l’impressione di un insediamento dalla fisionomia molto particolare, fortemente allungata sull’asse nord-sud (con una lunghezza superiore a 300 m e una larghezza massima di soli 120 m). Anche la posizione e il numero degli eventuali accessi alla città di questo periodo non è determinabile, restando comunque verosimile che essi si aprissero sul lato orientale, verso l’oasi e la sorgente.

Footnotes

47. Sellin - Watzinger 1913: figg. 21-24.

48. Identificato dalla Kenyon nel "Site IV" (Kenyon 1981: tavv. 266a-c, 267a).

49. Kenyon 1981: tav. 267c.

50. Kenyon 1981: 196-197, tav. 265c.

51. Si pensa ai resultati dele recenti indagini a Megiddo, dove e probabile che la fase di grande monumentalita dell'area scara debba essere datata proprio al Bronzo Antico II (piuttosto che al Bronzo Antico IB: contra Finkelstein-Ussishkin 2003).

4.2 Construction phases, stratigraphy, and chronology of the walls of Sultan IIIc

English

from Nigro (2006c:372–373)

Once the overall structural unity of Sultan IIIc's defensive system has been clarified, consisting, from the outside of the city inward, of a moat, a scarp, an external wall, a series of blind spaces intentionally filled and/or covered by a further embankment, and the actual walls (Fig. 35), it is evident that the majority of the stratigraphic distinctions correctly recognized by Kenyon, both in the two parallel walls and in the connected moats, are, in reality, chronologically contemporary construction phases within the construction of the same work. In this case, too, it is important to emphasize that tendency toward "stratigraphic multiplication," which has been found to be one of the main distinctive features of the method adopted by Kenyon¹¹⁴. It is clear, in fact, that numerous funerary interventions recognized by archaeologists at different points of the defensive circuit, especially in the upper emerging part of the walls, are attributable to repairs and remains, as well as to modifications from the final phase preceding the great destruction of Sul ffIc2, such as, for example, in Area B, the construction of Building BI right on the inner face of the walls. From a historical-archaeological point of view, however, it is of primary interest to understand the main construction phases of the Early Bronze Age III walls, that is, when and how the new defensive circuit was built on the rubble of the previous one, and how many subsequent reconstructions it in turn underwent. Stratigraphic observations on the entire defensive system can only be made at certain points of the Tell es-Sultan city walls, specifically in the area designated M-I by Kenyon (which actually represents an extension of the east-west trench excavated by Sellin and Watzinger) and in the entire northern section of the double defensive system, especially on the inner side of the walls, excavated first by the Austro-German mission and then by the British mission led by John Garstang.

Based on the available documentation (Table 2), two main defensive circuits can be identified. The first, already consisting of the double wall and evidently planned and built as a single unit, arose at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age III on the rubble of the previous walls of Sultan IIIb, which collapsed, as mentioned, as a result of an earthquake. These ruined structures were removed and used to level the external slopes of the tell, except on the western side of the city, where¹¹⁵ as can still be seen today (Fig. 16) in the western section of square M-I of the Kenyon¹¹⁶, the walls of Sultan IIIb were leveled to an arbitrary height to accommodate the stones that constituted the foundation of the internal wall of the new complex defense system¹¹⁷. This intervention therefore marks the transition to the Sultan IIIc phase and the construction of the new double-curtain defense system. It is more complex to distinguish the transition to the subsequent and final phase of Suiten IIIc2¹¹⁸. While this is clearly recognizable in the body of the main internal wall, marked by a new set of foundation stones, it is much more complicated to recognize the same phase in the other elements that make up the defensive system, in the external wall, and in the blind spaces between it and the main wall (some originally filled, others, apparently, only at the time of the last reconstruction of the main wall). The same applies to the ditches outside the external wall.

A complete reconstruction of the walls along the entire city perimeter marks the transition to the Sultan IIIc2 phase (a phase that is clearly distinct from the previous one, even in material culture); The upper reconstruction of the Hauptmauer is also characterized by the strong presence of wooden structures and a relative thickening (also with the addition of adjacent structures both inside and outside the wall)¹¹⁹.

Footnotes

114. Marchetti 2003: note 13.

115. In this case, it is the main internal wall (the so-called Hauptmauer), which was erected on top of the walls of Sultan IIIb.

116. Kenyon 1981: plates 295, 296a.

117. This technique, evidently similar to that generally used in contemporary domestic construction at Tell es-Sultan (in which the presence of stone abutments is, however, not the rule), guaranteed greater stability of the mudbrick structures, ensuring a homogeneous mudbrick solution for the stone foundation. The very presence of the stone foundation base allows us to recognize the different reconstructions in the elevations or cross-sections of the walls.

118. As is evident, the periodization of the site coincides with that of the walls; it could not be otherwise, since the examination of the walls has provided the clearest distinction between the main phases of life of the city in the Early Bronze Age. However, it is perhaps worth emphasizing that the changes in material culture are less clear and less evident in the different explored areas of the settlement. In any case, the horizon of the city's final phase (Sultan IIIc2) is clearly distinguishable from the previous one, dating to the mid-3rd millennium BC.

119. Marchetti – Nigro 1998: 36-38.

Italian

from Nigro (2006c:372–373)

Una volta che si è chiarita l’unità strutturale complessiva del sistema difensivo di Sultan IIIc, costituito dall’esterno della città verso l’interno rispettivamente da un fossato, una scarpa, un muro esterno, una serie di vani ciechi colmati intenzionalmente e/o coperti da un ulteriore terrapieno e le mura vere e proprie (Fig. 35), è evidente che la maggioranza delle distinzioni stratigrafiche correttamente riconosciute dalla Kenyon, sia nei due muri paralleli, sia nei fossati collegati, sono, in realtà, fasi costruttive cronologicamente contemporanee all’interno della realizzazione della stessa opera. Anche in questo caso deve essere sottolineata, infatti, quella tendenza alla “moltiplicazione stratigrafica”, che è stata riscontrata come una delle principali discrniie, del metodo adottato dalla Kenyon¹¹⁴. È palese, infatti, che numerosi interventi ilizi riconosciuti dagli archeologi in punti differenti del circuito difensivo, spe-ciahne te nella parte superiore emergente delle mura, sono riferibili a riparazioni e resta i, oltre che a modifiche della fase finale che precede la grande distruzione di Sul ffIc2, come, ad esempio nell’Area B, la costruzione dell’Edificio BI proprio a n so della faccia interna delle mura. Dal punto di vista storico-archeologico, tuttavia, è di primario interesse comprendere quali siano state le fasi costruttive principali delle mura del Bronzo Antico III, vale a dire quando e come il nuovo circuito difensivo sia stato costruito sulle macerie del precedente e quante successive ricostruzioni abbia a sua volta subito. Osservazioni stratigrafiche sul complesso del sistema difensivo si possono effettuare solamente in alcuni punti della cinta muraria di Tell es-Sultan, segnatamente nell’area denominata M-I dalla Kenyon (che rappresenta in realtà un ampliamento della trincea est-ovest scavata da Sellin e Watzinger) e in tutto il tratto settentrionale del doppio sistema difensivo, specialmente sul versante interno delle mura, scavato prima dalla missione austro-tedesca e poi da quella britannica diretta da John Garstang.

Sulla base della documentazione disponibile (Tab. 2) si possono riconoscere due principali circuiti difensivi, il primo, già costituito dal doppio muro ed evidentemente pianificato e realizzato unitariamente, sorge all’inizio del Bronzo Antico III sulle macerie delle precedenti mura di Sultan IIIb, crollate, come si è detto, per effetto di un terremoto. Tali strutture in rovina vengono rimosse e utilizzate per regolarizzare i pendii esterni del teli, salvo sul lato occidentale della città, dove¹¹⁵ come si vede ancor oggi (Fig. 16) nella sezione ovest del quadrato M-I della Kenyon¹¹⁶, le mura di Sultan IIIb vengono pareggiate ad una quota arbitraria dell’alzato per allettarvi le pietre che costituiscono la fondazione del muro interno del nuovo articolato sistema di difesa¹¹⁷. Questo intervento segna, dunque, il passaggio alla fase di Sultan 'Ile e la costruzione del nuovo sistema difensivo a doppia cortina muraria. Più complesso è distinguere il passaggio alla successiva e ultima fase di Suiten IIIc2¹¹⁸. Mentre questa, infatti, è chiaramente riconoscibile nel corpo del muro principale interno, perché segnalata da una nuova assise di pietre di fondazione, è assai più complicato riconoscere la stessa fase negli altri elementi che costituiscono il sistema difensivo, nel muro esterno, nei vani ciechi tra questo e il muro principale (alcuni colmati in origine, altri, apparentemente, solo all’epoca dell’ultima ricostruzione del muro principale). Lo stesso vale per i fossati esterni al muro esterno.

Una ricostruzione completa delle mura lungo tutto il perimetro cittadino segna il passaggio alla fase di Sultan IIIc2 (una fase che si distingue nettamente dalla precedente anche nella cultura materiale); la ricostruzione superiore dello Hauptmauer si caratterizza anche per la forte presenza di apprestamenti lignei e per un relativo ispessimento (anche con l’aggiunta di corpi affiancati sia all’interno che all’esterno del muro)¹¹⁹.

Footnotes

114. Marchetti 2003: nota 13.

115. Si tratta, in questo caso, del muro interno principale (il cosiddetto Hauptmauer), che viene eretto sopra le mura di Sultan IIIb.

116. Kenyon 1981: tavv. 295, 296a.

117. Questa tecnica, evidentemente analoga a quella in genere utilizzata nell’edilizia domestica coeva a Tell es-Sultan (nella quale la presenza dell’assise di pietre non è, tuttavia, una regola), garantiva una maggior stabilità delle strutture in mattoni crudi, assicurando alla fondazione lapidea una soluzione omogenea in mattoni crudi. Proprio la presenza dell’assise di fondazione in pietra permette di riconoscere nei prospetti o nelle sezioni delle mura le diverse ricostruzioni.

118. Com’è evidente la periodizzazione del sito coincide con quella delle mura; non potrebbe essere altrimenti, dal momento che proprio l’esame delle mura ha fornito la più evidente distinzione delle fasi di vita principali della città nel Bronzo Antico. Tuttavia, è forse da sottolineare il fatto che i cambiamenti nella cultura materiale sono meno netti e meno evidenti nelle diverse aree esplorate dell’abitato. In ogni caso, l’orizzonte della fase finale di vita della città (Sultan IIIc2) è chiaramente distinguibile da quello precedente, databile alla metà del III millennio a.C.

119. Marchetti – Nigro 1998: 36-38.

Sultan IIIc1 Destruction - EB IIIA - ~2500 BCE

Discussion

References

Nigro (2014)

8.2 The EB IIIA destruction

from Nigro (2014:75)

Also the EB IIIA (Sultan IIIc1) city occurred an abrupt and violent destruction towards the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. In Area B and B-West, at the southern side of the city, the EB IIIA double line of fortifications was dramatically set on fire. The EB IIIA South Gate was burnt⁶¹, and its ceilings, supported by tamarisk beams⁶², collapsed (fig. 18). This destructive event was possibly due to an enemy attack, as it heavily involved the city fortifications all around the city-walls perimeter, while it is not apparently attested to in other areas inside the city. For the first time, goods and riches gathered in it had attracted military organized entities which attacked and conquered the city. The 2500 BC destruction took place in a moment of maximum floruit of Early Bronze Age Jericho, suggesting that a fast and noticeable economic growth might have unexpected effects. The second half of the 3rd millennium BC was, in facts, characterized in Palestine by increasing infighting between urban centres and/or semi-nomadic tribes, and violent destructions became common events⁶³.

Footnotes

61. Nigro et al. 2011, 580-581.

62 Paleobotanic analysis was carried out by Alessandra Celant (Rome “La Sapienza” University). Kenyon’s Expedition identified the Tamarix as the predominant species among charcoal samples (Hopf 1983, 577; Western 1983).

63 See Gallo in this volume, 157-161.

Sultan IV a2 Earthquake - MB IB - towards the end of the 18th century BCE

Discussion

References

Nigro (2009)

2. Area A: The MB I--II Tower, The Adjoined MB II Houses, And The MB III Cyclopean Wall

from Nigro (2009:731-734)

Excavations and restorations in Area A were focused on a major building discovered in previous seasons of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000), called Tower A1 (ﬁg. 5)³, in order to further clarify its architecture, function, stratigraphy and chronology. Moreover, another portion of the MB II (1750-1650 BC) houses arisen against the eastern side of the Tower⁴, and a further stretch westwards of the MB III (1650-1550 BC) Cyclopean Wall W.4⁵, with its foundations trench and the related rampart rubble ﬁlling, were brought to light.

As regards Tower A1, its foundation wall was exposed, completing the excavation of the destruction layer in the open space west of the structure, and reaching the original ﬂoor connected with this building. The monumental building was erected over a 2 m thick foundation, consisting of big blocks laid as orthostates on their western visible face (ﬁg. 6). Small and medium size stones protected the base of the superstructure, made of regular reddish-brown mud-bricks tied up by a grey mortar, and preserved up to 2.4 m. In the blind room inside the Tower the original ﬂoor was reached exposing the upper course of foundations stone walls and a protruding basement on the western side, the platform supporting a wooden staircase, which allowed to descend into the room from above.

Ceramic material from the collapse layer in the courtyard west of Tower A1 (ﬁg. 7) conﬁrmed a dating towards the end of MB I (in the last quarter of the 19th century BC) for the ﬁnal destruction of the earliest phase of use of this structure, which with several repairs was maintained in use in the following period.

In a second stage of use, at the beginning of MB II (1800-1750 BC), a stone wall of three/ four courses was adjoined to the foundation of the Tower, apparently with the aim of protect- ing it on the western, southern and eastern sides, while a perpendicular wall was added to the north in order to strengthen the whole structure. South and east of the Tower a series of private houses were built against the bounding wall during the whole MB II; one of these houses gave back noteworthy pottery material and showed a collapsed tannur and a carbonized wooden plate on its latest ﬂoor.

Area A was expanded to the west bringing to light a further stretch of Cyclopean Wall W.4, a huge structure supporting the MB III (1650-1550 BC) rampart. Excavations conﬁrmed that such a monumental wall was built within its foundation trench by ﬁlling progressively it for laying superimposed courses of big limestone boulders, and it was never intended to be seen, being fully buried by the rubble ﬁlling of MB III rampart.

Footnotes

3 MARCHETTI - NIGRO (eds) 1998, pp. 124-135; 2000, pp. 199-207.

4 MARCHETTI - NIGRO (eds) 2000, pp. 207-216; NIGRO - TAHA (eds) 2006, p. 33.

5 MARCHETTI - NIGRO (eds) 1998, pp. 135-154; 2000, pp. 217-218; NIGRO - TAHA (eds) 2006, pp. 34- 35.

3. Area E: the MB II stone wall, buttress, destruction layer and superimposed structures

from Nigro (2009:735)

For the sake of clearness, Area E is treated following Area A, with which it has a structural and stratigraphical contiguity represented by Cyclopean Wall W.4, which separates the two ﬂanking ﬁelds of excavation (ﬁg. 8).

Area E lies at the south-western foot of the tell ⁶, and it was considerably enlarged by removing dumps from previous excavations (Garstang’s and Kenyon’s dumps). The main structure brought to light is a stone wall, made of big boulders irregularly set in at least six superimposed courses (1.6-2.0 m), built up in 4-6 m long stretches interconnected at progressive turns of the structures, which gradually curves northwards from SE to NW, following the tell morphology. Roughly at the middle of the excavated part of this wall a rectangular buttress (7.5 x 2.1 m) protrudes from its front line (ﬁg. 9). The easternmost section of the wall, appearing at the south-western edge of Kenyon’s Trench III, is a massive stone corner called Wall W.5 (ﬁg. 10). From this structure southwards up to the northern inner side of Cyclopean Wall W.4, a 7-10 m wide layer of destruction extended, with thick accumulations of ash, charcoal and carbonized beams at the foot of the curving stone wall. Upon this layer a row of big stones (ﬁg. 11) retained collapsed mud-bricks and rubble ﬁllings bordering a street running parallel to the main stone wall and belonging to a later reuse of the latter towards the end of MB II (1700-1650 BC). Just in between this border wall and the main stone wall an ephemeral rectangular unit was also uncovered (ﬁg. 12).

Footnotes

6 MARCHETTI - NIGRO (eds) 2000, pp. 181-192; NIGRO - TAHA (eds) 2006, pp. 29-30.

Nigro and Taha (2013)

1. Area A: MB II (Sultan IVb, 1750-1650 BC) houses and stratigraphy; reconstruction of Tower A1 architecture

from Nigro and Taha (2013:2-3)

Works in Area A, at the southern foot of the tell, were focused on further investigation of MB II (Sultan IVb) layers west and east of Tower A1, and on a renewed examination of houses grown up against the eastern and northern sides of this defensive structure during Middle Bronze II.

In Square AqIV13, samples of ashes and charcoals were taken from destruction layer F.1688, a up to 0.6 m thick stratum accumulated over courtyard floors L.1680 + L.1660⁵ west of Tower A1 (fig. 2). This layer, including rubble heaps, resulted from a major destructive event, which took place towards the end of the 18th century BC (around the mid of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty) and might be attributed to a violent earthquake struck. This event might be the reason for the addition of wall W.22 to the north side of the Tower, at the junction between walls W.19 and W.15, which was convincingly ascribed to a structural subsidence⁶. This structure let the space east of the main building to be exploited for private dwellings: Houses A2 (L.185 + L.186 + L.191; Sultan IVb1) and A3 (L.173 + L.193; Sultan IVb2) grew one upon the other with several refurbishing until the final destruction of the dwelling area, around 1650 BC⁷,.The last MB II (Sultan IVb2) destruction layer, F.166 (inside House A3), was also re-examined in square AtIV11. Burnt fallen down bricks, ashes, charcoals, human remains in Tower A1 (F.162)⁸, and micro-stratigraphy suggest that the uppermost dwelt area underneath the MB III rampart (cut through by Cyclopean Wall W.4) was destroyed by an enemy attack towards the mid of the 17th century BC. There are no data available to identify the provenance of this attack, which represents a turning point in the history of the Canaanite city: its defensive system was completely reconstructed with massive fortification works, including the Cyclopean Wall, a new rubble rampart and an upper city wall⁹. This might hint at a persisting threat to the city which made it necessary to strengthen its defenses, such as that brought about by nomadic tribes living in the wilderness north and south of Jericho.

The monumental architecture of Tower A1 has been reconstructed on the basis of the analysis of its structure. It had at least four storey. The ground floor, a basement entered from above through a ladder, was 2.5 m high, while the main floor was 3.2 m high, with at least two more storeys 2.-2.2 m each up to a reconstructed height of around 10 m. Wooden (poplar) beams 0.26 m thick and 3 m long were inserted into the mudbrick masonry of the tower to support the ceilings of each storey. The walls widths were reduced of a two lines of bricks (0.72 m) on each storey.

Footnotes

5 Nigro et al. 2011, 577

6 Marchetti - Nigro eds. 1998, 124-126; 134-135, figs. 4:15, 4:17; 2000, 194-195, 207, figs. 5:7, 5:24, 5:26.

7 Marchetti - Nigro eds. 2000, 195, fig. 5:1 (fillings F.165a-b/F.166 and F.171).

8 Marchetti - Nigro eds. 2000, 195, fig. 5:12.

9 Marchetti - Nigro eds. 1998, 135-154; 2000, 217-218; Nigro 2006a, 34-35; Nigro - Taha 2009, 734, Nigro et al. 2011, 577.

Kenyon (1981)

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Summaries

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

from Kenyon (1981:16)

In Stage XLI there was apparently a period of EB-MB camping occupation during which there is no evidence of solid buildings. During this period the W-shaped EB ditch of Stage XXXIX gradually silted up. In the silt were sherds of EB–MB pottery.

In Stage XLII, phase liv, the first EB–MB houses appear. They are terraced into the underlying deposits. An area of erosion between a western and eastern complex has removed any stratigraphical links. The western complex is built over the Stage XLI fill in the ditch. In it were two solid clay blocks in adjacent rooms, which might be altars. A foundation burial beneath the dividing wall and a bin that could have been for offerings could support the suggestion of a cult centre, but this is not certain. The eastern complex, of irregular plan, on three wide but different levels, is terraced into the EB deposits, on the south side cutting back into the final EB town wall. All the walls are of the characteristic EB type, a single brick-course thick, and the bricks are of the distinctive greenish clay of the period.

After a period of occupation, the length of which is indicated by a considerable number of occupation levels and some rebuilding, there was in phase liv a considerable rebuilding. In the eastern complex this consisted only of slight extensions of the middle terrace and a considerable raising of level in the western terrace. In the western complex most of the original walls are rebuilt and the wall dividing the original two rooms disappears, as do the solid clay blocks. A new division in the eastern part of the complex is only just within the excavated area.

In the western complex there is above the phase liv floors a considerable collapse and a raised floor, with a new wall creating a passage.

The collapse of the final EB–MB buildings is marked by a tumble of bricks on the floors. A ragged gully that has removed the western walls of the eastern complex may be evidence of an earthquake. The collapse and gulley are covered by a silt wash that must indicate a period of abandonment and erosion before the MB bank was constructed. Within this erosion period, a gully cut down deeply on the south side of the excavated area was then refilled.

Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

XLII. Tr. I. liv (E), liv (E) a, liv (E) b (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 231a)

from Kenyon (1981:106-107)

In the eastern complex, wall JD is at the north side of the trench cut down into the burnt debris against the face of E.B. Town Wall M (pl. 88a), the final E.B. town wall, and into the underlying fill, to the depth of 2 m. To the east, the contemporary floor sealed the E.B. wall, while to the west the floor was nearly at the foot of wall JD; the difference in level was 1.85 m. The original wall JD only survives for a short distance beyond the earlier line, and is then extensively patched in stone. To the south, beyond the patch, the wall angles sharply back to the south-east, and cuts right into the brickwork of wall M, with its foundations resting on the stone foundations of that wall (pl. 88b). At the point where wall JD angles back, wall JE runs up to it from the west.

The original west wall of the room west of wall JD was JF, which likewise cuts down into the E.B. levels. The original level to the west of JF was presumably at the foot of the wall, and therefore 0.55 m. below that to the east. The existing surfaces, however, run up to a steep slope at the foot of wall JF and the foot of the wall. This was presumably the result of occupation levels gradually raising the floor nearly to the base of the wall. The pit against the western foot of JD may also be the result of erosion, filled by subsequent occupation. The fill of these erosion areas is hatched as liv (E) b.

The western end of this complex is lost in a ragged gully (section I, pl. 236, c. 17 m. W.), which cuts it off from the western complex. Presumably somewhere in the area destroyed by the gully there was a wall bounding this terrace, and there was either a lower terrace joining the two complexes, or a connecting surface; in either case evidence was removed by erosion at the end of the E.B.–M.B. period. The gully is covered by the wash of this erosion period; it could be a rain-water gully, but is perhaps more likely to be in origin an earthquake crack.

XLII. Tr. I. lvi (E), lvi (W), lvi a (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:108)

The floors of the latest building stages of both eastern and western complexes are overlain by a tumble of bricks mixed with silt. The collapse may have been brought about by an earthquake, for the gully c. 2 m. deep which cuts into the western edge of the eastern complex is beneath the collapse level of the building. There was no sharp definition between this fill and the overlying level of silty wash, but shown on section as lvi a.

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

STAGE XXI. Phases lxviii (Building), lxviii a (Occupation) (plan p1. 255a)

from Kenyon (1981:166-167)

Into the accumulation above the last Early Bronze Age buildings was terraced a building of the Early Bronze– Middle Bronze period. If this building was like that of the contemporary building in Trench I, there may have been a number of terraces at different levels. Any to the north would have been removed by the succeeding period of erosion, and any to the south destroyed by the previous excavation trenches, as E. section clearly shows.

The building has the same primitive and unsophisticated character of those of the period found elsewhere on the site. Portions of three rooms, two connected by a doorway, survived within the excavated area. The plan is irregular in the extreme. The walls were very slender, the thickness of a single brick laid as a stretcher. They had all tilted badly to the north, this being especially marked in wall OEG, which survived to a height of c. 0.15 m. (pl. 107a). The tilting took place presumably at the time of the collapse that filled the interior of the rooms with fallen bricks, for such slender walls could not have stood at such an angle; the remains of wall OEG in fact collapsed within an hour after the debris had been removed and the photograph taken. It is possible that an earthquake was responsible for the tilting. The bricks were of the greenish colour normal in E.B.–M.B. buildings, and floors were of hard-packed mud-plaster of a similar colour.

Set in the floor of the north-western room were two hollowed-out stones with their surfaces flush with the floor, the eastern about 24 cm. by 24 cm. with the sunk centre c. 14 cm. across, the western c. 33 cm. by 29 cm. with the hollow c. 15 cm. across (pls. 107a and 107b). As the plan shows, the axis of the stones is completely askew to that of the buildings, so they are more likely to have been mortars, which indeed their appearance suggests, than roof supports, though it must have been very awkward to have the eastern one well out in the middle of the room. Further west, in a position that must have been almost against wall OEE, which has here disappeared, was another stone, c. 24 cm. by 32 cm., of columnar shape, standing up some 20 cm. above the floor level, with a much slighter depression in its surface. The other fitting in this room was a bin (pl. 107a), roughly rectangular, against wall OEG. The eastern end was formed by a slight brick pier against OEG, and the other two sides by a kerb of mud-plaster. At its base were bricks, raised above the floor level of the room.

In the eastern room, a stone with sunk centre was set in the angle of walls OEF and OEH, against the jamb of the doorway between the two rooms. It was presumably the pivot into which the door post revolved, though its position would not suggest a very tightly fitting door. In wall OEH there was also a brick pier, which suggests that the pier in the western room was a structural feature, and that the bin was an incidental addition.

Scattered on the floors of the rooms were a number of crushed vessels (pl. 107b and fig. 12: 2–5). They were mainly in the two angles on either side of wall OEE. The presence of vessels in situ shows that the house was abandoned as a result of a sudden destruction.

It would seem that before the final destruction there had already been a fire, for the north face of wall OEG had been replastered after the face had been burnt. The final destruction involved a massive burning. The fallen brickwork was mixed with large fragments of burnt timber, and there were also traces of burnt straw or reeds, presumably from the roof.

Chapter VIII Squares H II, III, VI

Squares H II, III, VI

Middle Bronze Age

Phases H X. xxxix (Rebuilding of tower complex), xxxix a (Occupation levels and storage jar beside wall HCX) (plan pl. 332a)

from Kenyon (1981:359-360)

In the succeeding phase, the greater part of the area excavated was an open space. The only true structure is a rebuilding of the tower complex. The north wall HCG of phase xxxvi collapsed and has completely disappeared. Into the debris of its collapse and on top of wall HCC of phase xxxvii was built wall HCV, as seen in Sections VI and VII, and as described above, p. 357. The east wall HCK did not collapse completely, but a rebuilding HCW is seen in Section XVII, the associated levels of which could be traced round to show that it was contemporary with wall HCV. It should be noted that wall HCW was badly split by earthquake cracks, one of which has cut down its east face and that of HCK beneath it, severing the levels from the two walls, but the interpretation of their significance is clear. In the south section, wall HCW was considerably destroyed in the 1930–6 excavations, but its stump survives. The north wall HCF of phase xxxvi, however, continued in use, as can be seen by the correlation of Section VI and the south section. Contemporary with wall HCV is a cross-wall HCX within the structure, which is longitudinal to Section VII and of which the west face lies under the baulk.

The level against the north side of HCV was raised, and is seen in Section VI against the wall at 5.02 m. The relation of the structure HCR–HCM–HCN–HCO, interpreted as a cistern, to this raised level is obscured in Sections VI and XVI by walls HDF and HDM of phases xli and xliv. But from the evidence of an adjacent section it appears that wall HCM was destroyed at least a stage before the construction of drain HDA, which is seen in Section VI to be secondary to wall HCV. It therefore seems probable that the cistern was no longer in existence at this stage.

Section VI shows that at the north end there was a small structure with walls at 6.57 m.–7.02 m. N., 5.02 m. H. and 7.72 m.–7.95 m. N., 5.25 m. H. which was not traced in excavation; it can hardly have been more than a lined pit.

The junction of Section VII with the north section shows that the contemporary level at 18.50 m. E. was at 5.57 m. H., from which it is clear that town wall HCP had been abolished. This agrees with the evidence of the south section that the surface sealing the foundation trench of HCW crosses the top of HCP at 24.47 m. E., 4.50 m. H. Most of the rest of the south side of Square H III has been destroyed by the edge of the 1930–6 excavations, but Section V suggests that there were no structures here at this period. In the north section, from the edge of Square H III westward, the levels have been cut into by the structures of phase xliv. It is, however, probable that wall HBN continued in use, for its successor HDR was built only in phase xliv.

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

Sultan IVc Destruction - MB III or LB I - ~1650-1400 BCE

Discussion

References

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter 11 Jericho and the Coming of the Israelities

from Kenyon (1957:259-265)

... The destruction of Middle Bronze Age Jericho has already been described. Over the leaning and distorted tops of the walls, and the debris within the rooms, is a most striking stratum (Pl. 62 A). It is about a metre thick, and consists of streaks of black, brown, white and pinkish ash. It is in fact the wash down the slope of burnt buildings farther up the mound. This wash is the evidence of a period in which the elements were given free play with Jericho. Winter rains in the Jordan Valley are violent while they last, and summer heat tends to reduce all surfaces to crumbly dust, easily washed away by the next rains. On the west side of the hill we found layer after layer of the resultant silt, which with the aid of superimposed layers we could date between the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, between the Iron Age and the Roman period, and from the Roman period down to modern times. When the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age town took place by burning, the crest on the west was crowned by the great bank of the contemporary defences, so the wash of the levels of the last town of this period is only found on the eastern slope, but they, equally with those on the west slope, indicate a period of abandonment and an appreciable lapse of time.

In the excavations of the 1930s, a number of tombs were found which contained Late Bronze as well as Middle Bronze objects. At the time when Professor Garstang was reporting on these tombs, knowledge of the pottery of the earlier part of the Late Bronze Age was very inadequate. With the subsequent publication of a number of excavations, notably that of Megiddo, it has very much increased. His conclusion that these tombs show continuous occupation therefore requires revision, for a whole century or more of pottery is lacking in them. Moreover, our further examination of the tombs shows how unreliable stratification by absolute level within the tombs can be, owing to the habit of mounding up earlier materials round the edge when later burials are put in. The occurrence of Late Bronze Age objects at the same absolute level as Middle Bronze Age ones does not therefore indicate an overlap of forms. Moreover, the other dating criterion used, scarabs of the period for which the pottery seems to indicate a gap, is not safe, for scarabs are the sort of thing liable to be heirlooms.

A review of the finds made in these tombs suggests that, as with the tombs found in the more recent excavations, the main use ceased at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, early in the sixteenth century B.C. In a limited number of instances, among tombs on the west side of the town (but not so far in the northern cemetery excavated by us), the tombs were then re-used between about 1400 B.C. and c. 1350–1525 B.C. On the tell Professor Garstang found a small quantity of pottery of the same period, and a single building, his Middle Building, which might belong to it.

That there was occupation of the town during the fourteenth century is shown by the finds in these tombs. Our excavations have shown clearly what has happened to its remains. Over most of the area we have excavated on the west side of the mound, the thick layer of burning above the Middle Bronze Age buildings is the highest surviving level. But in the photograph (Pl. 62 A), it will be seen that there is a row of stones just under the modern surface (the upper mound is an excavation dump). These stones are the foundations, and all that remains, of the wall of a room (Pl. 63 A). To the south of this wall, a small irregular area of contemporary floor survives. In the photograph it can be seen clearly how to the south and east the modern surface is below the level of this floor. On the floor is a small mud oven, just like those still used by peasant women in Palestine today (Pl. 63 B). Beside the oven, a single dipper juglet was lying on the floor. This juglet (Pl. 62 A) is the only Late Bronze Age vessel we have found in situ on the tell. Its date is fourteenth century, and fits in well with the more precisely datable finds in the tombs made by Professor Garstang.

The houses of Late Bronze Age Jericho have therefore almost entirely disappeared. We have already seen that over most of the summit of the tell even the houses of the certainly populous Middle Bronze Age town have vanished, and only levels of the Early Bronze Age remain. We have also seen how the process of erosion was washing away the Middle Bronze Age houses on the east slope, during an interval of perhaps 180 years. This process was arrested when the town of 1400 B.C. was built on top of the wash, but this in turn was abandoned, and erosion has almost removed it.

It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. The erosion which has destroyed much of the defences has already been described. It will be remembered that the summit of the Middle Bronze Age rampart only survives in one place. The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-used this, or a new wall may have been built above it, so nothing remains of it. Professor Garstang believed that he had identified the defences of the period. But additional evidence about the stratification makes it quite clear that these are to be dated to the Early Bronze Age.

The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua. One can visualise the Children of Israel marching round the eight acres of the town and striking terror into the heart of the inhabitants, until all will to fight deserted them when on the seventh day the blast of the trumpets smote their ears. But as to what caused the walls to fall down flat, we have no factual evidence. We can guess that it was an earthquake, which the excavations have shown to have destroyed a number of the earlier walls, but this is only conjecture. It would have been very natural for the Israelites to have regarded such a visitation as divine intervention on their behalf, as indeed it can be regarded.

As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C. It must be admitted that it is not impossible that a yet later Late Bronze Age town may have been even more completely washed away than that which so meagrely survives. All that can be said is that there is no evidence at all of it in stray finds or in tombs. The evidence seems to me to be that the small fragment of a building which we have found is part of the kitchen of a Canaanite woman, who may have dropped the juglet beside the oven and fled at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua's men. Any difficulties of reconciling this date with evidence from elsewhere may well be accounted for by the small scale of this actual invasion led by Joshua, and the gradual spread of Israelite influence.

The rest of the history of Jericho is only an epilogue to the story of its greatness as a town. This is fully in accord with the Biblical record. Joshua said "Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city, Jericho." The first man, according to the Bible, who defied the curse, and paid the penalty in the loss of his firstborn and youngest sons, was Hiel the Bethelite, in the time of Ahab, that is to say about 880 B.C. On this evidence, there would have been a gap in occupation of some 450 years. It was probably the effect of the elements on the presumably badly ruined town that caused the greater part of the erosion of which the excavations have given so much evidence. As has already been described (p. 172), it is certain that the erosion had taken place before the Byzantine period, and it is probable that it took place before the Iron Age, for in the considerable erosion which took place after the sixth century B.C., it was almost entirely Iron Age levels which were being washed away. Of the wash from the Late Bronze Age town in fact very little trace has been found, but that is probably because as long as the great rampart of the Middle Bronze Age defences crowned the crest on the west, the wash would have been mainly to the east, where it is lost in modern cultivation.

Of the occupation of the period of Hiel the Bethelite, in fact, no clear evidence has been found. Probably it in its turn was washed away. Judging from the amount of pottery found on the slopes, there was very considerable occupation in the Iron Age, but at a later date, mainly seventh century B.C. The actual buildings only survive on the slopes, overlaid by debris representing the destruction of those higher up. A number of buildings of this period were excavated by the Austro-German expedition at the north end of the mound, and others were found in our Trench I. Three layers were identified. The middle of these was a very substantial building (Pl. 64) of a tripartite plan common in the Iron Age. Except that it serves as an indication of the prosperity of the settlement, and that since it is right at the foot of the mound therefore the town was probably not walled at the time, it does not give us much information about the Jericho of the period.

This last occupation of the ancient site of Jericho probably comes to an end with the second exile, when the inhabitants of Judah were carried off into captivity in Babylonia. Certainly the mound was never built over on any scale again. The Jericho of Herod the Great was a mile and three-quarters to the south-west, where the Wadi Qelt provides another source of water, beside which Herod built as his palace a striking copy of the great villas of his Roman masters. The Crusaders depended and the modern inhabitants of Jericho depend on the same water supply as did the earliest inhabitants, but the centre of their town is about a mile downstream. In the Roman period the ancient mound served only as a burial ground. A number of graves have been found, of a curious form, with the body in a recess cut along one side of the base of a grave-like shaft, identical in type with those found at Qumran in the monastery which once housed the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the first century B.C.–first century A.D. One was found in Trench I, cut into a surface overlying 70 cm of wash above the sixth-century B.C. level, and overlaid again by a further 2.25 m, down to the present day, providing something of a time scale for the rate at which the mound, built up to a height of about twenty-four metres by some seven thousand years of occupation, is gradually lowered again when it is deserted. In the Byzantine period and probably at all times down to the present, it served as a quarry for decayed mud-brick, and thus man has helped the elements to destroy the full record of its history. The last man to live on the site was the occupant of a little stone-built house on the slopes above the stream. His pottery was largely Byzantine but with that mixture of a new element which is typical of the beginning of the Ommayad period when the Arab ruler Hisham was building his great palace at Khirbet Mefjer, a mile or so to the north.

Thus the Jericho of Ain es Sultan which has produced evidence of so many invasions from the east, of the incursions of the Desert into the Sown, and of the efforts of the settled inhabitants of the cultivated country to keep out their nomadic neighbours, has produced just one scrap of evidence of the final incursion, that of the Arabs, the present inhabitants.

Kenyon (1978)

Chapter 3 The entry into Canaan: The Archaeological Evidence

from Kenyon (1978:33-40)

The theory of two separate entries into Palestine, from the south and from the east, is supported by most modern scholars. They visualise a southern group, entering from the south by the first of the routes just described, and a northern group, in which an entry from the east and the north-east is the essential element.

For the entry from the south, there is no firm archaeological evidence. At the end of the thirteenth century BC, sites in Palestine provide full evidence of destructions (34). But it was a triad in which there were areas of widespread destruction, stretching from Anatolia to Egypt. The famous agents in the destruction in which so many great powers succumbed were the Peoples of the Sea, for whom the Egyptian records provide a date of c. 1190 BC. There is archaeological evidence for destruction at a number of sites in southern Palestine from round about 1200 BC, but there is no evidence at all to decide whether these destructions were the work of the Peoples of the Sea, the infiltrating Israelites or even Egyptian campaigns against the Peoples of the Sea. The evidence concerning this entry from the south is textual, though it makes archaeological sense that the infiltration was halted by the line of Canaanite cities of Jerusalem-Ajlun-Gezer.

It is really concerning the entry from the east that most of the modern literary controversy has raged. All sorts of solutions have been proposed for the "route of the Exodus". The only dictum that seems to make sense is that of Father de Vaux, that there was no route and that it is futile to try and trace it. Over a period of time sufficiently long for almost all of those who left Egypt to have died, the group journeyed gradually north in a perfectly normal nomadic way of life. Forty years in the wilderness is the expression, but archaeological, physical and anthropological evidence suggests that it was rare in this period of the second millennium for anyone to reach the age of fifty and the real period need only have been twenty to thirty years.

Archaeology has sought to find evidence concerning the period of this Exodus route and entry from the east from what can be learnt concerning the sites in Edom, Moab and Ammon. A most remarkable and very widespread survey by Nelson Glueck suggested that there was a complete lack of sedentary occupation in this area for the greater part of the second millennium. The all-enveloping picture has been altered by the Middle and Late Bronze Age finds in the neighbourhood of the present city of Amman. The general picture has been emphasised by Mrs Bennett's excavations at Umm el Biyara, Tawilan and, especially, Buscira, almost certainly the Edomite capital. There is no firm evidence of urban occupation until about the ninth century BC and an even later date may eventually emerge.

The Exodus group under Moses was therefore not diverted by urban-based kingdoms; but they could equally well have been blocked by a strong tribal-nomadic group. The archaeological evidence for towns in Transjordan is therefore irrelevant.

In the account of the actual entry from the east and of Joshua's campaigns, three sites might be expected to yield evidence and help to establish a chronology: Jericho, Ai and Hazor. All have been extensively excavated.

A sounding was made in the mound of Jericho in 1867; it was excavated by an Austro-German expedition from 1907 to 1909, by a British expedition under Professor John Garstang from 1930 to 1936 and by a British expedition from 1952 to 1958 with American and Canadian collaborators in several of the seasons. In the 1930 to 1936 excavations it was claimed that evidence had been found of a destruction of the city in c. 1400 BC, a date which, it was believed, accorded with a dating method working back from the building of Solomon's temple and adding up the intervening figures for the life of Joshua and the rule of successive Judges — a method of very dubious validity. This claim for the discovery of the details of the period of Joshua was generally accepted, and appears in many text-books. It is, however, quite wrong.

The description of the capture of Jericho is given in the Book of Joshua. After the death of Moses, following his distant view of the Holy Land from Mount Nebo, the leadership was taken over by Joshua. It is part of the later narrator's unification of the entry into the Promised Land that this Moses-led group has, in the account, become the ancestors of all the tribes of Israel, all entering by the route across the Jordan from the east and all taking part in the capture of Jericho as the first event in the conquest. Of the site of Gilgal, where a shrine was set up to commemorate the crossing of the river, archaeology has completely failed to find any trace.

By the late second millennium BC, there was beside the spring of Ain es Sultan a mound (35) rising some fifty feet above the surrounding plain, built up by the accumulation of collapsed mud-bricks derived from the successive towns on the site over a period from c. 9000 BC. It is generally accepted that this was the site of the town that barred the route into Palestine of the group led by Joshua, though it has to be admitted that there is no absolute proof.

The story of the capture of Jericho is dramatically told in Joshua 6. After the Israelites, carrying with them the Ark, had marched once round the city on six successive days, on the seventh day they made seven circuits. At the end of this, the trumpets blew mightily and the people shouted and the walls fell down. It has been suggested that a quite reasonable natural explanation is that while the Israelites were investing the town there was an earthquake which the Israelites very naturally interpreted as Yahweh's intervention on their behalf. Earthquakes are frequent in the Jordan valley, with as many as four major ones a century. The 1952–8 excavations showed that there were no less than seventeen buildings and rebuildings of the city wall during the eight hundred years or so of the Early Bronze Age. Some of the collapses were certainly due to earthquakes. Such evidence can be seen in the line of bricks from the face of a wall which has collapsed from the stones of its foundations to lie face down on the contemporary surface (38). Above is the higgledy-piggledy tumble of the bricks from the core of the wall, and upon this was founded the town wall of the next stage. This could well represent the sort of collapse that enabled the attackers to swarm into the town, but it in fact belongs to a town some one thousand years earlier.

Professor Garstang in his 1930–6 excavations uncovered the remains of a stage in the town wall that had collapsed in this manner, with against it the evidence of a terrific conflagration. This certainly fits the description of the fate of Jericho given in Joshua 6, and it was ascribed by Professor Garstang to this period. Unfortunately, he was misled into believing that this wall belonged to the last stages in the history of Jericho by the chance that erosion had removed much of the evidence. The wall in question in fact belonged to the Early Bronze Age, c. 2300 BC. This wall was the final wall of the Early Bronze Age town. It was succeeded by a camping settlement and then an unwalled village of the EB–MB period that represents the incursion of the semi-nomadic Amorites (p. 101). A walled town was re-established in the succeeding Middle Bronze Age, probably c. 1900 BC. The buildings and culture of these Middle Bronze Age people has been described (p. 20) as an example of the urban civilisations which fringed the semi-desert area in which the wandering of the Patriarchs took place. The Middle Bronze Age town was once more walled. At first these were free-standing walls of mud-bricks, similar to those of the Early Bronze Age, which survived only in the area adjacent to the spring. In the eighteenth century a new system of fortification was introduced in which a great artificial bank was piled up, for the most part on the crest of the pre-existing mound, but on the east side apparently swinging out into the plain. This bank was given a facing of smooth plaster. The height of the defences was thus greatly increased and the angle of approach steepened and given a more slippery surface. The sequence of stages is shown on the sectional drawing of the trench on the west side of the mound (36). Here, the successive walls of the Early Bronze Age town are shown in part. The earlier series is on the right, and is quite clearly succeeded by a later series in the centre; of these, the uppermost, with burnt debris against it, is that ascribed by Professor Garstang to the period of Joshua. The section shows that it was overlain by material of the EB–MB period and buried beneath the slight plaster-faced bank of the Middle Bronze Age, which had two later reconstructions.

However, the complete story is not given in this trench. The western crest of the mound was considerably denuded (37). The complete height of the bank only survives in the north-west corner, where a short stretch of the stone foundations of the wall that originally crowned its summit survives. The whole of the top of the bank and the associated wall has disappeared by erosion over most of the circuit of the town.

These Middle Bronze Age defences lasted from the eighteenth century to about the middle of the sixteenth century. They could have survived sufficiently to be repaired for use in the Late Bronze Age towns but since so much of the Middle Bronze Age defences have disappeared, it is absolutely certain that nothing at all of walls of the later town, to the period of which the entry into Palestine must belong, can survive. Archaeology will thus never be able to provide visual evidence of the walls that fell down in front of the attacking Israelites.

Excavations have, however, produced enough evidence that there was a Late Bronze Age town and to give some slight evidence of the date at which it was destroyed. Over nearly the whole site the houses of the Middle Bronze Age, and anything later, had shared the fate of the defences and had disappeared due to erosion. One small area of the Middle Bronze Age town survived on the east side, adjacent to the spring. The houses had been destroyed by fire at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, in the first half of the sixteenth century BC. After, it is certain that there was then an abandonment during which erosion carried the burnt debris down the slope of the mound, to create a thick layer over the seventeenth–sixteenth century houses. Overlying this debris layer there survived at the east end of the excavated area the stone foundations of a single wall. This wall was so close to the modern surface that only about a square metre of the contemporary floor survived, with elsewhere the modern surface cutting down into it (40). The one juglet surviving on its surface, lying by a small clay oven, and a limited amount of Late Bronze Age pottery beneath the floor, suggests that the building is late fourteenth century in date. A Late Bronze Age occupation of the site is thus proved, but the excavations within the town provide little detail.

The best evidence for dating the reoccupation of the site after a period of abandonment at the end of the Middle Bronze Age comes from the tombs excavated during the 1930–36 excavations. Professor Garstang was misled in the interpretation of the evidence from them by then current misdatings of sixteenth to fourteenth century pottery. He also failed to realise that in the process of burial in these rock-cut tombs, the latest burial is usually at a low level in front of the tomb, with the remains of earlier burials pushed back and mounded up to the rear (41). Absolute height of burials within the tomb chamber means nothing, and Professor Garstang was led to believe that later objects found on the same level as earlier ones were contemporary. A wholly false impression of continuity and early chronology was thus given. The finds in the tombs cleared in these excavations indicated that a very few of the Middle Bronze tombs were re-opened and some later burials were placed in them.

Associated with the burials in this period of Late Bronze Age re-use there were Mycenaean vessels. Unfortunately no sufficiently diagnostic features survive to pin-point the period of these tombs. The acknowledged leading authority on the subject, Professor Furumark, considers that the finds cannot be more closely dated than within the period of LM III A and LM III B (1300–1230 BC). Mrs Hankey, however, would put the vessels concerned in LM III A2 (1375–1300). The attribution of the vessels within LM III is not sufficiently precise to provide close dating. The only thing that is important is that one can say on the basis of archaeological evidence that there was a break in continuity at the end of the Late Bronze Age reoccupation. It would be very difficult on the pottery evidence to put this as late as the end of the thirteenth century. The general evidence, both from the Mycenaean pottery and the other wares would allow for a date as late as 1300 BC but not later. After this occupation ceases until Iron Age II.

Kenyon (1981) - Complete for all Time Periods

Chapter I Introduction

from Kenyon (1981:3-4)

Fig. 1

Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1981 v.3a)

Figure 3

Plan of Jericho

Click on image to open in a new tab

Kenyon (1957)

Chapter II - Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Summaries

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

Trench I

from Kenyon (1981:11-14)

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

from Kenyon (1981:16)

Trench I and Adjacent Areas FI, DI, DII

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A

VII A. D II. xiv-xv (Debris between phases xii and xv), xiv–xv a (Pit), xv a (Debris), xv a (House CH), xv xvi (Pit–debris) (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 208b)

from Kenyon (1981:42)

VII A. Tr. I iv

from Kenyon (1981:42)

Stage VIII. Tower Phase 5. F I. xii, D I. xvi, D II. xvi, VIII A. xvi a (see App. E) (plan pl. 210)

from Kenyon (1981:42-43)

Stage XVII A. F I. xxxi., D I. xliii a, D II. xxx-xxxi

from Kenyon (1981:77-79)

Footnotes

STAGE XXI-XXII. F 1. xxxv-xxxvi, D I. xliv-xlv, D II. xxxii-xxxiii (see Appendix E) STAGE xx1I. F I. xxxvi, xxxvi a, D I. xlv, xlv a (see Appendix E), D II. xxxiii, xxxiii a (plan pl. 225)

from Kenyon (1981:85-86)

STAGE XXIII. F L xxxvii, D I. xlvi, xlvi a, b (see App. E), D II. xxxiv, xxxiv a (plan pl. 226)

from Kenyon (1981:87)

STAGE XXIII—XX1V. F I. xxxvii-xxxviii, D I. xlvi-xlvii, D II. xxxiv-xxxv (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:87-88)

STAGE XXIV. F I. xxxviii, xxxviii a, D I. xlvii, xlvii a, STAGE XXIV-XXV. D I. xlvii-xlviii, DII. xxxv, xxxv a, STAGE XXIV-XXV (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 227)

from Kenyon (1981:88-90)

Early Bronze Age

STAGE XXXIV. Tr. I xxxviii¹, xxxviii a, xxxviii—xxxix (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 229b)

from Kenyon (1981:97)

Footnotes

1 From this stage onwards the phases in Squares FL and DI on the crest of the mound have only a tenuous link with those on the slope, and are therefore dealt with separately (see p. 103).

XXXIV. Tr. I. xxxix, xxxix—xl (sec Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:97-98)

XXXIV. Tr. I. xl, STAGE XXXIV-XXXV. Tr. I. xl a, xl b (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 230)

from Kenyon (1981:98)

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

XLII. Tr. I. liv (E), liv (E) a, liv (E) b (see Appendix E) (plan pl. 231a)

from Kenyon (1981:106-107)

XLII. Tr. I. lvi (E), lvi (W), lvi a (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:108)

Chapter III Trench II, Site O

Trench II, Site O

Proto-Urban to Early Bronze

XVIII. Phase lix (S) (plan pl. 251c)

from Kenyon (1981:155-156)

Intermediate Early Bronze - Middle Bronze Period

STAGE XXI. Phases lxviii (Building), lxviii a (Occupation) (plan p1. 255a)

from Kenyon (1981:166-167)

Chapter IV Trench III, Site N

Trench III, Site N

Early Bronze Age

XV. Phase lix - Stage XVI. Phase lx (Destruction level between phases lix and lx)

from Kenyon (1981:202)

no text under this sub-heading.

XVI. Phases lxi—lxii (Major destruction), lxi—lxii a (Erosion line of subsequent collapses), lxi—lxii b (Silt levels)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

XVI. Phases lxii (Building alteration and occupation), lxii a (Successive levels not illustrated on sections), lxii b (Occupation on floor which seals wall NCT) (plan pl. 267d)

from Kenyon (1981:204)

XVI. Phases lxii-lxiii

from Kenyon (1981:204-205)

XVII. Phases lxix—lxx (Fill over silo NEH—NEJ), lxix—lxx a (Collapse of wall NEN)

from Kenyon (1981:207)

Chapter V Square MI

Square MI

Pre-Pottery Neolithic B

XI. Phases lxiv (Building alterations and occupation between walls MBE and MBC); lxiv a (Occupation surfaces within enclosure) (plan pl. 284a)

from Kenyon (1981:243)

Chapter VI Squares EI, EII, EV

Pre Pottery Neolithic B

XIII. Phases liii (Building alterations and occupation), liii a (Courtyard floor levels) (plan pl. 3060

from Kenyon (1981:298-300)

Chapter VII Squares E III-IV

Squares E III-IV

Proto-Urban and Early Bronze Period

Proto-Urban Period

Phases M (Major building alterations), Mi (Occupation levels), Mii (Rebuild of wall ZZ), Miii (Secondary occupation surfaces), M—L (Destruction) (plan pl. 315a)

from Kenyon (1981:325)

Early Bronze Age

Phases H (Building alterations), Hi (Occupation levels), H—G (Destruction), H—G (2) (Two Pits) (plan pl. 316b)

from Kenyon (1981:328)

Chapter VIII Squares H II, III, VI

Squares H II, III, VI

Middle Bronze Age

Phases H X. xxxix (Rebuilding of tower complex), xxxix a (Occupation levels and storage jar beside wall HCX) (plan pl. 332a)

from Kenyon (1981:359-360)

Chapter IX Sites A and L

Summary (Site A)

from Kenyon (1981:372)

Site A

Early Bronze Age

Stage B. Phases G, F ii, F i, E (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:372-373)

Stage E. Phases A iii, A ii, A i (see Appendix E)

from Kenyon (1981:374)

Appendix A The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials

F I. Burial 6 (fig. 161, pl. 61b)

from Kenyon (1981:400-401)

Footnote

1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]

Appendix E Additional Notes on Stages and Phases

from Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

Sumary Table of Seismic Events

from Kenyon (1981)

Period / Stage	Description (quoted)	Page(s)
Stage XXIII–XXIV (Early Bronze Age)	The buildings of Stage XXIII were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence … wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece… ‘preceded by the collapse of walls 98ii and 101… perhaps by the collapse of a roof’ … ‘probable that these collapses are to be attributed to the same earthquake’.	pp. ~85–86
Stage XXXIV–XXXV (Early Bronze Age)	The collapse of wall B is a good example of earthquake action. ‘…the face of the wall collapsed down the slope as a whole…’ ‘The earthquake damage was made good by wall C, cut into the debris of collapse’…	pp. ~98–99
Stage XVI–XVII (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B)	At the end of Stage XVI the terrace wall collapsed… Stage XVII… the building on the lower terrace was also overwhelmed in the collapse… ‘This stage was also followed by a major collapse… some skeletons which apparently lay as they had fallen, perhaps buried by the collapse of the building in an earthquake.’ ‘These bodies may be those killed in the earthquake’…	pp. ~??
		Chapter II - Trench I - 12-13, 16, 42, 43, 78, 85, 87, 88, 97, 98, 107, 108 Chapter III - Trench II - 155, 166 Chapter IV - Trench III - 204, 207 Chapter V - Square MI - 243 Chapter VI - Squares EI, EII, EV - 298 Chapter VII - Squares E III-IV - 325, 328 Chapter VIII - Squares H II, III, VI - 359 Chapter VIII - Squares H II, III, VI - 372, 373, 374 Appendix A - The Pre-Pottery Neolithic Burials - 401 Appendix E - Additional Notes on Stages and Phases - 523, 531

Bienkowski (1986)

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.2.3 Garstang

Introduction

from Bienkowski (1986:2)

John Garstang of Liverpool University, who was critical of Watzinger's conclusions, directed the Marston-Melchett excavations at Jericho from 1930-36. The preliminary reports appeared regularly in the Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology and in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (Garstang 1930-36). His results will be summarised briefly here.

1.2.3.1 Neolithic (Levels VIII-XVII): Garstang 1932a, 4-6; 1935a, 163-73, Flints 174-84; 1936a, 67-73, Pottery 77-90

from Bienkowski (1986:2-3)

The stratigraphy of the Neolithic levels is very unreliable. In general, Garstang's Level VIII (Late Neolithic) may correspond to the Pottery Neolithic B of Kenyon's subsequent work, and his Level IX (Middle Neolithic) to Kenyon's Pottery Neolithic A (although Level IX seems to have contained PPNB flints, and Level VIII a mixture of PNA and PNB flints, cf Joan Crowfoot Payne in Kenyon and Holland 1983, 714). Garstang's Levels X–XVII (Early Neolithic) are especially suspect: he made no distinction between what Kenyon later called Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B. The architecture seems to correspond to the rectilinear style of PPNB, although one impressive rectangular building with seven superimposed strata, thought to be a shrine, had its origins just above the Mesolithic levels which were reached in a very limited area (see Garstang 1935a, pl.XXVI, Rm.208). It is quite likely that the building was intrusive, but it helped to confuse Garstang into believing that the 'Early Neolithic' culture was homogeneous. Garstang thought that there was a transition to the use of pottery on the site, but Kenyon's re-examination of his trench and fresh evidence showed that this was wrong. The Level IX (PNA) pits containing the pottery were not recognised, and Garstang believed that the pottery belonged to the latest plastered-floor houses (PPNB) instead of being intrusive. Joan Crowfoot concluded that the flint industry of the Early and Middle Neolithic (the so-called 'Tahunian II') was the same, but again Kenyon's excavations have shown her to be mistaken. In the Middle Neolithic (Kenyon's PNA) the flint industry was characterised by the use of sickle blades with coarse denticulation rather than the finely serrated edge of the preceding period (Kenyon 1979, 45; see now Joan Crowfoot Payne in Kenyon and Holland 1983, 622ff, on Jericho's flint industries from Kenyon's excavations, which she correlates with Garstang's).

1.2.3.2 Early Bronze Age (Levels III-VII): Garstang 1932a, 8-12; 1932b, 38-41; 1935a, 143-63; 1936a, 73-4, Pottery 91-100:

from Bienkowski (1986:2-3)

The stratigraphy of these levels is also very confused and unreliable. Garstang concluded that there were two phases of city and wall construction, Cities A and B. Kenyon's excavations showed that the sequence of Early Bronze Age city walls was highly complex, and in fact the double wall which Garstang attributed to the Late Bronze Age was dated by Kenyon to two successive phases of the Early Bronze Age (1952b, 62). The attribution of buildings is also uncertain. It is likely that at least part of Level VII can be equated with Kenyon's Proto-Urban period, especially the houses with curved or round walls. The numerous silos and rectilinear houses, and the great tower with three deep chambers are all certainly Early Bronze Age. Tombs 24 and A contained pottery characteristic of EBI and EBIII respectively.

1.2.3.3 Middle Bronze I (Garstang 1936a, 44):

from Bienkowski (1986:3)

conclusions were along the same lines as those of Kenyon. He noted that there were no fresh fortifications or architectural development, and suggested that the traces of occupation, with the characteristic flat bottoms and lug handles of the pottery, represented an Aramaean migration.

1.2.3.4 Middle Bronze II (City C): Garstang 1933, 41-2; 1934, 118-31; 1936a, 74. Tombs: Garstang 1932b, 43-54; 1933, 4-40:

from Bienkowski (1986:3)

Garstang excavated the MBII defences at the foot of the slope, now well known from Kenyon's excavations. The Palace, not much of which was actually excavated, consisted of a square main block and storerooms, and had an elaborate drainage system (Kenyon in Avi-Yonah 1976, 563–4 notes that the Palace could be Iron Age, as the dating evidence is not conclusive; cf Chapter 6.1.1). On the slopes on either side were rooms stacked with bins and storage jars containing carbonised grain. Garstang thought that these were the storerooms of the Palace, but Kenyon suggested that they were private houses, each with its storerooms on the ground floor (1954, 61). The whole of this area was destroyed by fire.

Garstang also excavated a cemetery on the west side of the tell. Eight MB tombs (three of which contained LB material) were published, and fourteen MB tombs (two apparently containing LB material) were not published. Fourteen other tombs were empty or too fragmentary for publication. There were two types of tomb: grotto (shaft) tombs, and open graves apparently without cover except for a few large stones piled on the debris. They seem to have contained multiple successive burials, as in the tombs Kenyon excavated later.

1.2.3.5 Late Bronze Age (City D): Garstang 1934, 105-17; 1936a, 74-6. MB/LB Tombs: Garstang 1933, 14-40:

from Bienkowski (1986:3-4)

The walls which Garstang dated to the Late Bronze Age were in fact Early Bronze Age, as noted above. To City D he originally ascribed the Middle Building, a substantial structure overlying the MBA storerooms. Later he attributed it to a slightly later period, still within the Late Bronze Age (Garstang 1941). It was the only LBA building which he published in detail (cf the comments in Kenyon 1951, 120–1; also Chapter 6); in Garstang 1936a, 74, he mentioned the LBA contents of one other room.

Garstang thought that two of the three MB/LB tombs had been used continuously through MBII, LBI and LBII, but Kenyon has shown that this was wrong (1951, 114–17). In fact, according to her, there was a gap in occupation on the tell and in the tombs between the end of MBLI (c.1550 B.C.) and c.1400 B.C. She argued that there was no 13th century B.C. occupation on the site. Jericho was not re-occupied as a city from c.1300 B.C. until well into the early Iron Age.

1.2.3.6 Iron Age (City E): Garstang 1933, fig.11 and p.36 for cremation pit 11; 1934, 102-4; 1936a, 76:

from Bienkowski (1986:4)

Only a few remains of the Iron Age were found by Garstang. They consisted of a four-roomed house, the precise dating of which is uncertain, other odd bits of building, and two tomb deposits.

1.2.4 Kenyon

from Bienkowski (1986:4)

Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Jericho from 1952-58; her reports appeared in PEQ 1952-57 and 1960, Kenyon 1960b, 1965, 1981, Kenyon and Holland 1982, 1983. The results are known well enough not to be repeated here - for a general account see Kenyon 1957b.

1.3 Aims of this study

from Bienkowski (1986:4)

Garstang did not manage to produce a final report on his excavations at Jericho, and as a compromise wrote a popular account together with his son (Garstang and Garstang 1948). The publication of his material is incomplete, and much of what is published needs to be re-assessed in the light of subsequent discoveries. It may be argued, with some justification, that Kenyon's excavations have provided sufficient detailed information concerning Jericho, and that a reconsideration of Garstang's material is therefore not necessary. However, the Late Bronze Age at Jericho is really represented solely by Garstang's material. Kenyon found only a tiny area of LBA occupation — over the rest of the area she excavated, the modern surface was below the level of the floor, as a result of continuing erosion (Kenyon 1981, 371). Much argument has raged over the interpretation of the LBA levels at Jericho because of its role in the Old Testament. Every archaeologist working there has searched for the walls which ‘fell down flat’ before Joshua and the Israelites. The published evidence has been interpreted in all sorts of ways to accommodate different viewpoints.

The present study is essentially an examination of the published and unpublished LBA material from Garstang's excavations, which is crucial for our knowledge of Jericho's history. This involves a stratigraphic study of the LB buildings on the tell and a detailed examination of all the available material from those MB tombs which were re-used in the LBA. Middle as well as Late Bronze Age pottery from these tombs has been included so that a comparison of the fabrics and an analysis of the trends between the two periods could be made. Data from the excavations of Sellin and Watzinger and Kenyon have been included where appropriate. All the results have been considered against the wider Palestinian background and their validity for the area as a whole, as well as for Jericho itself, has been assessed. The biblical evidence, in particular the Book of Joshua Chapters 2–7, has been deliberately avoided. The convoluted problems of Old Testament chronology and exegesis are beyond the scope of a purely archaeological approach.

1.4 Sources

from Bienkowski (1986:5)

The sources from which the core of this study is derived comprise John Garstang's published and unpublished records of the excavations at Jericho and the surviving material excavated. The original excavation records are kept at the Palestine Exploration Fund, London, the Department of Oriental Studies, University of Liverpool, and the Institute of Archaeology, London.

The PEF archives include all the records dealing with the excavation of the tell: field notebooks and summaries by the site supervisors, Garstang's diaries and own site notebooks, surveyor's notes, photographer's books, negatives (including some of the tomb material), plans, sections and 'artist's impressions'. These sources were all studied and they provided information which complemented and occasionally expanded Garstang's published reports on the tell. However, it appears that Garstang published all the relevant site drawings in his preliminary reports. No useful new information was derived from the few unpublished drawings.

The Department of Oriental Studies at Liverpool University houses the tomb archives. These consist of catalogues, site notebooks, drawings and photographs of all the material excavated from the Western Cemetery, published and unpublished. The Institute of Archaeology in London has a few remaining negatives. The archives of Kathleen Kenyon's excavations at Jericho, which were also consulted, are kept at the Cambridge University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. For the present location of the excavated material from Jericho examined in the course of this study, see the list of institutions in Appendix Two.

Chpater 2 Chronology

2.1 Middle Bronze Age

from Bienkowski (1986:6-7)

In this study Kenyon's terminology for the Middle Bronze Age (MBI, MBIIa, MBIIb) will be used. The MBA absolute chronology which will be utilised is Dever's (1977):

MBI: c.1950–1800 B.C.
MBII: c.1800–1550 B.C.

Most scholars divide MBII into two phases, a and b, dating MBIIb 1650–1550 B.C. (eg Dever 1977, 3). However, it is very difficult to define the characteristics of MBIIa and how they are supposed to differ from MBIIb. The distinction goes back many years to the time when Tell Beit Mirsim and Megiddo formed the basis for the stratigraphy of Palestine (cf Van Seters 1966, 15 fig.1, 19 n.38). In both cases the distinction was based on a stratigraphic break and not on pottery or other finds (although, in fact, there is little at Tell Beit Mirsim to justify two distinct sub-periods within MBII). The difference between MBIIa and b cannot be defined ceramically (eg Amiran 1970 does not make any distinction). Whether or not it can be defined stratigraphically is debatable: at many sites (eg Jericho) there is no clear break, while at others (eg Shechem) there are several. There is no definable stratigraphic or ceramic break which is valid for the whole of Palestine. The use of the sub-periods MBIIa and b gives the impression of a definable break which imposes a false homogeneity upon the development of Palestinian sites.

In this study, therefore, pottery and stratigraphy are described simply as earlier or later within MBII (Kempinski 1983 similarly uses MBIIb for both MBIIb and c to show continuity). However, since there is no clear ceramic break, rather a slow natural development of the pottery, it is extremely difficult to decide what constitutes ‘earlier’ or ‘later’ in the MBA ceramic sequence.

Many scholars still accept that piriform and cylindrical juglets are characteristic of ‘MBIIa’ and ‘MBIIb’ respectively (Kempinski 1983, 189; Bietak 1964, 483). The concept of piriform juglets tending to occur earlier and cylindrical juglets later was first proposed by Garstang on the basis of his understanding of the stratigraphy of his Jericho tombs. Garstang realised that the levels were arbitrary, but still relied on them for his analysis of ‘early’ and ‘late’ forms. Price Williams has demonstrated that Kenyon's Jericho MB typology was largely based on piriform and cylindrical juglets, despite her emphasis on the unreliability of Garstang's conclusions (1975, 55–61; Kenyon 1960b, 264).

The major failing of Kenyon's Jericho typology, as of all mostly unstratified tomb material, is that it is typology in a vacuum. For such a typology to be truly reliable, it must be checked against a stratigraphic sequence. Unfortunately, the pottery from the MB levels at Jericho yielded few diagnostic sherds, and there was difficulty correlating the tell and tomb types (cf Kenyon and Holland 1982, 270ff). For instance, it was usually impossible, from rim and neck fragments, to establish whether sherds belonged to piriform or cylindrical juglets.

A check against the stratified deposits at Hazor, Tell el-Far'ah (N) and Shechem reveals a general tendency for piriform juglets to be more common earlier and cylindrical juglets later (Bienkowski 1984, 25–30). Cylindrical juglets certainly last into LBI (Kempinski 1983, 189), but there is also some evidence that piriform juglets may have continued in use into the LBA at Gezer (Stratum 7, Dever et al 1970, 55) and possibly Tell el-Far'ah (N) (de Vaux 1951, 577). There are no doubt non-chronological aspects which promote varied typology during the same period in a fairly large area (Price Williams 1975, 438–42). Different regions may produce variant forms which make detailed comparisons on the basis of date almost impossible. By concentrating more on inter-site variability than on looking for a ‘type site’ or a universally applicable typology, we will understand regional variation more clearly.

Kenyon's Jericho MB typology may well be valid in general terms, although her system is too refined. However, we are still dependent on it for MB pottery from Jericho, despite its inconsistencies. There is simply nothing better at the moment.

2.2 Late Bronze Age

from Bienkowski (1986:7-9)

The absolute chronology of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine, Cyprus and the Aegean is dependent ultimately on Egyptian dates. However, Egyptian chronology itself is not very secure (cf Hankey and Warren 1974; for an analysis of the problems of New Kingdom chronology, see Kitchen 1977–78). After the 12th Dynasty, chronology is very uncertain, and eight possible chronologies emerge. The three main variables are the date of the Sothic rising in Year 9 of Amenophis I, the lunar dates of Tuthmosis III, and the dates for Ramesses II. From these can be produced two extreme chronologies, a high and a low (op.cit.76). This study follows the chronology and synchronisms of Palestine, Egypt and the Aegean in Alden 1981, 45–77 (following Kitchen), and the pottery groups in Kenyon 1973a, 527–30.

The precise synchronisms are:

LBI: LHI, LHIIA and LHIIB: start of 18th Dynasty – early Amenophis III¹ (1576–1399/1552–1380).

LBIIa:
1. LHIIIA1: Amenophis III – Amarna² (1399–1363/1380–1344).
2. LHIIIA2: Amarna – start Seti I³ (1363–1305/1344–1294).
Eight year co-regency between Amenophis III and Amenophis IV used in lowest chronology only (cf Kitchen 1977–78, 77–8).

LBIIb: LHIIIB: Seti I – Ramesses III year I (1305–1194/1294–1183).

LBI corresponds to Kenyon's Groups A–C, and LBIIa to Kenyon's Group D. There was a very distinct break between Groups C and D, the latter being distinguished by the presence of LHIIIA pottery (Kenyon 1973a, 529). The break between LBIIa and LBIIb is taken stratigraphically as the destruction of Hazor Stratum 1B, possibly by Seti I (Yadin 1960, 159; Simons 1937, 56). However, the difference in the local pottery does not appear to be particularly diagnostic. At Hazor, the local finds of the end of Stratum 1A are “absolutely identical with those of the end of Stratum 1B” (Yadin 1960, 160). The levels are dated by the imported wares. The same is true at other more recently published sites, for example Tell es-Sa'idiyeh (Pritchard 1980, 28). It seems that LBIIa and b are largely differentiated by the imported Mycenaean wares. The change from LBIIa to LBIIb is taken as the break between LHIIIA and LHIIIB. It should be noted that Hankey, in her report on the Aegean pottery from the Amman Temple, stresses that the separation of some pieces into LHIIIA2, IIIB1 or IIIA2/IIIB1 is very tentative, and that an unambiguous dating is sometimes impossible (1974, 136; cf Chapter 7.10.2). Nevertheless, much is made of subtle distinctions in order to pin down the date of the LHIIIA/B transition. Hankey suggests that, since LHIIIB1 already occurs at Amarna, the transition from LHIIIA2 to IIIB1 might be put at the end of the Amarna period (1972, 130). Alden argues that the LHIIIB1 occurrences at Amarna are debatable and that the Amarna deposit does not necessarily have to be taken as the start of LHIIIB (1981, 54). One might propose here that the Amarna deposit could conceivably reflect the start of LHIIIB1, but not necessarily the end of IIIA2 – there may have been an overlap, if not in actual production in the Aegean then in the course of trade, a point which is not usually considered. Three LHIIIA2 vessels found in the tomb of Horemheb (1334–1306/1323–1295) at Saqqara suggest that LHIIIA2 persisted in Egypt after the Amarna period (Martin 1978, 50–1). At Tell Deir 'Alla, one LHIIIA2 import was found among LHIIIB pottery in a level dated to after 1200 B.C. by a burnt faience vase with the cartouche of Tawosret, the widow of Seti II (Hankey 1967, 131–2). Hankey notes that “imported goods undoubtedly have a life sometimes lengthened by careful treatment” (ibid.). A number of Palestinian contexts, for example Deir el-Balah and Tell Fara (S), show that LHIIIB pottery was in use during the reign of Ramesses II [(1290–1224/1279–1213) Alden 1981, 60]. As most of the early synchronisms for LHIIIB1 pottery are concentrated within the reign of Ramesses II, it seems reasonable to conclude that the style was already established by his reign. Following Furumark, Alden therefore places the start of LHIIIB in the reign of Seti I (ibid.62–3, 77).

LBIIb corresponds to Kenyon's Groups E and F. The end of LBIIb is generally taken as the destruction of the LBA towns and the appearance of ‘Philistine’ pottery in the following levels at some sites (Kenyon 1973a, 530).

LBA Chronology

Period	Date	Greece	Egypt	Kenyon's Pottery Groups
LBI	c.1550–1400	LHI, LHIIA and LHIIB	Start of 18th Dynasty – early Amenophis III	A, B and C
LBIIa	c.1400–1300	LHIIIA1 LHIIIA2	Amenophis III – Amarna Amarna – start Seti I	D
LBIIb	c.1300–1200	LHIIIB	Seti I – Ramesses III yr 1	E and F

Footnotes

1 Amenophis III, 1401–1363/1382–1344.

2 Amarna, 1359–1343/1348–1332.

3 Seti I, 1305–1290/1294–1279. Much of the Amarna pottery has been dated LHIIIA2, although there seems to be some IIIB1 (cf Hankey 1972, 130–31).

Chapter 6 Late Bronze Age Occupation at Jericho

6.1 The Middle Building

6.1.1 The 'Palace', the Middle Building and the 'Streak'

from Bienkowski (1986:112-113)

The 'Palace' and the Middle Building (so called because it stood in apparent isolation between the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age levels) are the only major constructions excavated which could conceivably date to the Late Bronze Age. Little can be said with certainty about the 'Palace'. Kenyon thought that there was no published dating evidence, and suggested that it could even be Iron Age (in Avi-Yonah 1976, 563-4). Only the substantial foundations of it remained in situ and only a small part of it was excavated (fig.55; Garstang 1934, 105, 127 and pl.XV, Rooms 80 and S1). Garstang dated its origin to MBII, and one of his excavation notebooks mentions that it contained 'good MB material'. A drain (dl) ran through the foundations of the 'Palace' wall and seems to have been connected with Garstang's MB 'storerooms' (ibid.105-6 and pl.XV), suggesting at least an MB date for the 'Palace' foundations. However, the four sherds which Garstang illustrated from the 'Palace' all look LBA in date (ibid. pl.XXVIII:15-18). Garstang thought that the 'Palace' was reconstructed on old foundations, but this does not necessarily follow, nor is there any real evidence for it. There are many sites in the Near East where present-day life continues among the remains of ancient structures which nevertheless remain virtually untouched and unaltered. The remains of the Jericho 'Palace', if indeed it was MBA, were obviously still standing in the LBA. If the adjacent Middle Building was in use during the LBA (see below), then we would expect to find at least some L debris within the 'Palace' area. This does not necessarily infer systematic occupation or rebuilding. Unfortunately, there is too little excavated and recorded information from the 'Palace' to make any firm judgements.

The Middle Building consisted of seven rooms and measured c.14.4 × 11. metres (figs.55-6, 59-60; Garstang 1934, 105-16; Garstang and Garstang 1948, 123ff). One of the rooms may have been a courtyard. The enclosure wall was described by Garstang as extremely thick and built in three stages (1934, 105). Stage AA was stone, BB and CC were brick on stone foundations. The wall must be integral to the Middle Building, since it is on the same axis, but cuts the lines of the earlier MB 'storerooms' and is overlain by the later Iron Age 'Hilani' (fig.55). Stage CC runs beyond the Middle Building towards the 'Palace'. As it was 'somewhat raised in level' (Garstang op.cit.) and slightly broader, it may have served a different purpose, for example as a retaining wall to prevent further erosion of the edge of the slope by the burnt debris from the 'Palace' area above (cf section 6.1.6). The sections through the Middle Building show that only the stone foundations and a little mud-brick superstructure survived (cf fig.56). Little stratification was identified within it, and in fact the area had been disturbed by the previous German excavations (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 178). The floors were described as 'mostly barren', although a surveyor's notebook from the excavations mentions 'wood beams' in the floor of Middle Building Room II. This may suggest collapsed ceiling timbers. However, it is very odd that this point was not noted elsewhere. Feature E in Room M.V-2 is probably a foundation for the Iron Age 'Hilani' (fig.56; Garstang 1934, 108). Garstang offered no description of the features in Rooms M.I-1 and M.IV-1.

A terracotta figurine about 9 cm high was discovered in Middle Building Room V-2 (fig.61). It depicts a naked female, broken off above the knees, with arms straight by her sides. The hairstyle is elaborate, but little detail remains of the face. The present location of this figurine is unknown. It is quite likely to date to the Late Bronze Age: similar types are well known from Bronze Age Palestine and Syria (cf figurine from LBA tomb at Alalakh in Badre 1980, pl.XX:51 and passim).

The Middle Building overlay a deep layer of black burnt debris, called by Garstang the 'Streak'. He identified this as the destruction layer of the Palace wall; it is certainly burnt material washed down the hill (Kenyon 1951, 120). Sketches in one of the excavation notebooks show the 'Streak' both underlying and overlying the Middle Building. There is also a note that the 'Streak' was cut by the foundations of the Middle Building (cf Garstang 1934, 105).

The pottery which was found in association with the Middle Building was illustrated (selection in figs.52-3; Garstang 1934, pls.XXXI-XXXIX), and is clearly LBIIa/early LBIIb (see section 6.2 below). Nevertheless, because of the lack of stratification and stratified excavation, and also because of the disturbed nature of the deposit, a certain dating of this building has proved impossible. It is an interesting study in archaeological theory to follow Garstang's and Kenyon's changing ideas concerning the date of the Middle Building.

6.1.2 Garstang's Original Theory (1934)

from Bienkowski (1986:113)

The pottery which Garstang described as coming from or ‘closely associated with’ the ‘Streak’ was wrongly dated by him to LBI (ibid.107 and pl.XXVII). The pottery which was described as coming from both under and in the Middle Building was also wrongly dated to LBI (ibid.113), and suggested to Garstang that the area was in occupation before the construction of the Middle Building. A cuneiform tablet found within area M.VII (fig.56) was tentatively dated to about the time of the Amarna letters (fig.62; ibid.116–7). The tablet was damaged and hard to read. With only four certain signs, no sense was made of any part of the inscription. Its present whereabouts are unknown, and it may have disintegrated. Garstang concluded that the pottery found within the Middle Building, together with the tablet, was contemporary with its use, and he dated the building to c.1450/1400 B.C. (ibid.113).

6.1.3 Garstang's Revised Dating (1941)

from Bienkowski (1986:113-114)

In an article published in 1941 Garstang revised the date of the Middle Building on the basis of the revision in the dating of Late Bronze Age pottery from Bethshan (Garstang 1941, reprinted in Garstang and Garstang 1948). He redated the painted pottery from the Middle Building to LBII, although he still believed that the underlying ‘Palace storerooms’ were LBI. He therefore left the date of the occupation of the city and Palace unchanged, and simply disassociated the Middle Building from that period of occupation. Dating the fall of the city to c.1400 B.C., he associated the Middle Building and its contents with a later partial and intermittent occupation of the site. Carrying on this line of reasoning, he attributed the Middle Building to Eglon, the king of Moab mentioned in Judges 3:12–14. He dated both to the reign of Seti I and was delighted to find a complete parallel between archaeology and the Bible.

6.1.4 Kenyon's Preliminary Theory (1951)

from Bienkowski (1986:114)

In 1951, prior to starting her own excavations at Jericho, Kathleen Kenyon made a preliminary study of the archaeology and history of the site based on Garstang's records (Kenyon 1951). She isolated the pottery which had been found within the upper debris of the storerooms and the ‘Streak’, and dated it c.1400–1300 B.C. She noted that the stratification made it clear that this pottery “had nothing to do with the Middle Building” but represented the pre-existing accumulation. The material overlying the Middle Building seemed to be the same as the ‘Streak’. Kenyon concluded that the ‘Streak’ alone was evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation and agreed with Garstang that the Middle Building was a later intrusive structure lacking datable evidence. The ‘Streak’ would have continued to erode above the building during subsequent abandonment, which would explain the presence of Late Bronze Age pottery apparently within the structure.

6.1.4 Kenyon's Later Theory (1957-78)

from Bienkowski (1986:114-115)

Having argued in 1951 that the Middle Building was intrusive, probably post–Late Bronze Age but actually undatable, in later publications Kenyon without explanation dated it to LBII:

...the tombs were then re-used between about 1400 B.C. and c.1350–1325 B.C. On the tell, Professor Garstang found a small quantity of pottery of the same period, and a single building, his Middle Building, which might belong to it

(1957b, 261).

Above the denudation level covering the Middle Bronze Age only fragments of buildings survive. The ‘Middle Building’ excavated by Professor Garstang...can be ascribed to this period...From the Middle Building itself no actual dating evidence is published, but some Late Bronze Age pottery, probably of mid-14th century date, came from beneath it

(1970, 210).

Only very scanty remains survive of the town that overlies the layers of rain-washed debris. These include the building described by Garstang as the Middle Building...The small amount of pottery recovered suggests a fourteenth century date

(in Avi-Yonah 1976, 564).

In the final edition of *Archaeology in the Holy Land* (published after her death in 1978) she was even more uncritical. Having mentioned the small patch of Late Bronze Age occupation she had found, she noted that:

the Middle Building excavated in 1930–36 probably belongs to the same period...The pottery shows that these buildings are Late Bronze Age, and date to c.1400 B.C.

(1979, 208).

Nowhere did Kenyon explain why she had changed her mind concerning the date of the Middle Building. One can only assume that the evidence of her own excavations led her to believe that in fact it probably dated to LBII.

6.1.4 Kenyon's Own Excavations

from Bienkowski (1986:115-116)

A layer of burnt material corresponding to Garstang's ‘Streak’, Phase H XIII.liii, was found by Kenyon overlying a large part of the Middle Bronze Age buildings in Squares HII, III and VI. It was described as “a wash down the side of the mound of the gradual erosion of the top of the burnt buildings” and dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Kenyon 1981, 370). Both MB and LB pottery were found in Phase H XIII.liii (Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix, xlv, 460–64, 471 and figs.204–206). However, there are only six definite examples of LB pottery and three possible sherds (ibid.xlv, 463 and 471, and fig.206:1, 6–11, fig.211:3–4) amongst 302 pieces of MBA pottery (ibid.xlv).

In 1951 Kenyon had concluded that the ‘Streak’ dated to the Late Bronze Age. Her Phase H XIII.liii, which corresponds to the ‘Streak’, does not appear to be a Late Bronze Age layer, although some LB pottery was found in it. On the contrary, the vast majority of the published pottery from that phase is Middle Bronze Age, which presumably explains why the phase was dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.

It is significant that whereas Garstang recorded quite a lot of LB pottery from the ‘Streak’ (cf section 6.2), Kenyon found mostly MB pottery, and very little from the LBA. The presence of LB pottery in such vast quantities in Garstang's ‘Streak’, and to a much lesser extent in Kenyon's corresponding Phase H XIII.liii, can be accounted for by two possibilities:

Disturbance during excavation.

Disturbance during actual building of the foundations for the Middle Building.

Garstang noted that the earlier German excavations had disturbed these strata, reaching in places below the Middle Building to the ‘Palace storerooms’, and so presumably through the ‘Streak’ (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 178). [A pedestal bowl (Garstang 1934, pl.XX:22) was recorded as coming from the MBII Palace Store-room 47, which was under Wall A of the Middle Building (fig.55; ibid. pl.XV). The pot is clearly paralleled by the LBII pedestal bowls from Tomb 4, and so is likely to be a later intrusive piece, possibly from the Middle Building above.] Sellin and Watzinger's report includes 15 definite LB sherds (1913, Abb.123, 125–6, 134–141, Blatt 21:G2) and 8 possible LB sherds (ibid. Abb.147, 153–4, 159–60, Blatt 28:C1, C8, Blatt 37:A59). All of these 23 sherds come from the ‘Israelite’ and ‘Judaean’ levels. Since the ‘Israelite’ wall is known to be MBII (Watzinger 1926), all of the LB sherds must come from Squares G5–6, H5–6 and I5–6 (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, Tafel I and IV). This is precisely the area of the Iron Age ‘Hilani’ and the Middle Building (for position of the ‘Hilani’ see fig.55). Furthermore, in his annotated copy of the German report (now in Liverpool University Library), Garstang noted that Watzinger had identified, in a letter, some of his LB painted sherds (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, Abb.123) as coming from the upper layer of the ‘Lower Palace’. The few LB sherds from the German excavations can therefore be accounted for by their disturbance of the LB strata below the ‘Hilani’.

Garstang's method of excavation probably did not help the precise identification of levels: by excavating in strips rather than following levels, pottery could easily seem to have been “found in or closely associated with the ‘Streak’” (Garstang 1934, 107), whereas in fact it may have been deposited during foundation cutting, the evidence of which was missed. He does mention that the ‘Streak’ had been “sharply interrupted” by the foundations of the Middle Building (ibid.105; cf section 6.1.1). Garstang himself penetrated through the floor of a room in Kenyon's Phase H XII, stratigraphically below the ‘Streak’ (Phase H XIII; Kenyon 1981, 368). This could well account for all of the LB pottery recorded from Kenyon's Phase H XIII.liii.

If the ‘Streak’ dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the only sensible way to account for the LB pottery found within the Middle Building is to date the construction and use of the building to the Late Bronze Age. This would resolve the problem of Kenyon's unexplained later preference for a Late Bronze Age date for the Middle Building, which seemed to be the result of her own excavations. This date is now accepted by other scholars (see Weippert and Weippert 1976, 141–5, and Bartlett 1982, 98).

6.1.7 Correlating Garstang and Kenyon

from Bienkowski (1986:116-117)

Garstang’s Middle Building was situated in his Squares H6 and I6 (fig.55; Garstang 1931b, pl.1). Kenyon’s Square HIII, which contained her only bit of Late Bronze Age walls and occupation, was in her Grid Square H6 (fig.54 area 1, where Garstang’s excavation to the south is also marked out with dotted lines). The two areas, Garstang’s and Kenyon’s, are adjacent to each other, and it is possible to correlate the stratigraphy to try to learn some more about the date of the Middle Building.

Kenyon’s Phase liii (the ‘Streak’) is overlain by Phase liv, which she described simply as ‘new building’ (fig.57; Kenyon 1981, 371). In her excavation notebooks, this level (originally numbered BAH) is described as “hard, firm, light brownish soil with a few stones”. It seems therefore to be a fill, acting as a firm floor over the powdery ‘Streak’. Phase liv contained 8–12 LB sherds among approximately 16 MB sherds (Kenyon and Holland 1983, 464–6 and fig.207:8, 11–17; note that fig.207:1, 3, 4 and 5, not described as LB, are almost certainly LB bowls). The succeeding Phase liv a is the LB occupation on the floor. In the excavation notebooks it is described as a “burnt layer” (numbered HAHi), and it yielded one 14th century B.C. juglet next to a small oven or bin (Kenyon 1981, 371; Kenyon and Holland 1983, 467 and fig.208). Two unstratified LB sherds were also found in this area (Kenyon and Holland 1983, fig.211:5–6).

In Square HIII Phase H XIV, the foundations of three Late Bronze Age walls survive — Walls HGM, HGN and HGO (Kenyon 1981, 371 and pl.336). The North Section drawing for Squares HII–III–VI shows the foundations of Wall HGN lying on ‘Streaky Burnt Wash’, Phase H XIII.liii, corresponding to Garstang’s ‘Streak’ (fig.57). Wall HGN is therefore in the same stratigraphic position as Garstang’s Middle Building, overlying the ‘Streak’. The same section drawing shows the LB Phases H XIV.liv (new building) and liv a (occupation on floor and in bin, marked ‘bin’ on the section, between levels 11 and 12) also overlying the ‘Streaky Burnt Wash’. Phase H XIV.liv a is the level in which the LBIIa juglet was found. Since Wall HGN and the rest of Square HIII Phase XIV are firmly dated to the second half of the Late Bronze Age both stratigraphically and by association with LBIIa pottery, it seems reasonable, in the absence of any other evidence, to date the Middle Building by analogy also to the second half of the Late Bronze Age, c.14th century B.C.

A C–14 date of c.1410 B.C. for the MBA building level Site H Stage XII.li (BM–1790) implies a LBA occupation which does not occur in Site H until Stage XIV on the evidence of the Phase liv building and its material remains (Kenyon and Holland 1983, xi and 762–3). However, this might be explained by contamination of Stage XII from later LB levels by the destruction of a floor in a Stage XII room by a sounding from Garstang’s excavations (Kenyon 1981, 368; cf section 6.1.6).

6.1.8 Conclusion: The Date and Function of the Middle Building

from Bienkowski (1986:117-118)

The ‘Streak’ has been shown to date probably to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The Middle Building, which overlies the ‘Streak’, was associated with LBIIa/early LBIIb pottery. Correlation with Kenyon’s excavations shows that the Middle Building is in the same stratigraphic position as an adjacent structure firmly dated to the second half of the Late Bronze Age, which was also associated with LBIIa pottery. There seems to be no alternative but to date the Middle Building to LBIIa/early LBIIb, c.14th/early 13th centuries B.C.

What was the Middle Building? We know that it was not isolated, because of the adjacent domestic remains excavated by Kenyon. Garstang also excavated the contents of one adjacent room below Iron Age debris just north of the ‘Palace’ area, mostly in his Square H6 (fig.55; Garstang 1936a, 74–5). It was described as ‘completely burnt out’ (and therefore probably covered by the continually eroding ‘Streak’), and contained what sounds like typical late LBI/LBIIa pottery. It therefore seems to be in the same stratigraphic position and of the same date as the Middle Building.

The closest known parallel to the Middle Building is the LBIb (Stratum 10) ‘residency’ at Tel Halif (Jacobs 1984, 198 fig.1). This belongs to the tradition known from the Mount Gerizim and Amman structures (cf Wright 1968, 9 fig.2A, and 1985, 129). The upright wooden ‘roof supports’ at Tel Halif recall the possible ceiling timbers at Jericho (cf section 6.1.1). However, the plan and dimensions of the ‘residency’ are significantly different from the Middle Building. The Tel Halif structure measures c.17 × 14 metres, and has a prominent central room surrounded by seven smaller rooms on all sides. The Middle Building measures c.14.4 × 11.8 metres and has no prominent central area among its seven rooms.

The thick enclosure wall of the Middle Building might suggest that it was a small fort of some kind. Garstang described section AA of the wall as a re-entrant gateway (fig.56; Garstang 1934, 105). However, there is nothing to suggest that it was used for military purposes. The only available evidence for its function is the broken pottery and figurine found within it, the cuneiform tablet, and the bin or oven in Kenyon’s adjacent Square HIII. These could be interpreted as the debris of ordinary domestic occupation. The people who lived in these buildings may well have felt exposed on the edge of the tell and so built a thick-walled house which could be defended if necessary.

The eventual fate of the Middle Building is uncertain, though abandonment is likely. Its ‘barren floors’ might imply an orderly exodus rather than a sudden end (cf section 6.1.1). The burnt layer above it in Garstang’s excavations is not evidence of its destruction, but is probably a result of the continuing erosion of the ‘Streak’ from higher up the slope (cf section 6.1.4). In Kenyon’s Area H Stage XIV, the LBA occupation of Phase liv a is overlain by a ‘destruction’, liv–lv (fig.57; Kenyon 1981, 371). Only 5 sherds were recovered from Phase liv–lv, 4 of which are definitely MB, one possibly LB (Kenyon and Holland 1983, fig.209). This proportion is similar to that found in Garstang’s ‘Streak’ (cf section 6.1.6), so Phase liv–lv ‘destruction’ may well be the continuing erosion of Area H Phase XIII.liii, which corresponds to the ‘Streak’ (Kenyon 1981, 370). Phases lv (additional walls), lvi (fill, post-destruction of lv) and lvii (pits dug into Phases liv and lv) were also dated by Kenyon to the LBA (1981, 371). However, no pottery was recorded for Phases lv and lvi, and only one MB storage jar sherd was recorded for Phase lvii (Kenyon and Holland 1983, 467). The information in the excavation notebooks differs slightly in recording three storage jar sherds and one bowl sherd from Phase lvii (numbered HAKi during the excavation). Nevertheless, there is nothing to suggest that Phases lv, lvi and lvii must be LB, and in fact they are undatable.

6.2 The Pottery from the Middle Building

6.2.1 Introduction

from Bienkowski (1986:118)

Garstang published only a small proportion of the pottery from the tell. No systematic examination of the unpublished pottery was undertaken during the course of this study, although several boxes of tell sherds were inspected in various institutions. Garstang threw away much of the excavated unpainted pottery, and much of what he kept is unmarked. An in-depth study, or even sherd count, of this would not therefore have yielded comprehensive, reliable or particularly useful information. However, the unpublished pottery examined, marked and unmarked, does not seem to differ from that published, in date or provenance. The wares appear to be the same as those from the tombs, although no analysis was made to check against funerary bias.

Garstang illustrated whole pots and sherds of typical LBII painted ware from the Middle Building (figs.52–3; Garstang 1934, pls.XXXI–XXXIX), many of them being biconical jugs or kraters (cf Amiran 1970, pl.47). There were also some decorated two-handled jugs (Garstang 1934, pl.XXII:11, pl.XXIV:6). Much of this pottery was dated by Kenyon to the 14th century B.C., LBIIa (1951, 122 and figs.9 and 10).

6.2.2 Base-Ring II Ware

from Bienkowski (1986:118-119)

Although no true Cypriot BRII ware was found in the tombs, Gittlen identified some of his Type B1b jugs among the pottery from the Middle Building. These jugs are described as having a strap handle from neck to shoulder; a round, funnel mouth; ovoid, globular, piriform or almost biconical body; high, narrow, tapering neck; everted ring base; and two horizontal ridges at the junction of the handle, usually with painted decoration (Gittlen 1977, 202–4). The Jericho jugs were published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXXI:1, 19 (cf fig.52); pl.XXXVII:1 (Gittlen 1977, 209:100–102). Other miscellaneous BRII jugs and juglets, also from the Middle Building, were published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXXI:5, 14 (cf fig.52); pl.XXXIII:8; pl.XXXV:4, 6; and pl.XXXIX:2, 6 (Gittlen 1977, 227:18–22; 231:72, 73).

The Type B1b jugs, although incipient in LBI, appeared in Palestine mainly in LBIIa, and primarily in funerary deposits (Jericho therefore being an interesting exception). The number had declined markedly by LBIIb (ibid.132).

6.2.3 White Slip II Ware

from Bienkowski (1986:119)

Gittlen also identified Cypriot White Slip (WS) II pottery in the Middle Building deposit. This consisted mostly of his Type 1Ar1 bowls, described as deep, hemispherical; round base; wishbone handle below rim varying from rounded and rather wide to triangular; usually with dots along the external portion of the rim; and with a ‘hooked chain’ frieze (ibid.456–8). These were published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXIV:1 (found “in the floor of the LBA house”, ibid.110); pl.XXIX:5; pl.XXXI:20 (cf fig.52); pl.XXXIII:4; pl.XXXIV:23 (cf fig.53); and pl.XXXIX:1 (Gittlen 1977, 461:63–8). There was one Type 1Ad1 bowl, which is the same as Type 1Ar1 but with a ‘dotted row’ frieze instead (ibid.462). This was published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXXIV:22 (Gittlen 1977, 464:30; cf fig.53). There was also a single example of a Type 1C1 bowl, which is similar to Type 1A but shallower, usually decorated with a plain ladder-pattern frieze, and vertical rows of dots pendant from the lattice frieze (ibid.466–9). This was published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXIX:15 (Gittlen 1977, 471:26). In addition there were some miscellaneous WSII sherds, published in Garstang 1934, pl.XXXII:10 and pl.XXXIV:7 (Gittlen 1977, 481:48; 483:29; cf fig.53).

The Type 1A bowls appeared towards the end of LBIA in Palestine, although Type 1Ar1 was infrequent in LBI, and “none were found in contexts demonstrably earlier than the Lachish Temple I horizon” (ibid.420), i.e. Kenyon’s Group C (see Chapter 2.2). Great quantities of this type were imported into Palestine during LBIIa, but the frequency declined in LBIIb — possibly importation stopped at the transition of LBIIa to LBIIb. Type 1Ai1 arrived in Palestine during LBIIa, but not demonstrably early in that phase. Half of the Palestinian examples come from LBIIb contexts, but it is also possible that importation of this type ceased at the LBIIa/b transition. Type 1C1 appeared in Palestine prior to the end of LBI, but was rare in that phase. It was more frequent in LBIIa, but the vast majority is found in LBIIb. It seems that Type 1C1 vessels were most characteristic of LBIIb, while Type 1A were more frequent in LBIIa (ibid.420–425). The Middle Building deposit consists mainly of Type 1A bowls, with only one Type 1C1, which suggests a LBIIa/early LBIIb date.

6.2.4 Date

from Bienkowski (1986:120)

Both the local and the imported pottery from the Middle Building seem to point to a date similar to Tombs 5, 4 and 13. LBIIa and early LBIIb are clearly represented in the Cypriot vessels. There is a noticeable lack of Cypriot BRI jugs, which were found in Tomb 5. However, BR jugs generally are found primarily in funerary rather than habitation contexts (ibid.91). Conversely, WSII pottery was not found in the Jericho tombs, only on the tell. Again this is not surprising, as a vast majority of WSII bowls in Palestine were found in habitation rather than funerary contexts (ibid.394). The late LBI horizon, if present at all, may well be represented by the decorated two-handled jugs (which otherwise were found only in Tomb 5 — Tombs 4 and 13 contained one and two undecorated examples respectively). Bearing in mind the incomplete data, we can tentatively date the pottery from the Middle Building to (late LBI)/LBIIa – early LBIIb, c.1425/1400–1275 B.C.

6.3 The Extent of Late Bronze Age Jericho

6.3.1 The Middle Building and Erosion

from Bienkowski (1986:120-122)

It has been suggested that LBA Jericho was limited in area to the region of the Middle Building (Weippert and Weippert 1976, 146; also Riesner 1983). There was evidence of LBII occupation (the Middle Building) beneath the Iron Age ‘Hilani’ but not underneath a neighbouring Iron Age building which immediately overlay MBA levels (cf sections 6.1 and 6.2 above). Kenyon similarly noted that while there was evidence for a LBII house in Square HIII (cf section 6.1.7), in a neighbouring square the Iron Age filling went right down into the deep gullies cutting into the MBA levels (1981, 371; Bartlett 1982, 98). However, she concluded that this lack of LBA levels was evidence not necessarily of their absence, but of the eroded state of the tell at the time the Iron Age settlement was established (1957, 261; also 1981, 371).

As support for this conclusion, Kenyon pointed out that the major part of the large MBA town had also eroded. Traces of this erosion have been found in the ‘Streak’, which is one metre thick in places, extending down the sides of the tell, especially on the east side (cf fig.57). On the west side of the tell, Phase XLIV Tr.I lxiv represents the erosion of the MBII rampart and is four metres thick at its deepest (fig.58). Trenches II and III, on the north and south sides of the tell, did not extend beyond the MBII revetment, so there is no record of any wash at the foot of the tell. However, the East Section of Trench II reveals that a large part of the second and third ramparts has disappeared through erosion (Kenyon 1981, pl.259) and the West Section of Trench III indicates severe erosion of the MB, IA and Roman levels — only a small area of the plaster of the MBII glacis has survived (ibid.pl.273). If the LBA levels had eroded, traces of this erosion would also have existed as a wash layer down the sides or at the foot of the tell (Franken 1965, 192). No such traces have been found (Bartlett 1982, 97).

Fig.54 shows the position of all the LB pottery found on the tell (areas 1–4), including the area around the Middle Building (area 1). Fig.54 area 2, Kenyon’s Trench I, has yielded a few LB sherds:

Stage XLVII.lxxii a — one Cypriot ‘milkbowl’ sherd in a thickish layer of water-laid silt and slight occupation levels on the side of an Iron Age building (Kenyon 1981, 113 and 525; Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix).

Stages XLVIII, L and LII — 15 LB body sherds and some bases which are not very diagnostic, from silt or tip lines overlying the final Iron Age levels, which contained 501 Iron Age sherds (Kenyon 1981, 113; Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix and xli).

Stage XLIV.lxvi — two possible LB sherds in a silt level which is an accumulation following the end of the MBA (Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix and 58, and figs.22 and 23:1). This level also contained 16 Iron Age sherds and 23 MB sherds (cf section 6.3.2).

In Kenyon’s Trench II on the north side (fig.54 area 3), the remains of the MB levels and the top of the MB revetment are immediately overlain by fairly thin Iron Age levels (Kenyon 1981, pl.259). Some LB sherds have been found:

Stage XXIII–XXIV.lxxv–lxxvi — three LB sherds from an accumulation of material on the slope after the end of the Iron Age (ibid.173; Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix and 181).

In one of Garstang’s excavation notebooks are drawings of three possible LBA pots among MBA pottery found in his Square C7, which is on the north-east of the tell (fig.54 area 4, cf Garstang 1930, pl.I). He described this deposit as “a great tip-heap” and removed it to uncover the MBA rampart (ibid.126). Although the precise nature of this deposit is uncertain, it contained pottery of mixed date and almost certainly does not represent an occupation level. Garstang’s description of it as a ‘tip-heap’, implying an accumulation of rubbish over time, may be as accurate as any.

In Kenyon’s Trench III on the south side the eroded MB layers are immediately overlain by sparse Iron Age–Roman material (Kenyon 1981, pl.273).

Garstang mentioned a “late and rather dull sub-Mycenaean pot” which he found at the foot of the mound in the ruins of houses standing outside the ramparts (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 147 and fig.23:6). This pot could conceivably have been used as evidence for traces of a LBA wash layer, but it has since been dated to the Iron Age on the basis of secure parallels including Megiddo Stratum VI and Hazor Stratum XII (Weippert and Weippert 1976, 127, Abb.4 and p.129).

There are apparently some LB sherds in the dump from the German excavations to the north of the tell (I am grateful to Dr.H.J. Franken for bringing this to my attention). This might imply some LB occupation on the north part of the tell, but a) we do not know where on the tell this pottery came from, and b) we do not know what kind of layers it might have come from. It is not the number of sherds which is important, but the nature of the layer, i.e. occupation, destruction, silt etc. In the absence of any evidence for LB occupation anywhere except the area of the Middle Building in the reports of all three major excavations, we cannot regard this as admissible evidence.

In none of the areas 2 to 4 in fig.54 is LBA pottery found in an occupation level. In each case it is in an accumulated layer, often post-Iron Age. It does therefore seem that actual occupation at LB Jericho was limited to the area of the Middle Building. It is not at all surprising that these stray sherds are found on the edges of the tell. The whole tell was still there in the LBA, and no doubt defined the area of the site to the inhabitants. They did not build on all of it, but they must surely have walked around the tell. We would, in fact, expect to find stray sherds right at the edges of the tell, where the inhabitants would have thrown their broken pottery, far from the actual area of occupation.

There is a thick deposit of erosion levels north-east of the spring outside the tell (Franken 1965, 192, 197), but this cannot be investigated because of the water system and cultivation. Nevertheless, as Franken pointed out, several levels of this kind have been excavated and there is no evidence at all of any eroded LBA material. All that one might confidently expect to find near the spring is debris from the severe erosion in the Middle Building area above — beyond the edges of the small piece of intact LBA floor which Kenyon found, erosion has been so extensive that in places the modern surface is below the level of the floor (Kenyon 1981, 371 and pl.199a). Near the spring is indeed the only place where LBA erosion debris in any quantity can be expected, if LBA occupation was confined to the Middle Building area.

Kenyon also suggested that the occupants of LBA Jericho re-used the MBA defences which were still partially standing (1957b, 262). LB re-use of MB walls is attested at Tell el-Far'ah (de Vaux 1955, 574). However, there are no signs of LB occupation against the MB walls at Jericho (cf Bartlett 1982, 97). It is true that the LBA strata would lie against the upper part of the defences and soon be eroded away by wind and rain, as seems to have been the case at Tell el-Far'ah where LB sherds were found just below the surface. In the total absence of any LB erosion debris, though, it seems extremely unlikely that LB occupation at Jericho extended much further than the Middle Building area.

6.3.2 A Late Bronze Age Town Wall ?

from Bienkowski (1986:122-124)

The town wall which Garstang originally dated to the LBA was redated by Kenyon to the EBA (cf Chapter 1.2.3.2). No other town walls dated to the LBA were found. However, Helms has attempted to date a mudbrick wall on top of the MBA rampart to the LBA (1981, Section V). This wall was found in the north section of Kenyon's Trench I on the west side of the mound (for location see fig.54) and was overlain by a layer described originally as ‘compact pinkish [Iron Age]’ (Kenyon 1956, 70/71, cf ‘Brick Wall’). Helms argued that the wall made little sense in terms of MBA military architecture, unless a double trace was proposed, since it would nullify the effect of the carefully prepared slope above it. He tentatively concluded that a town wall existed sometime during the LBA, and was destroyed before the Iron Age. (Helms now maintains that the wall is actually undatable, although it remains possible that it could be LBA (1985)).

The final publication of the north section of Trench I is slightly different from the earlier version used by Helms (fig.58). The lettering ‘Brick Wall’ has been omitted, but the line of what looks like one course of brickwork 1.25 metres wide is included in the same position as in the earlier section (cf 3rd Rampart, XLIII Tr.I lxi). (Dr. T. A. Holland, who edited the Kenyon Jericho excavations, informs me that what is shown in the final published section is exactly what appears on the original field section.) Kenyon describes it as ‘a layer of bricks’ (1981, 110). The ‘pinkish’ level that seals this ‘wall’, Phase XLIV Tr.I lxvi, is described as MBA (ibid.p1.235) rather than Iron Age as in the earlier section. In fact, Phase lxvi is a silt level which contained 41 mixed sherds: 23 MB, 2 possible LB and 16 IA or later (T. A. Holland, personal communication, 4th March 1982; cf Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix and 58 and figs.22 and 23:1). It is described as a prolonged period of wash and silt, an entirely natural accumulation produced by gentle erosion from rain wash of the surface of the mound (Kenyon 1981, 111 and 524). Kenyon may have altered the dating to MBA as the following phase, lxvii, which contained 141 sherds, was uncontaminated except for one possible MB bowl sherd (B.367, cf Kenyon and Holland 1982), and she thus began the stratified IA deposits with Phase lxvii.

The dating to the Iron Age of the level which seals the wall under discussion is therefore uncertain, although it did contain Iron Age pottery. A silt level by its very nature accumulates over a period of time, and the mixed pottery found in this level, Phase lxvi, suggests that it was an accumulation during a break in occupation following the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Kenyon 1981, 17). In any case there is no reason to suppose that the wall must be LBA in date — more likely it is MBA, especially as it is built directly on the stone revetment of the third MBII rampart (fig.58). Kenyon certainly regarded the bricks as belonging to the same stage as her third MB rampart (1981, 110).

It is possible that brick wall OEP in Trench II is a continuation of the wall under discussion (ibid.170 and p1.255b). However, it is wider (1.75–2 metres), and was part of a complex structural arrangement which Kenyon did not fully understand. Although it does not appear in a section, its contemporary, Wall OEQ, is overlain by Stage XXII.lxxii–lxxiii, which contained only MB pottery (ibid.p1.259; Kenyon and Holland 1983, fig.72:2–4), thus dating OEQ and by association OEP to MBII.

Helms suggested that a wall in one of Garstang's sections, although about 200 metres further to the north, was the same one (cf Garstang 1930, pl.VI). Garstang's section shows thick lines of occupation or destruction coming from the top of the wall. However, there is no evidence of any LB material in these wash or destruction layers (cf section 6.3.1.1). Helms quotes the sub-Mycenaean pot as evidence for a possible LB date, but as noted above this has now been dated to the Iron Age. Moreover, the wall stands directly on top of the MB revetment and appears to have MBII constructions built up against it, suggesting that it too dates to the MBA.

Helms also identified his wall in Sellin and Watzinger's Square C6 (Sellin and Watzinger 1913, Abb.34; cf also Blatt 13 and Abb.35), referring to it as a medium-sized defensive wall “with some signs of occupation behind it”. Sellin and Watzinger's drawings show ‘destruction levels’ sloping off the stone revetment below the wall, which suggests that a substantial amount of material, including pottery, was probably recovered. However, the only material which they illustrated from their Square C6 is MBII pottery (ibid.Abb.36–7). As mentioned above (section 6.1.6), very little LBA pottery was found by the Germans, and what was recovered came from the area of the Middle Building and not from the defences. There appears to have been no Iron Age town wall (Weippert and Weippert 1976; Bartlett 1982, 100), so it is far more likely that the lines of occupation and destruction, and therefore the wall, in Sellin and Watzinger's drawings are MBA rather than LBA.

A critical examination of Helms’ arguments therefore suggests that the wall he proposes might date to the LBA can in fact tentatively be dated to the MBA. It is possible to trace this wall in the reports of all three major excavations at Jericho and at none of them is it associated with LBA pottery — the evidence in each case points rather to the MBA. There seems little reason to question Kenyon's conclusion that her layer of bricks was connected with the third MB rampart, although she was not sure of their purpose (1981, 110). Since the bricks sloped on the same line as the slope of the bank, she suggested that they may have protected its surface. She recognised, however, that the slope of the bricks could be the result of erosion, and that they may have formed a parapet. This is just what the wall in Garstang's and Sellin and Watzinger's excavations appears to be, and it may well be the same one, as Helms claims. Parr has proposed that in this type of fortification there were two or even three vertical obstacles for the enemy to overcome, separated from each other by the plastered scarp (1968, 21). Kenyon thought this unlikely, as

“any defenders of the wall would have been in the nasty position of having to retreat up the steep bank to the wall on the summit if attackers succeeded in breaching it and it would have given protection to attackers from the missiles of those manning the wall on the summit...” (ibid.).

This argument is plausible, but we are not dealing with a theoretically ideal defensive structure, and it may in fact strengthen the case for a parapet. We do not know how well the builders of Jericho's defences understood the practical consequences of their system. Jericho was destroyed at the end of the MBA, probably by enemy action (see Chapter 7.2) and possibly through a failure of the fortification system. Perhaps there was a fatal flaw in the design of the fortifications, such as a parapet, which acted in the way Kenyon described.

This question certainly deserves further attention, but it is unreasonable to dismiss the MB date of the Jericho ‘wall’ just because we do not fully understand the workings of the fortification systems in the Middle Bronze Age.

6.3.3 Conclusion

from Bienkowski (1986:124-125)

It appears extremely unlikely that there are any town walls at Jericho which could date to the Late Bronze Age. The actual area of occupation in this period seems to have been limited to the area around the Middle Building. Would LB Jericho be unusual in being so small and apparently unfortified? Study of the settlement pattern of the LBA in Canaan shows that in the 14th century B.C., 37% of known settlements were less than one hectare in size (Gonen 1984, 66–70). Furthermore, only 8 out of 76 known LBA settlements in the whole of Canaan were fortified, and all but one of these were larger than one hectare. The vast majority of settlements were not fortified. It would seem, therefore, that a tiny unwalled Jericho fits the pattern in LB Canaan extremely well.

Chapter 7 Jericho in its Palestinian Context

7.1 Middle Bronze Age Jericho

from Bienkowski (1986:126-127)
Description and Extent of the MBII Settlement (cf Kenyon in Avi-Yonah 1976, 561-3; Kenyon 1979, 158-64, 169-72)

Very little remains of the MBA town, a large part of the top of the tell having suffered severe erosion. MBA levels have survived only in the centre of the east side, where there was a slope down to the source of the spring. Only a limited area of the late MBI/early MBII levels was excavated, associated with a succession of brick-built town walls. For the later MBII town a vague plan has been established. The buildings excavated by Garstang (his 'Palace storerooms') and Kenyon were small houses with rather irregular rooms, flanking two partly cobbled streets with well-built drains beneath, climbing the slope in steps. It is likely that in these houses the living rooms were on the first floor, and the storerooms and shops on the ground floor. Some of the houses have yielded vast quantities of loom weights and saddle querns, perhaps indicating weaving and corn-milling establishments.

Associated with the final MBII town was a huge three-stage rampart faced with plaster, revetted by a stone wall at its foot, and surmounted by another wall at its summit. Only in one place at the north-west corner of the town (in fact the highest surviving point on the tell) did this glacis survive to its full height together with the foundations of the town wall. Everywhere else erosion had removed almost half of it. Nevertheless, the wall can be traced around nearly two-thirds of the circumference of the tell, to the north, west and south. To the south it extended as far as the line of the modern road, and at the north end it swung out well to the east of this road. The latest MBII occupation levels ran over the top of the earlier MBI/early MBII town wall to the east (in Area H; for location see fig.54) but were truncated by the modern road and the water installations beyond. There was thus an appreciable extension of the town to the east in MBII, and the MBII levels probably ran up to a town wall further out. Here, the glacis had left the crest of the pre-existing slope of the mound and would have formed a free-standing rampart on level ground. This extension of the defences to the east was presumably intended to enclose the source of the spring (see Helms 1981, section IV and fig.12, who describes the rampart as "less of a fortification than a hydrodynamic structure"; also Franken 1965, 195ff., who thinks that the MB defences were doomed by the enclosure of the spring which, if obstructed, could rise and sweep away the bank).

A large number of multiple-burial tombs dating to MBII were excavated by Garstang and Kenyon in the cemetery areas outside the town. The tombs contained on average about twenty burials, although sometimes as many as forty. The total 'ascertainable number' of burials has been estimated at 1150 by Bartlett, who suggests that the excavated tombs belonged to wealthier families, poorer people being buried elsewhere (1982, 89). As a result of some peculiar preservative property within the tombs, organic material survived often in recognisable forms. This has provided us with substantial knowledge of furniture, clothes, personal accessories and ornaments, as well as a good range of complete pottery. The standard of living in MB Jericho was not very high. Gold and other valuable items - gold-mounted scarabs and a gold band which was used possibly to decorate a box - were found in only five tombs. In the tombs, beds and stools (which resemble ones in Egyptian tombs) were not common, mats being ubiquitous (as now in the Near East). Some pieces of furniture were inlaid with decorated bone. Small personal items included bronze toggle pins, carved wooden bowls, beads and scarabs (cf Bartlett 1982, 91), the latter likely to be mostly crude local copies of standard Egyptian types (cf Kenyon 1957b, 253). There are more alabaster vessels from Jericho than any other MB site. Some of these are Egyptian but mostly they are locally made. Alabaster carving was probably a specialist craft of Jericho, and perhaps its products were exported (Clamer 1985).

7.2 End of the Middle Bronze Age at Jericho

from Bienkowski (1986:127-128)
(cf Kenyon in Avi-Yonah 1976 and Kenyon 1979, op.cit.)

The final MBII buildings at Jericho were destroyed violently by fire. The walls were covered by a thick layer of burnt debris washed down from higher up the slope during the subsequent period of abandonment and erosion (Garstang's 'Streak', cf Chapter 6.1). There is no material on the tell or in the tombs which can be dated between the early 16th and the late 15th centuries B.C.

The reason for the destruction of Jericho is unknown. The usual explanation for this and other more or less contemporary destructions in Palestine is that they were connected with the disturbances caused by the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt (cf Kenyon 1973b, 92-3). Either the Egyptians pursuing the Hyksos into Palestine or the Asiatics themselves could have been responsible. However, there is no definitive evidence that the Egyptians followed the Hyksos any further than Sharuhen (once identified with Tell Fara (S), cf Albright 1929, 7 and Kenyon 1973a, 526; now suggested as Tell el-'Ajjul, Kempinski 1974, although apparently first by J.R. Stewart, see letter from Paul Åström in IEJ 26, 154). Weinstein's argument for an Egyptian agency for the destructions is superficially plausible, using the evidence of Hyksos royal name scarabs (1981, 8-10). He shows that the majority of these come from sites in the same geographical arc as ones destroyed at the end of the MBA. He suggests that the principal centres of 'Hyksos' power in Palestine were situated in the southern and inland regions and were the objects of the military efforts of the Egyptians under Amosis. Unfortunately, he fails to distinguish adequately between a vague 'geographical arc' and particular 'principal centres'. Of the 17 sites he lists as definitely destroyed at the end of the MBA, only 4 yielded Hyksos royal name scarabs, and 13 did not. Similarly, of the 13 sites which did yield Hyksos royal name scarabs, at least 7 were not destroyed (ibid.2 and fig.2). There seems, in fact, to be little real correlation between the destructions and the provenance of Hyksos royal name scarabs. These scarabs cannot therefore be used as an argument for connecting the destructions with an Egyptian campaign against the 'hated Hyksos'.

Kenyon suggested that disease of some sort was responsible for the simultaneous death of entire families in her 'multiple simultaneous tombs' shortly before the final destruction of the MBII town (1960b, 267). Bartlett has amplified this:
"The state of the tombs and the strange phenomenon noted above of the arrested decay of organic objects points to earthquake activity, and the tell shows traces of fire. Plague, earthquake and fire might of themselves have been major factors in bringing about the end of MB Jericho" (1982, 94).
Given the contemporary destructions at Tell Beit Mirsim, Hazor, Shechem and elsewhere (Kenyon 1979, 177), however, an explanation which takes into account the wider situation in Palestine might be more plausible. A period of fighting and mutual destruction between the MB Palestinian towns, perhaps influenced by an influx of Asiatics from Egypt causing tension, population pressure and tribal rivalries, is as likely an explanation as any.

7.3 Bichrome Ware and the End of MBII

from Bienkowski (1986:128-130)

Bimson has attempted to demonstrate that MB Jericho was destroyed not in the 16th but in the 15th century B.C. by invading Israelites. The pertinent part of his argument can be summarised as follows (1978, 117): The destruction of the MBII cities of Palestine has been incorrectly dated, because of its association with a hypothetical Egyptian offensive against the Hyksos throughout Palestine. Their destruction should be dated not to the 16th but to the 15th century B.C. (c.1450 B.C.). Consequently, the appearance of Bichrome ware and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age must also be redated.

Bimson's theory relies entirely on showing that there is no real evidence to date Bichrome ware to the 16th century B.C. On the sites which were destroyed at the end of MBII and re-occupied immediately, Bichrome ware appeared in the post-destruction levels (although it is just possible that it appeared at Tell el-‘Ajjul and Megiddo before the end of the MBA, cf Parr 1973, 120-1). On the sites which were destroyed and not re-occupied immediately, like Jericho, Tell Beit Mirsim and possibly Hazor and Shechem, there is an absence of Bichrome ware, which is therefore generally seen as the major characteristic of LBI (Kenyon 1979, 177-182; but see Parr 1973). Thus, if Bichrome ware cannot be dated firmly to the 16th century B.C., but can be dated plausibly a century later, the end of the Middle Bronze Age must necessarily be extended by a whole century.

The evidence from Alalakh and Tell el-‘Ajjul can be cited against Bimson's argument. Most if not all of the Bichrome ware from Alalakh comes from Level V (Moorey 1980, 112, although Carre Gates 1981, 19 notes some in Level VI). The date of Level V, however, is debatable. At the root of the problem is the Level IV palace, the identity of its builder and the date of Idrimi. Idrimi was a contemporary of Barattarna of Mitanni, who reigned before the campaigns of Tuthmosis III (1504-1450/1479-1425 B.C., Kitchen 1977-78, 76). The Level IV palace could be ascribed to Niqmepa, who was probably Idrimi's son and successor (Drower 1973, 435-6). This would place Idrimi within Level VB (Carre Gates 1981, 33-4). Level V would then have lasted into the 15th century B.C. (Carre Gates 1981, 37 ends Level V at 1460 B.C.). Even if these dates were accepted, they still refute Bimson's theory. He dates the first appearance of Bichrome ware to c.1450 B.C., while Alalakh Level V, which contained Bichrome ware, at the very latest would have ended c.1460 B.C.

However, Strommenger, followed by Moorey and Klengel, suggests that the Level IV palace was built by Idrimi and later enlarged by Niqmepa (Strommenger 1964, 38; Moorey 1980, 112; Klengel 1981, 269). The beginning of Level IV would thus date to the end of the 16th century B.C., and Level V would fall within the 16th century B.C., implying the same date for the appearance of Bichrome ware and LBI in Palestine. The same chronological conclusions follow from Amiet's position that, although Niqmepa built the Level IV palace, Idrimi nevertheless can also be placed within Level IV (1980, 478; cf also Wiseman 1953, 5; Rowton dates Alalakh IV, in which he includes Idrimi, to c.1550-1473 B.C. [1970, 230-1]). A treaty of Idrimi's was found among the Level IV tablets (Wiseman 1953, 31-2).

Unfortunately, there is no certain way of knowing who built the Level IV palace, as no foundation inscriptions were found. Also, Woolley wrote that

the transition from 'Level V' to 'Level IV' was peaceful and gradual, so that both socially and culturally the actual dividing line between them is difficult to determine and, so far as the archaeological strata are concerned, is here drawn arbitrarily" (1955, 110).

This should serve as a warning against attempting to draw precise chronological conclusions from so many uncertainties. The evidence from Alalakh does show, however, that Bichrome ware was in use in the 16th-15th centuries B.C., even though the exact time of its appearance cannot be isolated.

At ‘Ajjul, Bichrome ware was found in contexts independently dated to between 1560 and 1475 B.C. by cross-referencing with firmly dated Egyptian objects (Epstein 1966, 174-85). It seems relatively clear that Bichrome ware was first found associated with Palace I, a building which was destroyed violently. Although the date of this destruction is uncertain (it is dated either to Amosis or Tuthmosis III, cf Parr 1973, 120), Palace I was associated with Cypriot pottery (other than Bichrome ware, cf Artzy, Tsaró and Perlman 1973) typical of the 16th century B.C. The following Palace II was also associated with 16th century B.C. Cypriot pottery and a faience plaque tentatively dated to the period of Amenophis I (dated by Epstein 1545-25 B.C.). The later Palace III was associated with a sherd stamped with the cartouches of Tuthmosis III and Hatshepsut, so the vessel can only have been in use during the period of the co-regency, which Epstein dated 1503-1482 B.C. Bimson discussed the dating of Tell el-‘Ajjul (1978, 176-80), but chiefly in relation to Tell Beit Mirsim Stratum D, and he failed to mention or take into account this Egyptian evidence. Bichrome ware therefore can be dated securely to the 16th-15th centuries B.C., thus rejecting Bimson's argument. No-one now seriously argues that the Israelites were involved in the destruction of the 16th century B.C. MBII cities (though see Rowe 1936, xxii).

Bimson further argued that the lack of Bichrome ware at Jericho may simply mean that Bichrome ware did not spread that far, rather than being a chronological factor (1978, 142). However, Bichrome ware is not found in isolation – together with its contextual wares it comprises a distinct phase characteristic of LBI Palestine. The absence of all this pottery from Jericho clearly indicates that the site was unoccupied at that time. The corpus of Bichrome ware vessels (though not wholly complete and in need of updating) shows that, apart from Megiddo and ‘Ajjul, the amount of this ware found at individual sites is fairly small (Epstein 1966, 6-19). With only five examples recorded from Beth-Shemesh and six from Tell el-Hesy, it may be worth considering if a supposed lack of Bichrome ware at some sites otherwise securely dated to LBI is not a chronological or even regional factor, but an accident of discovery.

7.4 Relations between MB Palestine and Egypt

from Bienkowski (1986:130-131)

There has been much disagreement concerning relations between Palestine and Egypt in the Middle Kingdom (1991-1786, cf Weinstein 1975, 1, corresponding to MBI and early MBII in Palestine), primarily about whether or not there was an Egyptian empire at that time (eg Posener 1971, 537-50; Weinstein 1975).

A fairly small number of Egyptian imports and Palestinian copies of Egyptian objects, consisting mostly of scarabs and stone vessels, has been found in MBI/early MBII burials and occupational deposits (Weinstein 1975, 1-10). There are none from Jericho before MBII (impressions of a 12th Dynasty seal of a ‘scribe of the vizier’ were found at Jericho by Garstang in his MBII ‘Palace storerooms’, cf Garstang 1934, 124; also Rowe 1936, 235). However, Egyptian finds are absent at many MBI and early MBII sites where the deposits are quite extensive and where one might expect to find imports if there was any real degree of contact. The Egyptian material in MBI/early MBII contexts therefore can be accounted for by limited Egyptian trade moving inland from the coastal area. The presence of a considerable number of Middle Kingdom objects in post-Middle Kingdom MBII Palestine can be explained by their being “part of the loot from the Hyksos plundering of Middle Kingdom cemeteries in Egypt” (Weinstein 1975, 9-10) or simply by the expansion of trade in the later MBII period, after the Egyptian decline.

The evidence of the Execration Texts, thought by some to reflect a Palestine potentially or actually hostile to Egypt, is of uncertain importance. Since Palestinian MBI sites were relatively small and clearly did not have the military capacity to threaten Egypt, it may be that the Execration Texts were designed to “harm those who might impede Egyptian trade with Western Asia” (ibid.13; see also Helck 1962, 49-68). The later group of Brussels texts, showing a major increase in the number of Palestinian place-names (Posener 1940), might reflect the major increase in Egyptian trade with late MBI/early MBII Palestine, but may also indicate “a new apprehensiveness on the part of the Egyptians toward the rising political and military power” of the early MBII Palestinian towns (Weinstein op.cit.). However, it is hazardous to use these documents as a source for political history, as the practice may have been a routine matter rather than an exceptional measure imposed by circumstances (Posener 1971, 548). Perhaps all that they can definitely tell us is that certain places were occupied at these times.

A stela of Khusobk, found at Abydos, tells of a military expedition by Sesostris III:

“to overthrow the Asiatics. His majesty reached a foreign country of which the name was Sekmem... Then Sekmem fell, together with the wretched Retenu” (Pritchard 1969, 230).

Sekmem, which also appears in the Execration Texts, is generally identified with Shechem (ibid.329; Posener 1940, 68, E6), although in the Khusobk stela it is the ‘country’ of Sekmem which is identified, not the town: it is interesting that the MBI deposits at Shechem are devoid of any Egyptian material (Weinstein 1975, 7). It is quite likely that Khusobk recorded an expedition against some bands raiding Egyptian caravans along the coast, rather than an assault on a fortified city (Yadin 1972, 206; Weinstein 1975, 11). The distinction achieved by Khusobk for killing a single Asiatic suggests that the operation was small in scale and relatively unimportant (Pritchard 1969, 230; Hayes 1971, 508).

A royal inscription of the 12th Dynasty tells of foreign products being brought to Egypt and of expeditions sent abroad to Sinai and Lebanon, perhaps by boat (Posener 1982, 8). One expedition was “sent to destroy or devastate” two Asian countries and returned with 1546 prisoners. However, it is noteworthy that apart from Sinai, traditionally an Egyptian interest, only Lebanon can be identified specifically from the list of Asian countries: there is no evidence here of a direct Egyptian involvement in Palestine.

Egypt’s major trading interest was with Syria, which could be reached directly by sea, bypassing Palestine altogether, although there was probably some Egyptian interest in the coastal areas. Palestine in the early MBA may simply have been unable to produce the great surpluses required for extensive trading with a wealthy country like Egypt. It seems that the idea of an Egyptian empire in Palestine in the Middle Kingdom can be dismissed as a “complete fiction”: the relationship between Palestine and Egypt was “more commercial than political”, and even the commerce appears to have been limited (Weinstein 1975, 9-13; cf also Frandsen 1979, 168).

The great expansion in relations between Palestine and Egypt occurred in MBII, in the late 12th/early 13th Dynasties, when Egypt was beginning to go into a military and political decline (Weinstein 1975, 14). This development of contacts reached its zenith with the Hyksos. There was considerable Palestinian cultural influence in the Egyptian Delta, and Egyptian goods may have reached Palestine not only by way of trade but also as a result of raids and plunder, which perhaps helped to impoverish Egypt while economically reinforcing the Palestinian towns (Mazar 1970, 183).

7.5 The Hyksos Question

7.5.1 Palestine

from Bienkowski (1986:131-132)

There has been much recent reappraisal of the validity of the use of the term ‘Hyksos’ as applied to Middle Bronze Age Palestine, and yet the name continues to be used (eg Aharoni 1979, 147ff; Dever 1985). Kenyon described the Hyksos as a military aristocracy, with Hurrian elements, which ruled a number of towns in Syria and Palestine by the 18th century B.C., and which was responsible for the rampart defensive systems of MBII, as found at Jericho, Hazor, Carchemish and elsewhere. The same people “penetrated Egypt and were at least partially responsible for the overthrow of the Middle Kingdom” (Kenyon 1957b, 223-4; cf Helck 1962, 92-108).

Van Seters, among others, has shown that in Egypt “not a single name of this period can be identified with certainty as Hurrian” (1966, 183). Even in Palestine and Syria the Hurrian presence dates only from the 16th or 15th century B.C., so they could have had nothing to do with the Hyksos or the Middle Bronze Age. Likewise, there is no evidence for linking the rampart fortifications with either the Hurrians or the Hyksos (Bimson 1978, 136-8). The ramparts do not appear simultaneously, as one might expect if they were introduced by a particular group (Parr 1968, 24-44). The earliest known attempt at this kind of fortification seems to be at Mersin in Anatolia at about the beginning of the 4th millennium B.C. In Palestine, the earliest excavated rampart fortifications appeared at Tell Halif in the EBA (Seger 1983) and then Tell Poleg, Tell Burga, Tell Zeror and probably Megiddo in MBI, at the end of the 19th century B.C. (Kochavi, Beck and Gophna 1979, 143, 155). The earliest examples at other sites, for instance Jericho and Shechem, were not found till c.1700 B.C. At Taanach, ‘Ajjul and Fara (S) they appeared at the end of the 17th century B.C., almost a century later. In Syria, this type of fortification is no earlier than some of the Palestinian examples, mostly dating to the end of the 18th century B.C., so there is no evidence of a movement into Palestine from the north.

“The more likely explanation has been advanced that these ramparts originated in the earlier custom of consolidating and regularising and augmenting in the interests of security the natural slopes of the tells. These ramparts are a natural development which evolved as the tells grew in height. The ramparts may also have served... to support the weight of the huge town wall on top of them and to prevent their being undermined by erosion of the slopes by the winter rains” (Bartlett 1982, 88).

The distinction between the ‘fortified camps’ such as Carchemish, Qatna and Hazor, and the fortifications of existing mounds, as at Jericho and Lachish, is only a formal one. These enclosures were in fact integral parts of the towns, and nothing but an extension when the existing settlement on the mound became too inadequate for its growing population (Parr 1968, 19).

Kenyon wrote that the only material evidence of the Hyksos in Palestine was the appearance of this new type of fortification (1970, 193). Since it now appears to be indigenous, it seems that nothing can be linked specifically to the Hyksos within Palestine. The thousands of ‘Hyksos’ scarabs found in Palestine are not to be attributed to the Hyksos in particular, who do not seem to have had a distinctive culture of their own in Egypt, but to the period in general (cf Hayes 1973a, 55-6). Many of these scarabs were in any case local copies of standard Egyptian types (cf Rowe 1936, xx).

7.5.2 Egypt

from Bienkowski (1986:132-133)

The name ‘Hyksos’ is the Hellenised form of the Egyptian bk3w b3swt, ‘rulers of foreign lands’. Manetho, as quoted by Josephus, tells the story of how Egypt had been seized by “invaders of obscure race/ignoble birth” who “burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility” (Kemp 1982, 741). However, large numbers of Asiatics seem to have been assimilated into Egyptian society already in the later Middle Kingdom, although Kemp warns that it may be

“misleading to place too much emphasis on this process of immigration as an antecedent to Hyksos rule... They appear to have represented something more than assimilated Asiatics who had gained the throne through the normal processes of internal politics of this period” (ibid. 743).

However, one should note the possibility that the apparent traditional Egyptian depth of feeling against the Hyksos, expressed for example by Hatshepsut (Pritchard 1969, 231) and in Manetho, may well have been merely the result of a successful propaganda campaign whipped up against them by Kamose and Amosis, who eventually expelled them from Egypt, in a bid for legitimacy. References to Asiatics from the early 18th Dynasty, closer to the events, show no resentment towards the Hyksos period (Stadelmann 1965, 64-5). Although later Egyptian attitudes could be true reflections of how the Hyksos acquired the throne in the first place, equally there is no reason why they must have any relevance.

Archaeological evidence from the Egyptian Delta at this time shows that the culture is heavily influenced by that of the contemporary MBII period in Palestine (Bietak 1981).

“Although the absence of written records from Palestine inevitably tends to an undervaluation of its historical role and leaves us ignorant of the doubtlessly complex political background to the striking urban achievement of the Middle Bronze Age II period, it is possible to see in the situation a temporary reversal of the roles between Egypt and Palestine, with north-eastern Egypt falling under the aegis of an emergent Palestinian civilisation, receiving increased immigration and accelerated cultural contact, as well as a royal house” (Kemp 1982, 745).

7.5.3 Conclusion

from Bienkowski (1986:133)

The conclusion is clear: the Hyksos were not a specific ethnic group – they were Asiatics, possibly Palestinians, who came eventually, by assimilation or by invasion, to rule the Egyptian Delta. The term ‘Hyksos’ has relevance only in Egypt. Outside Egypt, in Palestine and Syria, we are dealing simply with the indigenous Middle Bronze Age culture, and not with any hypothetical ‘ruling aristocracy’ (cf Parr 1968, 45). With reference to Palestine and Syria the term ‘Hyksos’ is completely invalid and should be unequivocally rejected.

7.5.4 Expulsion of the Hyksos

from Bienkowski (1986:133-134)

According to Manetho, 240,000 Hyksos left Egypt peacefully as a result of a treaty after Amosis failed to take their capital of Avaris. This scenario is unsupported by contemporary records and is certainly exaggerated. It can be explained by the misrepresentation of the Hyksos in Egyptian historical tradition of the New Kingdom and later (James 1973, 295-6). The only contemporary account of the final campaigns against the Hyksos is in the tomb inscription of Ahmose son of Ibana, a naval captain (Gunn and Gardiner 1918, 49-52). The impression one gets is of fairly small-scale battles. Ahmose received the ‘gold of valour’ four times under Amosis while fighting the Hyksos. His acts of bravery apparently consisted of capturing two or three people each time. This was deemed to be such an important event that the king was informed. In the final defeat of the Hyksos on Egyptian soil at Avaris, Ahmose notes that he captured one man and three women. This is not really a great or impressive total for what was supposed to be “that great moment of fulfilled ambition” for the Egyptian king (James 1973, 294). The whole campaign against the Hyksos begins to look like a relatively minor, though perhaps drawn-out, operation. On the basis of these observations one can tentatively conclude that, in contrast to the vast hordes sometimes inferred (eg Kenyon 1979, 177-81), the number of Hyksos expelled from Egypt was not all that high.

7.6 Trade in MBII Palestine

from Bienkowski (1986:134-135)

The Palestinian MBII culture has been described as “simple and lacking either luxuries or anything of importance in the development of civilisation” (Kenyon 1973b, 116). Foreign trade seems to have been at a minimum. The closest contact was apparently with Egypt (see sections 7.4 and 7.5). Egyptian imports into Palestine included thousands of scarabs, ornaments of gold and other precious metals, vessels and other articles of alabaster (Mazar 1970, 184). There were a few vessels from Cyprus which may have supplied copper to Palestine, as she did for Mari and Babylonia (Millard 1973, 40; Dothan 1976, 9). Copper ores seem to have been imported to Jericho and worked there, although their provenance is uncertain (Khalil and Bachmann 1981, 106). Middle Minoan II pottery from Crete was found at Hazor (Malamat 1970, 168). A few cylinder seals of North Syrian or Mesopotamian origin were found (Kenyon op.cit.), and Babylonian influence is also seen in the use of the cuneiform script at MBII Hazor, which may be evidence of a school (Millard 1973, 40-1).

The distinctive MBA Tell el-Yahudieh ware (of Amiran 1970, pl.36) was once thought to have been made in the Jordan valley and adjacent regions and distributed by land and sea to Ugarit, Cyprus, Upper Egypt and Nubia (Mazar 1968, 77-8). However, analysis of examples from the Levant and Egypt shows that this type of pottery was manufactured in both areas, rather than originating only in the Levant (Kaplan, Harbottle and Sayre 1982, 141). This is further proof that the Hyksos period in Egypt, still considered a ‘dark age’, was in fact marked by a trade network which spread from there to Nubia, the Levant and Cyprus.

The Akkadian documents from the royal archives at Mari on the Middle Euphrates, which date from the 18th century B.C., and the documents from Alalakh in northern Syria, show the strong political and economic connections between kingdoms in Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine (Mazar 1970, 173-4). Hazor appears as an important centre from which emissaries were sent to Babylon via Mari (Malamat 1960, 1982). The Mari letters also contain references to emissaries from various cities in Mesopotamia who were on their way to Yamhad (Aleppo), Qatna and Hazor. Tin imported by Babylonia from Elam passed through Mari on its way to these same cities (Malamat 1971a). Hazor in its turn exported silver, gold and precious stones to Mari and unidentified cargoes to Crete (Malamat 1970, 168; 1982; Millard 1973, 40).

The evidence for trade, therefore, is not particularly extensive. Nevertheless, the sort of things that the written records tell us were being traded, for instance tin, simply do not show up in the archaeological record. Whereas we may conclude that trade in the Middle Bronze Age was not very extensive, in fact we have no means of knowing how extensive it really was.

7.7 MBA Jericho in its Palestinian Context

from Bienkowski (1986:135-136)

The evidence of the MBII pottery from Jericho (see Chapter 5) shows that, as in the rest of Palestine, this was a thriving period for the craft. Especially when compared with the Late Bronze Age, the MBII pottery was very well made. The quality of the shapes, the temper, the finish and the firing are all indicative of a reasonably prosperous and flourishing community. The evidence from the tell is similar. The walled town of MBI/early MBII was succeeded by the later MBII town which extended over the old walls and was fortified with a vast rampart. For Jericho and Palestine as a whole this was a period of vigorous development, with contacts between coastal and interior regions re-established, rebuilding of abandoned sites along the coastal plain and ambitious building operations at interior cities (Cole 1965, 256). Both archaeological and written evidence show contacts in most directions, although trade was perhaps not extensive.

Bartlett has written that

“the success and prosperity of the MBII period was due in part to the failure of the pharaohs of Dynasties XIII and XIV in Egypt in the 18th century B.C. to maintain the standards and power of the Middle Kingdom Dynasties XI and XII” (1982, 84).

This is not, however, an entirely accurate picture. The Middle Kingdom seems to have had little direct involvement in Palestine, although its presence must have exercised considerable, even if indirect, pressure. With Egypt thriving and trading with the areas to the north, Palestinian towns could not expand or effectively develop their own trade, and still in the earlier part of MBII there was not a great deal of inter-regional contact within Palestine. This is reflected in the disparities between pottery vessel-types from northern, central and coastal Palestine (Cole op.cit.). However, there were advantages in this state of affairs. Egypt’s main trading interest was with Syria, which it could reach by sea without even using Palestine as a trade route, although there was probably some direct contact with the coastal areas. A Palestine which was not yet very strong was no threat to Egypt. It is possible that the Egyptians in effect simply ignored it, leaving it to slowly develop its urban ways in a reasonably peaceful international political climate, without exploiting its resources as they were to do in the Late Bronze Age. This may well be the key to Palestine’s prosperity in MBII. Had Egypt established an empire in the Middle Kingdom, Palestine’s resources would have been bled away and its renewed urban effort would have been jeopardised. It is doubtful if Palestine would then have flourished following Egypt’s departure.

With the decline of Egypt at the end of the Middle Kingdom, Palestinian towns were sufficiently developed to take over some of the trade, perhaps even as ‘middlemen’ for Egypt. This assumes that the Egyptian demand for the goods traded was sustained, which may be implied by the expansion in relations between Palestine and Egypt in MBII (Weinstein 1975, 14; cf section 7.4). This was the period of the major growth of towns like Jericho. The concentration of population in the high proportion of large fortified tells presumably resulted in the intensification of agricultural exploitation (Thompson 1979, 63-5). The consequent growth in agriculture and the creation of surpluses may have led to trade in goods such as wine and oil. The resultant prosperity, and the opportunity of the gap left by Egypt, gave Palestinian towns the chance to expand and eventually spread their influence into Egypt itself. Smaller towns such as Jericho, though not major trading centres themselves, would nonetheless have been involved in the trading network, perhaps as caravanserais along the trade routes.

Economically and politically this was a relatively stable period, despite the construction of elaborate defences which probably testifies to inter-city rivalry connected with economic expansion. It was perhaps not a particularly prosperous or wealthy time. Palestinian towns were in effect isolated states and none individually had the resources to exploit or control the trade, limited as it probably was, to the extent where it could produce surplus wealth. Nevertheless, crafts such as pottery undeniably flourished and throughout MBII the expanding towns were able to cope with an undoubtedly rising population. The influx of Asiatics thrown out of Egypt in the mid-16th century B.C. was probably not as great as has sometimes been envisaged (see section 7.5.4), but it is conceivable that population pressure became a serious problem which eventually erupted in bids for expansion and control of greater territory, resulting in the wholesale destructions of towns at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.

Jericho mirrors all of these developments. The economic and political factors governing the way of life in the Middle Bronze Age are reflected in the archaeological evidence, in the development of both the town and the pottery. The finds from larger towns such as Megiddo and Tell ed-Duweir do not really suggest any qualitative difference, and “it may be that the deductions that can be made from the Jericho evidence concerning the way of life of the Middle Bronze Age townspeople are valid for Palestine as a whole” (Kenyon 1973b, 96).

7.8 Late Bronze Age Jericho

from Bienkowski (1986:136-137)

The evidence considered in this study suggests that LB Jericho was a small unwalled settlement limited in area to the region of the Middle Building, dating to between c.1425 and c.1275 B.C. The only house remains excavated were the Middle Building itself and the foundations of some neighbouring walls with a bit of associated floor. The fact that no proper LBA tombs are attested, only the re-use of three MBA tombs, reinforces this conclusion (Dr. Rivka Gonen kindly showed me a few late LBI sherds which have recently been found in otherwise pure MB tombs in the cemetery south of the Jericho tell). Bimson has suggested that LB Jericho was a temporary settlement with only sporadic habitation (1978, 145). However, the analysis of the pottery fabrics (Chapter 3.8) showed that the pottery was locally made, which testifies to the presence of workshops in the area. The single cuneiform tablet may indicate some interest in administrative matters (Chapter 6.1.2). All of these things point to fairly continuous habitation. The tombs show an overlap rather than a break in the mid-14th century B.C., so there is nothing to suggest that occupation within the LBA was sporadic or discontinuous.

Jericho seems then to have been a small and fairly simple place, with no signs of wealth or vigorous activity. The only foreign articles were a few Cypriot pots and Egyptian scarabs. The local pottery was cheaply produced and relatively unattractive. No true Mycenaean imports were found at Jericho at all, only a few local copies. Similarly, only a few true Cypriot pieces were found. In Palestine generally, imitations of Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery were being made while the originals were still available. This suggests that the local imitations of Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery were cheaper than the originals which were out of the range of the ordinary Palestinian’s pocket (see Prag 1985). They may well have been made specifically for that reason, as cheap substitutes. Some Cypriot BRI pottery was found in Jericho Tomb 5, but no true BRII pottery was found in the tombs at all. A few pieces only were found on the tell, in contrast to the usual situation in Palestine where BR ware tends to be found more in funerary than habitation contexts. This may suggest that by the time of Tombs 4 and 13 in the Late Bronze Age true BR ware seemed too expensive to bury in tombs. Indeed, analysis of the LB pottery has inferred that Jericho suffered progressive decline during the LBA (cf Chapter 5.6).

A picture emerges of Jericho as a fairly small community, without many outside contacts, gradually becoming poorer as the Late Bronze Age dragged on. The reasons behind this poverty are examined below against the wider Palestinian background. The effects, though, were clear, and worsening conditions probably explain why Jericho was apparently abandoned around 1275 B.C. It was not re-occupied until the 11th century B.C.

7.9 Relations between LB Palestine and Egypt

7.9.1 Direct Egyptian Intervention in Palestine in the LBA

from Bienkowski (1986:137-138)

Following Amosis' siege of Sharuhen (of section 7.2) and a brief later campaign in Syria (James 1973, 295; Amer 1983, 103) there is no more direct information concerning Egypt's relations with Palestine until the time of Tuthmosis I. It would seem that during the reign of Amosis, the kingdom of Mitanni was not yet a threat in Syria or Palestine. Either it did not exist at all, or else it was newly founded. Amenophis I, Amosis' successor, was mainly pre-occupied with Nubia (Gardiner 1961, 169), although it has been suggested that he made considerable territorial gains in western Asia which were claimed by his successor Tuthmosis I (James 1973, 309-10). Direct evidence of his activities in Asia, however, is minimal, and possibly does not pertain to him at all.

Tuthmosis I led an expedition to western Asia which penetrated across the Euphrates into Naharin ("the River country" in the region of the Khabur and the northern Euphrates), the territory of the Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni. A commemorative stela was set up there after a battle in which many prisoners were taken (Drover 1973, 432).

Little is known of Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis I's son. However, the biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, an officer, records that he accompanied the king on an expedition against the Shasu-beduin, probably in Palestine (though Garg 1979 suggests southern Syria or northern Palestine), and took many prisoners (Breasted 1906, 50). Tuthmosis II also claimed on a stela that he was receiving tribute from Asiatics (Amer 1983, 107). Hatshepsut appears to have taken no interest in western Asia, although Redford claims two campaigns in Syro-Palestine during her reign, in one of which Gaza was taken (1967, 60-4). Her successor Tuthmosis III carried out at least sixteen military expeditions to Palestine and Syria, even going as far as the Euphrates (Drover 1973, 444ff). Tuthmosis claimed that following Hatshepsut's reign everything from Yurza (near Gaza) northwards had been lost (Amer 1983, 111). The most detailed texts concern his first campaign against an alliance of Canaanite kings, culminating in the seven-month siege and eventual surrender of Megiddo. The list of Palestinian and Syrian towns conquered as a result of this campaign contains 119 names (Aharoni 1979, 159-63). It seems that Tuthmosis III's authority in Palestine was firmly established after this decisive victory. The rest of his campaigns were directed against Syria and Mitanni, except for a campaign against the beduin, perhaps in south Palestine. However, for the last twelve years of his reign no expedition to Syria is recorded (Gardiner 1961, 197), although the kings of Palestine and Syria regularly brought tribute to the Egyptian king. This indicates that he had effective control over all this area (Drover 1973, 452-9).

From the reign of Amenophis II, son of Tuthmosis III, there is information concerning two military campaigns in Syria (the first possibly as co-regent, of Amer 1983, 115-21) and a third campaign restricted to a comparatively small area of Palestine, probably around the Plain of Esdraelon and the hills to the west of Galilee (Drover 1973, 460-2; for detailed geographical discussion see Na'aman 1984). It seems that there may have been a serious rebellion here, as he was still fighting in the same area five months later. However, he undertook no further campaigns. Towards the end of his reign Mitanni was weakening and making overtures for peace, probably because of the rising power of the Hittites.

Tuthmosis IV, Amenophis II's successor, led one campaign against Mitanni before a peace treaty was signed between the two powers. An inscription from his reign, however, refers to captured residents, possibly from Gezer (Aharoni 1979, 170 n.97). His successor Amenophis III's entire military career seems to have consisted of one relatively unimportant expedition to Nubia and possibly the sending of a few troops into Syria (Hayes 1973b, 340; Aldred 1968, 49). There is a scarab which gives him the epithet "captor of Syria", but this is probably rhetorical (Amer 1983, 126). Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) and Smenkhkare do not appear to have interfered directly in Palestine or Syria at all (Gardiner 1961, 230), although the Amarna letters suggest that Akhenaten had made plans for an Asiatic campaign which never came to fruition (Schulman 1964, 58, 63 n.99).

During the reign of Tutankhamun the Egyptians may have captured Qadesh on the Orontes in northern Syria from the Hittites for a short time (Aldred 1975, 84), although Rainey suggests that the king concerned may have been Horemheb (1973, 82). The future king Horemheb, in his Memphis tomb, refers to having accompanied his lord (probably Tutankhamun) on the battlefield in Asia, perhaps a parade of force in Palestine (Aldred 1975, 72). The tomb of Huy, the viceroy of Nubia under Tutankhamun, depicts Asiatics bringing tribute to Egypt (Amer 1983, 130). This may of course be a standard scene, less to do with history than part of the aura of Egyptian kingship. The Plague Prayers of Mursilis record a defeat of Egyptian forces in northern Syria by his father Suppiluliumas, probably during the reign of Ay, Tutankhamun's successor (Pritchard 1969, 395).

Little mention is made of the Asiatic wars of Horemheb, the army commander who succeeded Ay, probably because the Egyptians were not very successful (Schulman 1964, 69). The presence in the palace at Ugarit of alabaster vases inscribed with the cartouches of Horemheb suggests that Egyptian policy was confined to trying to exert claims over Amurru and Ugarit (Aldred 1975, 85; Drower 1975, 139-40).

Ramesses I, the first king of the 19th Dynasty, was probably too old for campaigning, but his son and successor Seti I fought three campaigns in western Asia (Faulkner 1975, 217-21). The first campaign was directed primarily against the Phoenician coast and Lebanon, where Seti enforced a levy of timber. An insurrection was also put down in the Bethshan area and a battle was fought with a force of Shasu-beduin possibly near the Egyptian border. Seti's second and third Asiatic campaigns were in Syria, in the region of Qadesh (where he set up a stela), the last being against a Hittite army.

The conflict with the Hittites reached its climax during the reign of Ramesses II. The inconclusive battle of Qadesh was followed by sixteen years of intermittent hostilities culminating in a peace treaty between Egypt and Hatti. During this period Ramesses put down a rebellion in Askelon, captured a number of places in the Galilee region and campaigned in the vicinity of Bethshan (Pritchard 1969, 255-6). He was also active in Moab, Edom and the Negev (Kitchen 1964, 63-70), although these undated expeditions may well have been no more than punitive raids (Faulkner 1975, 226-9).

The so-called "Israel Stela" records that Ramesses' successor Merneptah captured and/or destroyed several towns in Palestine, including Askelon, Yenoam and Gezer (Aharoni 1979, 184). A group of school texts record the traffic between Egypt and Palestine during his reign (Pritchard 1969, 258-9). One passage describes the arrival of an officer from the "Wells of Merneptah", apparently an Egyptian fort in the hill country of Canaan.

The remainder of the 19th Dynasty is obscure and even the order of succession of its kings is not certain. Similarly, there is little information for the first years of the 20th Dynasty and the beginning of Ramesses III's reign (Faulkner 1975, 235-241). Palestine and Syria were probably ignored at this time as Egypt's rulers were more concerned with internal problems and dynastic intrigue.

7.9.2 Nature of the Egyptian Presence in Palestine

7.9.2.1 The Early 18th Dynasty

from Bienkowski (1986:139-141)

Prior to Tuthmosis III, it seems that the Egyptians were not interested in actually controlling Palestine or Syria. The Asiatic campaigns of the early 18th Dynasty, especially that of Tuthmosis I, appear to have been extended raids which resulted in booty and some captives, but no permanent occupation (Redford 1979, 273-4). Palestine and Syria were possibly regarded as a sphere of influence and the campaigns, which were not mounted on a regular basis, were merely a way of keeping them in check (Aharoni 1979, 152). Weinstein argues that the underlying cause behind the campaigns of Amosis was a desire to destroy the hated Hyksos cities (1981, 7ff. and see section 7.2), but there is little to suggest that Amosis or his immediate successors campaigned extensively. Aharoni has suggested that, because Tuthmosis I had been able to surprise his enemy in Naharin, the Egyptians had the co-operation of the states in Palestine and perhaps Syria (op.cit.). Tuthmosis' motivation was probably to prevent Mitanni from extending its power (de Vaux 1978, 90), although he claimed that wars of conquest were an outlet for his military proclivities (Redford 1979, 274).

Tuthmosis III and his successors justified their constant offensives by claiming they were retaliating or striking pre-emptively (eg “smiting the foreign rulers who had attacked him”, cf Redford 1979, 273). Amenophis II and other 18th Dynasty kings record that their campaigns were “to extend the boundaries of Egypt” (Helck 1961, 31; Drower 1973, 468). Tuthmosis III from the start installed rulers of his own choosing (though usually a member of the former ruling family) in the towns he captured and carried off to Egypt their brothers or children as hostages (Gardiner 1961, 193). In other cases, for instance after the capture of Megiddo, defeated rulers were sent back to their own cities on donkeys and an oath of allegiance was imposed on them (Pritchard 1969, 238-9). Amenophis II pursued a similar policy of control by killing or dismissing rebel kings (Mohammad 1959, 132-3).

Three of the towns captured in Tuthmosis III’s first campaign, with their revenues, were dedicated in perpetuity to the temple of Amun in Karnak — Yenoam, Halkuru and Nuges, all probably in the Galilee area (Drower 1973, 451; cf section 7.9.2.3). Tuthmosis III claimed that his vassals came to Egypt every year with their tribute and kissed the ground before him, even after he stopped campaigning (ibid.459). Tuthmosis seems to have kept a close watch on the flow of tribute from the Palestinian towns. The annals of his first campaign record Egyptian inspectors estimating the yield of the harvest which was brought to him from the fields of Megiddo (Breasted 1906, 188-9; Kitchen 1969, 80), although this may have applied only to “Egyptian domains” (Frandsen 1979, 188 n.63). Particularly fruitful districts contributed to the rations of the Egyptian troops, and garrisons set up in coastal towns were continually supplied with provisions, indicating perhaps that a primary means of transport was by sea (Gardiner 1961, 193).

Tuthmosis III seems to have introduced a system of Egyptian governors placed in general control of the vassals and the administration. The title “Overseer of All Northern Countries” is first known from his reign (Helck 1962, 260). Gaza may already have been the major centre of the Egyptian administration in Palestine, as it was to be in the Amarna period (Hachmann 1982, 46). There were Egyptian garrisons at Ullaza and Sharuhen in his reign (Drower 1973, 474) and Taanach Letter No.5 suggests that Megiddo was occupied by the Egyptians in the 15th century B.C. (Albright 1944, 24).

It is likely that the situation in Palestine at the time of Tuthmosis III was much the same as in the Amarna period, from which there is a much greater wealth of more detailed information. It is often thought that the lack of military activity during the Amarna period reflected a weakening of Egyptian power since the Egyptians were more concerned with internal affairs (eg Aharoni 1979, 170). However, by the time of the Amarna period, Egypt and Mitanni were more or less at peace, so military expeditions were no longer needed. It was only with the rise of the Hittites that campaigning once more became necessary. Tuthmosis III’s main preoccupation was with Syria, where he had to fight year after year to quell various rebellions, often Mitanni-inspired. After his first campaign he does not seem to have had much trouble with Palestine, yet despite the lack of constant campaigning there it is clear that the Palestinian towns were under Egyptian control. However, both in the time of Tuthmosis III and later, Egyptian authority was mainly imposed on the densely populated areas. Examination of the names of captured towns and districts indicates that Egyptian influence was weaker in most of the hill regions and Transjordan (Drower 1973, 474; Aharoni 1979, 151; Weinstein 1981, 14).

7.9.2.2 The Amarna Period

from Bienkowski (1986:141-143)

The archive discovered at Amarna, the capital of Amenophis IV (Akhenaten), contained more than 350 Akkadian cuneiform letters dating to the reigns of Amenophis III and Amenophis IV. About half of these came from the kings of towns in Palestine and the rest from other kingdoms of the Near East — Hatti, Mitanni, Babylon, Alashiya — with a few letters from the Egyptian king (Aharoni 1979, 170). These letters provide a fairly detailed picture of Egyptian power in Palestine and Syria and record the intrigues between the Canaanite kings. Egyptian hieroglyphic sources say remarkably little about the imperial organisation (Kemp 1978, 45).

As in the time of Tuthmosis III, the existing native regime in Palestinian towns was allowed to continue wherever possible (see Helck 1968/69). Oaths of allegiance were imposed and renewed at regular intervals and hostages were carried off to Egypt, often to be returned as rulers later (Drower 1973, 469). An inscription of Amenophis III states that Karnak was filled with male and female slaves, the children of the princes of every foreign land, and that the city was surrounded with Syrian towns settled with the children of princes. This policy was still implemented in the time of Ramesses III. The local princes acknowledged that they owed their position not to inheritance but to their appointment by the pharaoh (Mohammad 1959, 129-31).

A vassal ruler was obliged to carry out the commands of the king and his representatives; to ensure that the annual tribute imposed on his town was collected and delivered; to keep Egyptian troops in his territory supplied with food and clothes (see Pintore 1973); to summon his subjects for forced labour if required; to inform the pharaoh of local events; and to defend his town and territory (Drower 1973, 469). Vassals were also forbidden to have diplomatic contact with other powers (Frandsen 1979, 176). However, in contrast to the conditions of Hittite vassalage, the towns were apparently not required to assist the Egyptians militarily (Kemp 1978, 47). There are only a few instances in the Amarna letters of princes refusing to follow the orders of the Egyptian king or his agents (Several 1972, 125; Liverani 1979, 9); in such cases a prince could be summoned to the Egyptian court to give an account of himself (de Vaux 1978, 96). Egyptian garrisons were installed in places of strategic importance, for instance Jerusalem, Megiddo and Bethshan (Hachmann 1982, 46). These garrisons may have been fairly small, containing perhaps a few hundred troops, mostly Egyptian and Nubian archers (Drower 1973, 46; Albright 1975, 106). Local princes, when making requests for military assistance, tended to ask for only fifty or a hundred troops or fifty chariots (Several 1972, 128). However, the unpublished LBA material from Bethshan apparently contains a lot more evidence of Egyptian occupation than has hitherto been suspected (I am grateful to Dr. R. Chapman for this information). It is possible, therefore, that some Egyptian garrisons were rather more substantial.

In the Amarna period Syria and Palestine were divided into three administrative districts, each under an Egyptian governor (in Akkadian *rabisu*, Helck 1962, 257ff, though Redford prefers to call them “circuit officials”, 1985, 193). The third and southernmost province, Canaan, comprised the whole of Palestine from the Egyptian frontier to Tyre and later Byblos, and was governed from Gaza. The lands of Megiddo and Sharon were all considered as crown property and their harvest was stored in royal granaries (Albright 1975, 106). Some towns and districts, for instance Gaza and Kumidi, were made into Egyptian royal domains (Kemp 1978, 49).

Most of the governors had Egyptian names but some were Semitic (Albright 1975, 101-2; Drower 1973, 472). They were directly responsible to the pharaoh for ensuring that the vassals did what was required of them, to act as liaisons with the pharaoh, and to protect the local princes from their own people and quell disturbances in the towns (Kemp 1978, 47). In addition, the three governors formed a body of arbitration which was authorised to settle disputes between the princes (Frandsen 1979, 176). A conflict between Shechem and Megiddo was resolved to a certain extent after a peace oath had been made in the presence of an Egyptian official (Several 1972, 123). Other Egyptian officials included subordinate governors, military officers — for instance commanders of chariotry and archers — and royal messengers, who transported the correspondence between the pharaoh and his agents and vassals (Albright 1975, 102). Even during periods of fighting, for example the conflict between Shechem and Megiddo, these royal envoys were able to transport their messages because of the deference paid to them and their position. This attitude perhaps indicates that, in the eyes of the Palestinian vassals, the Egyptian administration had a certain degree of legitimacy, or at least credibility (Several 1972, 130-1).

The Egyptian end of the organisation concerned with the administration of Palestine and Syria was dealt with by the “Bureau for the Correspondence of the Pharaoh”, located in the capital. The head of this department was responsible for all the diplomatic correspondence and routine work and was an adviser of the pharaoh (Mohammad 1959, 123-5).

The Amarna letters do not document the breakdown of the Egyptian administration in Palestine. They were written by local rulers to draw attention to particular problems and to ask for assistance. Aid would probably not have been requested unless it was expected or at least hoped for (Several 1972, 132). The apparent absence of attested replies from the Egyptian king to the letters of his vassals (only about ten outgoing documents are known, but there are other references to Pharaoh’s letters) cannot be regarded as a lack of interest. It is clear that the pharaoh normally did not respond. He received the letters, heard and used the information contained in them, but did not deem it necessary to reply. When a letter asked for help or supplies, the lack of response was equivalent to a “no”, and is not to be interpreted as a breakdown of the administrative mechanism. The pharaoh wrote standardised official messages when he needed something (movement of troops, furnishing of goods), while the Syro-Palestinian princes personalised the relationship and wrote on their own initiative concerning their problems and needs. The pharaoh, who did not conceptualise an exchange of letters with correspondents, naturally did not reply (Liverani 1979, 3-12).

The picture provided by the total body of letters is that the period was not marked solely by continuous warfare or rebellion. Most of the letters contain routine and standardised responses and expressions of loyalty and indicate that the Egyptian presence in Palestine was stable and that the situation was normal (Several 1972, 132; Liverani 1979, 6-7). The pharaoh was looked upon as the source of power and the belief that he could exercise that power shows that the Egyptian administration was still effective. Although the Palestinian princes tried to take advantage of Egypt for their own political ends by requesting military aid to pursue petty rivalries, the Egyptian policy of non-intervention was based on an administration which knew the local situation, could realistically assess it in relation to Egyptian interests, and took action only when necessary (Liverani 1979, 13; Schulman 1964, 66).

7.9.2.3 The 19th Dynasty

from Bienkowski (1986:143-144)

Little is known of the years immediately following the Amarna era, although some expeditions against the Hittites are attested. The period of the 19th Dynasty has often been described as a revival of the Egyptian empire in Palestine because of the major campaigning by Seti I and Ramesses II (de Vaux 1978, 112; Aharoni 1979, 176). Certainly there was much preoccupation with Syria where the Hittites were now seriously competing for control. However, Seti, Ramesses and Merneptah all seem to have had problems with rebellions in Palestine and it appears very likely that this points to a certain weakening of Egyptian power. It used to be thought that the lack of active campaigning during the Amarna period reflected Egyptian weakness and insularity, whereas in fact it probably means that the situation was completely under control. Conversely, the constant military expeditions of the 19th Dynasty indicate that the situation was not under control and the Palestinian vassals were often in a state of insurrection. This does not mean that the Egyptian empire was totally undermined. It seems that the administration carried on much the same as it had done in the Amarna period and probably before, although more active intervention was necessary to retain control. There was in fact a far larger Egyptian presence in the 13th century B.C. than before (Weinstein 1981, 14-18), probably necessary to crack down on more frequent unrest. Several new Egyptian fortresses and strongholds were established in the 14th and especially the 13th century B.C. on the vital routes of northern Sinai — Deir el-Balah, Tell Fara (S), Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tell Jemmeh, Tell Mor, Aphek and Bethshan (Gonen 1984, 69). Gaza still appears to have been the administrative centre in the time of Seti I and Ramesses II (Helck 1962, 259). Also from the reign of Ramesses II are attested the titles “Governor of Foreign Countries” and “Overseer of the Northern Countries” (Kuentz 1928, 347; Nims 1957, 147-8). In the reign of Ramesses III parts of Palestine were still regarded as belonging to the temple of Amun in Karnak (Helck 1962, 260-2; cf section 7.9.2.1).

There is more Egyptian pottery in Palestine at this time, LBIIb and the beginning of the Iron Age, than in any other phase of either the Bronze or Iron Age (Weinstein 1981, 21-2). Most Egyptian pottery was produced not for commercial but for ordinary daily use. It occurs primarily at those sites where Egyptians actually lived, for instance Bethshan, Megiddo, Lachish, Tell Fara (S) and other sites in southern Palestine, along the coast, the Shephelah and the Plain of Esdraelon. (Note that Gould 1983 makes a distinction between Egyptian pottery, which refers to vessels of probable Egyptian import, of fine ware and often decorated, and Egyptianising pottery, which consists of vessels of possible local manufacture but of Egyptian influence — the latter vessels are generally coarsely-made and usually not decorated.) These same regions produced all of the examples of Egyptian architecture, stelae, statuary and other remains of Egyptian occupation (although it is worthwhile noting that there is no material evidence of Egyptian occupation so far from Jerusalem, despite its being a known Egyptian garrison). On the other hand, there is hardly any Egyptian pottery so far from Hazor or the sites in the hill country. This material therefore reflects quite well the nature and extent of the Egyptian presence in Palestine at this time, which was concentrated in the densely populated areas.

The Egyptians may also have influenced the local burial customs in the areas where they lived. The tradition in all of MBA Palestine was cave burial, but in the LBA this is found only in the hill country. In the coastal area, the Jordan Valley and the Jezreel Valley in the LBA, individual pit burial in cemeteries was common, usually with richer grave goods. This may reflect the Egyptian idea of preserving an individual’s body (Gonen 1985 and in press).

The decline of the Egyptian empire was not a sudden event. Seti I was already having problems with the Libyans (Gardiner 1961, 254) and by the time of Merneptah Egypt was under serious threat from the Sea-Peoples (Helck 1962, 240). It seems that Egypt soon reached a state of anarchy, and these domestic problems probably had a negative impact on the empire in Palestine (Weinstein op.cit.). Although Ramesses III still continued some sort of presence in Palestine, the hold was rapidly lost after his reign (Malamat 1971b, 36; Weinstein 1981, 22-3).

7.9.3 Reasons for the Egyptain Presence in Palestine

from Bienkowski (1986:144-146)

This section examines whether Egypt was motivated to establish a permanent presence in Palestine more by economic or political considerations. Weinstein, who has attributed the mid-16th century B.C. destructions in Palestine to the pre-Tuthmosis III conquests, although there is no direct evidence of this (cf section 7.2), suggests that any booty acquired from captured towns would have been a one-off affair, and no permanent economic benefits would accrue to the Egyptians (1981, 7). He argues that therefore the creation of a commercial empire could not have been a significant factor behind the pre-Tuthmosis III Egyptian campaigns. This is an acceptable conclusion given the lack of recorded systematic campaigning and any real effort to control Palestine and Syria by the early 18th Dynasty kings. Their motivation was probably both political and psychological, to prevent further expansion by Mitanni and to increase their own and Egypt’s prestige.

Carrying off booty and looting also took place under Tuthmosis III, particularly after the capture of Megiddo. His annals mention that the amount of wheat registered at Megiddo did not include the amount cut as forage by his soldiers (Pritchard 1969, 238). However, the reign of Tuthmosis III also marks the start of payment of regular tribute by the Palestinian towns. This tribute was used to supply the Egyptian army and administration in Palestine itself and was not usually sent to Egypt (section 7.9.2.2). Exceptions to this are the three cities dedicated by Tuthmosis III to the temple of Amun in Karnak (section 7.9.2.1), which had to send grain to it annually, while in the reign of Ramesses III various Egyptian temples received grain from Palestine (section 7.9.2.3). The total amount of the latter has been calculated at 150kg, which is a very small and probably symbolic amount (Ahituv 1978, 96-7). Egypt did not need to import cereals, and the grain collected as tribute was kept in royal granaries in the Egyptian bases in Palestine. Besides regularly supplying the army and administrative personnel, the grain was used for Egyptian expeditionary forces on campaign. Egyptian inscriptions on bowls from Lachish dating to the 19th or 20th Dynasty record large amounts of grain, apparently collected as tribute, compared to the symbolic quantities of endowments to Egyptian temples (erny in Tufnell 1958, 133). A number of similar bowls with Egyptian hieratic inscriptions were uncovered in the final LBA stratum at Tell Sera’ (Tell esh-Shariya) in the north-western Negev. They probably date to the 20th Dynasty (Goldwasser 1982, 137).

Other products collected as tribute and used by the Egyptian army and administration in Palestine included oil, livestock, small numbers of chariots, weapons and luxury objects, and small quantities of products not native to Palestine which had been acquired by trade, like gold, silver, precious stones, copper, bronze, lead and tin (Ahituv 1978, 99-103). Besides the regular payment of tribute, the local rulers were asked to supply Egyptian armies which were passing through with bread, grain, beer, wine, oil, honey, goats, cattle and straw. Although the amounts of tribute requested appear small in absolute terms, comparison with the tribute paid by the north Mesopotamian and north Syrian state to the Hittites and Assyrians shows that the burden of taxation was reasonably heavy, a fact which can be explained by the greater degree of Egyptian involvement in Palestine (Na’aman 1981, 181-4).

It is clear that Egypt was not interested in the economic exploitation of Palestine. The yearly tribute was used to supply the Egyptian army and administration in Palestine and was not sent to Egypt. The original motivation to control Palestine for Tuthmosis III was to extend the boundaries of Egypt and to have direct links with Syria which was of more commercial interest than Palestine, primarily because of its wood. His feud with Mitanni was over control of Syria, but participation in military expeditions would have given him added prestige. However, it was also necessary to keep hold of Palestine which was the land bridge to Syria and Mesopotamia and was also a convenient supply depot for armies progressing northwards. By the time of the Amarna period there was relative peace in the whole area of Syro-Palestine and it seems that the Egyptian pharaohs were content to seek prestige by partaking in international diplomacy and exchange of presents with the other major powers. The 19th Dynasty once more had to fight to assert its hold on the Syrian territories against the encroaching Hittites, at least until a peace treaty was signed. But by then the Palestinian states were in a rebellious mood and the Egyptians were forced to increase their presence to protect their land route.

Control of Palestine had not been necessary in the Middle Bronze Age, but the presence of other major powers interested in Syria in the Late Bronze Age, first Mitanni and later the Hittites, meant that occupation of Palestine was a strategic necessity. The reason for the Egyptian presence in Palestine was thus more political than economic. Palestine was simply not rich enough in raw materials to be of much economic interest to the Egyptians. Any economic exploitation that did occur, by way of annual tribute, was to pay for the workings of the Egyptian administration which appears to have been fairly stable throughout the whole period following Tuthmosis III’s initial conquests.

7.10 Trade in LBA Palestine

7.10.1 Cyprus

from Bienkowski (1986:146-147)

Trade between Palestine and Cyprus had already been established in the Middle Bronze Age (cf section 7.6 and Gittlen 1981, 49). In LBI Cypriot pottery imports to Palestine increased in quantity, variety and geographic distribution (Gittlen 1977, 515-6; Oren 1969, 127). LBIIa marked the zenith of Cypriot imports to Palestine. 50% of Late Cypriot pottery found in Palestine dates to this period, and it was completely dominated by the Base-Ring II pottery. Importation of BRI, BRII, WSII, White-Shaved and Bucchero pottery reached a peak of frequency during LBIIa and seems also to have come to an end late in that phase (Gittlen 1977, 517-8; 1981, 51). Some late survivals of Cypriot pottery continued in circulation in LBIIb (Gittlen 1977, 520; 1981, 51-2).

The Cypriot pottery found in LBA Palestine was restricted in its variety compared to what was available on Cyprus. Palestinian finds are also limited to undecorated or less ornately decorated examples (Gittlen 1977, 23-4). The Cypriot pottery was widely distributed throughout Palestine, although there are no clear geographic distribution patterns (ibid.510). However, there is a disproportionately large quantity of jugs and juglets found among the Cypriot imports to Palestine, a far greater frequency than found on Cyprus. This may indicate the desirability of the vessel itself or of the product it contained (ibid.513). The latter is more likely given the simpler decoration on the exports, although the Cypriot pots were admired enough to be copied by Palestinian potters.

The shipping of less decorated and less elaborate forms to Palestine, the export of a disproportionately large quantity of jugs and juglets to Palestine, and the apparent invention of the White-Shaved juglet for Palestinian consumption suggests that the Cypro-Palestinian trade was not random (Gittlen 1981, 53-4). It seems that it was planned, selective and based on a thorough knowledge of the Palestinian market. The increase in Cypriot imports in LBI (possibly after the campaigns of Tuthmosis III, cf Chapter 4.2.7) was presumably because the situation in Palestine was fairly stable and peaceful under Egyptian control. The boom in trade during the Amarna period can similarly be attributed to the settled international situation following the peace treaty between Egypt and Mitanni. The termination of the bulk of Cypriot imports at the end of LBIIa reflects the unrest in Palestine in Seti I’s reign and later, rather than the supposed socio-political breakdown during the Amarna age (Gittlen 1977, 519).

7.10.2 Mycenean Greece

from Bienkowski (1986:147-149)

Mycenaean pottery is rare in LBI contexts, although some LH (Late Helladic) II pottery has been found at Lachish, Hazor, Gezer and 'Ajjul (Hankey 1974, 136). In LBlIa there was an increase in the quantity of Mycenaean pottery in Palestine (ibid.; Gittlen 1977, 26) and this period saw the vast expansion of Mycenaean trade throughout the whole eastern Mediterranean (French 1965, 159). The majority of Mycenaean pottery found in Palestine is LHIIIB and comes from LBIIb contexts (Amiran 1970, 181; Gittlen op.cit.).

It is likely that the Mycenaean pottery represents a trade both in fine tableware and in specialty oils and unguents (Leonard 1981, 99-100). As with Cypriot pottery, Mycenaean imports were restricted to a few stock shapes (Hankey 1967, 146). The great expansion in trade was during the relatively peaceful LBIIa period. In contrast to Cypriot imports, which mostly ceased at the end of LBIIa, the majority of Mycenaean pottery seems to have been imported in LBIIb. However, at most sites in Palestine and in the south-eastern Mediterranean generally where Mycenaean pottery has been found, it is a minor accompaniment to a major trade in Cypriot pottery (Hankey 1974, 142). At Tell el-'Ajjul, for example, Cypriot imports outnumbered Mycenaean by a ratio of 20:1 (Nicolaou 1982, 123). There is also a vast quantitative difference between the relatively meagre corpus of Mycenaean pottery from Palestine and Syria and the copious collections in Cyprus (Hankey 1967, 145). At Gibeon and Jerusalem only a few Mycenaean pieces were found (ibid.142-3), although the larger sites like Hazor, 'Ajjul and Lachish had more, as would be expected (Stubbings 1951, 67-8; Tufnell 1958, 211; Hankey 1967, 123). The total amount of Mycenaean pottery found in Palestine is thus relatively small and it should not be imagined that Palestine was flooded with Mycenaean imports. This perhaps suggests that the Mycenaean pottery found in the Levant came not directly from the Aegean but via Cyprus (Astour 1981, 28; Karageorghis 1982, 79; Mee 1982, 86. I am grateful to Dr. Mee for discussing this and the following points with me). In fact, direct trade by sea from the Aegean to the Levant would have been difficult in the Late Bronze Age because ships were not yet strong enough to withstand the strong winds and sudden storms of the Mediterranean. Sea-going ships probably tended to keep to the coast as far as possible (Drover 1973, 507, which would explain why coastal towns flourished in the LBA, cf Thompson 1979, 67-8) and a transit trade via Cyprus would have been very logical and sensible (Sasson 1966, 129; Nerrillees 1974, 7-8). Indeed, it has been suggested that the Mycenaean pottery found in the Levant differs from the common types of the Peloponnese, but is similar to the types of Rhodes and Cyprus, perhaps indicating that there were Mycenaean trading centres on these islands exporting directly to the Levant (Nicolaou 1982, 125). It appears that there is little evidence at present for direct trading between the Argolid (or, in fact, even Rhodes) and the Levant, bypassing Cyprus (Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 168).

A tablet from Ugarit records an itinerary to be taken by a ship which included Alashiya (probably Cyprus), Lycia and Kaphtor (probably Crete), suggesting that trade in the opposite direction also came through Cyprus (Sasson 1966, 134). Ugarit may have been involved in the trade between Cyprus and Egypt (Muhly 1982, 254). Virtually all the Cypriot pottery from Egypt can be paralleled at Ugarit, although the latter had more varied shapes (Merrillees 1968, 191). An Ugaritic letter addressed to Amenophis III by an unknown official infers close commercial and diplomatic relations between Ugarit, Alashiya and Egypt (Lipinski 1977). We also know of Cypriots living at Ugarit, one of whom had a ship at his disposal (Sasson 1966, 135; Heltzer 1978, 152; Georgiou 1979, 92-6; cf also Knapp 1983 for a possible Alashiyan merchant at Ugarit). It seems that Cyprus was the main supplier of copper, as in the Middle Bronze Age (Season, Heltzer op.cit.). However, there seems to have been a fall-off in Cypro-Aegean trade in the 13th century B.C., especially after c.1250 B.C., which makes the greater frequency of LHIIIB pottery in Palestine an anomaly (Catling 1975, 200). One can suggest three possible explanations for this:

It is often very difficult to tell the difference between LHIIIA2 and IIIB1 pottery even in the Aegean (cf Chapter 2.2 on the disagreements concerning the date of the Amarna Mycenaean deposit). Techniques of manufacture and decoration are identical and the evolution of shape is sometimes impossible to trace in sherds (Hankey 1974, 136). In mainland Greece the most diagnostic pots are the open shapes, while the closed shapes more common in the Levant (cf Amiran 1970, 180-1; Leonard 1981, 90ff.) are harder to date precisely, even when one is dealing with whole pots, let alone sherds. A lot of the pottery dated to either IIIA2 or IIIB1 should be dated broadly IIIA2–IIIB1.

There is a possibility that some at least of the pottery from the Levant identified as true Mycenaean was in fact locally produced. Mycenaean pottery from Jericho previously identified by Stubbings as imported has been shown from its fabric to be locally produced (Stubbings 1951, 65; cf Chapter 4.3.7 and 4.4.7). The experience with the Jericho pottery in the present study has shown that by meticulously examining the fabric of all the pottery, local and non-local wares can be identified unambiguously.

It is possible that Mycenaeans took advantage of the Cypriot withdrawal from the Levant, moved in themselves and expanded their own direct trade. However, it may be difficult to demonstrate this, since the composition of Mycenaean pottery coming through Cyprus or directly to the Levant would of course be exactly the same. Provenance studies have indicated that exported Mycenaean pottery came from the North-East Peloponnese (Aaaro and Perlman 1973; Catling, Jones and Millett 1978; but cf Nicolaou 1982, 125, who suggests Rhodes and Cyprus itself as the origins of much of the exported Mycenaean pottery).

There are no easy answers. It is possible that there were no direct trade links between Palestine and Mycenaean Greece, which may explain the almost complete lack of reciprocal trade objects in the Aegean, which has always been a problem (Muhly 1970, 36; Portugali and Knapp 1983; Yannai-James forthcoming; however, in a different context we know of the strong Assyrian trade links with Kültepe in Anatolia from textual sources: the traded articles— textiles, probably lead, gold and silver—are not reflected in the archaeological evidence, cf Lewy 1971, 723-7). The Mycenaean imports to Cyprus were exchanged for copper (Muhly op.cit.) but the sort of eastern objects found in Greece—an occasional cylinder seal, statuette or axe—can be described as ‘oriental bric-a-brac’ (Culican 1966, 55) rather than trade goods. The ‘Canaanite jars’ found at sites such as Athens and Mycenne were probably used to ship wine, but there are far too few of these to indicate serious and direct trade relations. One can perhaps again suggest Cyprus as an intermediary re-exporting part of its trade goods (Auhly 1970, 43). Indeed, the LBA shipwreck found off Cape Gelidonya may well have been a Cypriot vessel, and was carrying just the sort of bric-a-brac noted above (Bass 1973, 36). Furthermore, nowhere in the entire extensive epigraphic material from Ugarit can there be found a personal name of Greek Mycenaean type, suggesting that at Ugarit too most if not all of the Mycenaean pottery may have come through the intermediacy of Cyprus (Astour 1973, 25).

7.10.3 The Organization of Trade

from Bienkowski (1986:149-150)

An important question, often difficult to answer, is: who benefited from trade and was the profit accruing from it generally distributed or confined to certain people and places? The Amarna letters do not shed a great deal of light on this but the royal archive at Ugarit is very informative concerning the organisation of trade, and to a certain extent parallels can be drawn. However, Ugarit was one of the foremost commercial centres of the eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age, so the extent of its involvement in trade is probably not typical of the smaller and poorer towns in Palestine, especially those inland (Astour 1972, 11).

The transactions at Ugarit show an abundance of gold, silver and wealth in general, and life seems to have been fairly prosperous (Nougayrol 1955, 32). Trade items mentioned in the tablets are silver, copper, precious metals, oil, wine, food products, wheat, livestock, horses, wood, textiles, garments, finished goods, ointments, herbs and precious stones (Heltzer 1978, 3ff; Linder 1981, 36). Many of these products are the sort of things that were taken as tribute by the Egyptians from their Palestinian vassals, inferring that many of the items would have been traded in Palestine as well (cf Achan’s “beautiful mantle from Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels” taken from Jericho, in Joshua 7:21). We know that Ugarit traded by sea with Akko, Ashdod, Askelon and Egypt (Heltzer 1978, 151-2), and a letter from Aphek concerning a delivery of wheat shows contacts with Ugarit (Owen 1981). Overland trade is also attested between Canaan and Mesopotamia and to some extent with Egypt (Heltzer 1978, 148).

Trade at Ugarit was controlled by the king, and there seems to have been a lack of capital and goods in the hands of individuals (ibid.157-8, although there is some disagreement on this point, cf Astour 1980, 163). The king had a large number of businessmen working for him who were responsible for purchasing, selling and marketing, by land or sea, commodities to and from Ugarit, though some small boats may have been privately owned. It is possible that one merchant had the sole right to trade with Crete on behalf of the king, but the reading of the name of the country is uncertain. The Ugaritic tablets and the Amarna letters indicate that merchants from other kingdoms were also sent as representatives of their king, rather than being private entrepreneurs (Sasson 1966, 134-6; Liverani 1963, 315). The Amarna letters and the Hittite royal archives show that foreign trade was protected by international treaties (Heltzer 1978, 14).

Whenever Ugaritic merchants appear in lists they are mentioned together with other professional groups of royal dependants and thus appear to have been royal servicepeople. They did not act in their own interests and may have received from the royal court the necessary goods. They seem to have formed trade partnerships rather than acted as individuals (ibid.123-338). Craftsmen, including potters, also seem to have been under royal control (Heltzer 1979, 488-95).

In the kingdom of Ugarit there were about 200 villages which were bound to perform collective duties, such as forced labour, and to pay taxes in kind and in silver to maintain the royal administration (ibid.459). The taxes paid in kind had to be stored in the royal granaries. It is clear that the situation was much the same as in Palestine where the Egyptians kept grain, paid as tribute to maintain their own administration, in their own granaries and also demanded forced labour. It seems then that the sort of things that the king of Ugarit controlled were just those that the Egyptians were involved in in Palestine. This implies that the Egyptians, through the vassal rulers, in practice controlled the trade of the Palestinian towns or at least benefited from it through tribute. One might therefore expect the wealth in Palestine to be more or less confined to the centres of Egyptian administration and power. It is, indeed, precisely in the richer towns which have yielded precious objects and works of art— Tell el-‘Ajjul, Tell Fara (S), Lachish, Megiddo and Bethshan—that there is evidence of Egyptian occupation (de Vaux 1978, 122). While some of these may have been Egyptian fortresses (cf Gonen 1981), it is true that much of this “wealth” is found in tombs, presumably of Canaanites. Nevertheless, these tend to be pit burials, which may themselves be an indication of Egyptian contact (Gonen 1985, 74; cf section 7.9.2.3). The finer stone-lined cists at ‘Ajjul, for example, may have belonged to a wealthier ruling class (ibid.).

In conclusion, some Canaanites may have benefited from the expansion of trade in the Late Bronze Age. There are signs, though, that the local rulers, who nominally controlled it, had to share the surpluses with the Egyptians.

7.11 Contrast between Middle and Late Bronze ages - A Decline ?

Introduction

from Bienkowski (1986:150-152)

The overall situation in the LBA was very different from that in the MBA. Economically and politically the LB Palestinian towns were no longer independent but under Egyptian control. Egypt, which was more interested in Syria, did not set out to exploit Palestine economically, but nevertheless expected the Palestinian towns to pay for the upkeep of the Egyptian administration and army and so benefited from the Palestinian economy. It is interesting to contrast the different types of Egyptian imperialism in Palestine and Nubia. Nubia under the Egyptian New Kingdom actually became a part of Egypt and was directly administered by Egyptians (Kemp 1978, 21ff.). In Palestine, however, the Egyptians merely imposed themselves onto a pre-existing social and economic structure which was relatively sophisticated and had been developing at least since the MBA (ibid.56). To a large extent they continued to allow the local princes to rule, but much of what had been the prerogative of the local rulers – taxation, forced labour, controlling trade and its profits – appears in practice to have been under the control of the Egyptians who reaped the benefits. The expansion of trade seems to have benefited the Egyptians rather than the Palestinians, although it is quite probable that it was the relative peace and security achieved by the Egyptians that stimulated the trade in the first place.

As regards the material culture of Palestine, the LBA also differs from the MBA. Kenyon has written that

“the second half of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine is architecturally, artistically, and sociologically undistinguished” (1979, 199–200)

Albright similarly noted that

the wealth and culture of southern Canaan decreased rather steadily under foreign misrule, until it reached an extremely low ebb in the thirteenth century as compared with its high point at the end of the Middle Bronze” (1956, 101).

De Vaux wrote of “a slow but steady decline in technical skill and artistic value” during the LBA (1978, 120).

Leading scholars therefore agree that there was a progressive decline in the material culture throughout Palestine in the LBA. Work on the settlement pattern in LB Canaan corroborates the picture of the break-up of urban life (Conen 1984). The number of settlements fell from 54 in MBII to 24 in the 16th century and 28 in the 15th century B.C. This may be linked to the destructions at the end of MBII and consequent poverty, particularly since only 17 of the 76 known LB settlements were occupied uninterruptedly from Middle to Late Bronze Age. In the LBA, tiny, small and medium-sized settlements account for between 88 and 95% of the total number (compared with 72% in MBII). Of the huge settlements, only Lachish and Hazor survived for the duration of the LBA. In the 13th century B.C., when the number of settlements was nearly comparable to that of MBII, the total occupied area was only c.45% of the listed area of MBII settlements, suggesting a substantial drop in population. Only a handful of settlements were surrounded by a wall during the LBA – the majority were not fortified.

The LBA pottery of Palestine in general certainly shows a gradual degeneration of forms towards the end of the period (Amiran 1970, 124–90). The present study has revealed that there was a decline in the craft of pottery-making at Jericho in the LBA. Compared to the high standards of the MBA potters, less care was taken in the LBA with forming, smoothing and firing pottery, while slipping and burnishing were virtually unknown. The fabric of pottery was also cheaper: there was a decline in the amount of flint temper and occasionally straw was used (cf Chapter 5.6). The LB village of Jericho was a pretty meagre affair which did not compare at all to the relatively flourishing town of the MBA. There are some indications that things got worse as the LBA progressed, which may have resulted in the eventual abandonment of Jericho (cf section 7.8). Gibeon, not far from Jericho, seems to have had a similar history of decline. In the MBA there was occupation on the site together with the use of an appreciable number of tombs, but the evidence for the LBA is much more scanty. LBA pottery has so far been found only in a few tombs which had originally been used in the MBA. The LBA tomb material suggests that there was occupation on the tell at this time, but if so it was outside the area excavated and was probably not extensive (Kenyon 1973a, 546; Pritchard in Avi-Yonah 1976, 449).

Both Jericho and Gibeon were small towns situated away from the main centres. As noted above (section 7.10.3) the large towns where Egyptians lived, like Bethshan, Lachish and Tell el-‘Ajjul, had more luxury, buildings of greater architectural pretension and pottery that was perhaps not so dull (Kenyon 1979, 201). LBII Lachish, according to its excavator, was

a large and densely populated city extending over the entire top of the mound, and possibly also some of its slopes... It was a rich and prosperous city, and strong Egyptian influence is felt everywhere” (Ussishkin 1983, 169–70).

Concerning the manufacture of the pottery, Tubb has written that

in terms of its technical excellence and aesthetic appeal, the Lachish pottery is virtually without parallel in Palestine” (1983, 24)

although some of the Lachish LB pottery was also straw-tempered (e.g. an imitation Mycenaean pyxis, Tufnell 1958:929). But large towns in the hill country, away from the centres of Egyptian administration, like Hazor, seem like Jericho and Gibeon to have been less prosperous, especially in the 13th century B.C. (Kenyon 1979, 209). The houses of Hazor Stratum 1A were irregular in plan, built close together and generally unimpressive, and were mostly inferior reconstructions of their 14th century B.C. predecessors of Str.IB.

It would seem that the general picture of decline presented by Kenyon, Albright, de Vaux and others should be modified to show substantial recession in the areas away from direct Egyptian authority, for instance most of the hill regions, co-existing with a certain amount of prosperity in the larger centres where the Egyptians were based. Three possible explanations for Palestine’s decline in the LBA are advanced below, and examination of them further illuminates and substantiates the picture of localised decline.

7.11.1 Explanations for the Decline

7.11.1.1 Importation of Superior Foreign Products

from Bienkowski (1986:152-153)

It has been suggested that the quality of domestic Palestinian pottery deteriorated as a result of the importation of superior foreign products from Cyprus and Mycenaean Greece (Several 1972, 128). Certainly as regards Mycenaean pottery, though, Palestine was not flooded with imports (cf section 7.10.2). It is also likely that real imports from Cyprus and Greece were fairly expensive and that local copies were made as cheap substitutes (section 7.8). In fact, the greatest amounts of imported pottery, as a proportion of the total excavated amount recorded, come from sites on the coast and the major centres where the Egyptians were based, like Tell el-‘Ajjul, Lachish and Bethshan (cf Nicolaou 1982, 121). These are precisely the places which show general prosperity and the least decline in the quality of domestic pottery and which could presumably afford larger quantities of imports. In contrast, sites like Jericho and Gibeon have a relatively insignificant amount of imports, and at Jericho no real Mycenaean pottery was found at all. It is these sites which show the greatest degree of decline, not only in pottery but also in architecture and extent of settlement. Even Hazor has far less Cypriot and Mycenaean pottery than major sites like Lachish or ports like Sarepta. Hazor Tomb 8144–5, described as “particularly rich in imported pieces” and certainly the richest deposit of LBIIa Hazor, contained 500 vessels of which only 30 (6%) were imports (Yadin 1960, 145 and pls. CXXXVI–CXXXVII). In contrast, Mycenaean pottery from the tomb at Sarafend (the ancient port of Sarepta) makes up 50% of the total (Nicolaou 1982, 123). At Lachish, although it is difficult to obtain precise figures because Tufnell treated M and LBA pottery together, the 248 more or less complete imported vessels probably account for about 25% of the total LB ceramic assemblage (cf Tufnell 1958, 176).

The damaging effect of foreign products is not therefore a convincing explanation for the decline. In any case, it considers only one aspect of it, the local pottery, whereas the recession affected the whole way of life.

7.11.1.2 The 'Apiru

from Bienkowski (1986:153-154)

The Amarna letters refer to a large group of stateless people in Palestine and Syria called ‘apiru, who seem to have been part of the population of the Near East throughout the 2nd millennium B.C. (Greenberg 1955, 85; Bottero 1975). The term ‘apiru apparently means ‘refugee’ or ‘outlaw’ and it is likely that they consisted of insolvent debtors, fugitive slaves, common criminals and political refugees (Liverani 1979, 16–17; Weippert 1971, 58). The ‘apiru were regarded as enemies of Egypt who raided and destroyed settled areas (Albright 1975, 111) and often they were hired as mercenaries by local princes (Liverani op.cit.). Amenophis II claims to have brought 3600 ‘prw as prisoners to Egypt (Save-Soderbergh 1952, 8).

The ‘apiru seem to have had little effect on the areas under Egyptian control. There was apparently little disruption of trade and communication, vital for any effective imperial control (Several 1972, 131). Most settlements were unfortified, including major Egyptian centres such as Lachish, Bethshan and ‘Ajjul, which may reflect effective Egyptian political and military hegemony. The absence of fortifications can perhaps be explained as an Egyptian policy to weaken the power of the Canaanite city states (Gonen 1984, 70).

It is significant that the presence of the ‘apiru is alluded to mainly with reference to the hill country, away from the areas of direct Egyptian influence (Aharoni 1979, 176). The king of Hazor, among others, is said to have given them assistance: it is possible that the writers of the Amarna letters, who were faithful to Egypt, meant by the term ‘apiru simply rebels against Egyptian sovereignty. So when the king of Tyre reported to the Pharaoh that the king of Hazor had left his city and joined the ‘apiru, it was conceivably intended to mean that he had joined the movement of rebellion against Egyptian supremacy (Weippert 1971, 72–3). Hazor, as the largest settlement in the country and one of the few possibly fortified in the LBA (though the evidence is inconclusive), may have been outside the arc of effective Egyptian control by the Amarna period, which would explain the lack of Egyptian objects found there (Bienkowski forthcoming). The popularity of the traditional Canaanite cave burials in the hill country, as opposed to the ‘Egyptian’ pit burials found elsewhere, can perhaps also be interpreted as a lack of Egyptian influence (cf section 7.9.2.3 and Gonen 1985, 74). The disruption caused by the ‘apiru seems indeed to have been limited to the hill country, and Thompson has noted that the contraction of LB settlement in the hill country suggests that there was far less stability in those areas than in the MBA (1979, 66). It would appear that the ‘apiru were a factor in the instability and decline of certain regions of Palestine in the LBA. However, it is unlikely that they alone were responsible, as they were probably more an effect than a major cause of the decline. One must also take into account the reasons for the growing rate of refugeeism.

7.11.1.3 Diversion of Resources to the Egyptian Empire

from Bienkowski (1986:154-155)

It has already been noted that the tribute paid by the Palestinian towns to the Egyptians was used to supply the Egyptian army and administration (section 7.9.3). The Egyptian presence and exaction of tribute, starting with Tuthmosis III, lasted a total of c.250 years. If tribute was required to be paid each year, it is reasonable to suppose that eventually the Palestinian towns would feel the effect, particularly since there were now apparently less and poorer people living in fewer and smaller settlements than in the MBA (perhaps as a result of the destructions at the end of that period, cf section 7.11). The benefits from exploitation of natural resources and trade were being siphoned off by the Egyptians and little or no profit was being fed back into the Palestinian economy. Indeed, the Egyptians may have had a stranglehold on trade, and could effectively prevent ‘blocked’ settlements from participating. This may explain the relatively small amount of Mycenaean pottery found at Hazor, if it was outside the Egyptian sphere (cf section 7.11.1.1–2). The effects seem to have been felt hardest in the areas not under direct Egyptian occupation. The unrest in LBIIb which Seti I and Ramesses II had to deal with may have been caused by economic hardship, but in fact it made things even worse. The resulting increase in the Egyptian presence no doubt meant a corresponding increase in tribute to meet the needs of an expanded colonial army. The Palestinian towns would have had to bear the extra cost, and their economies, already weak, would have found the burden crippling. The decrease in trade presumably led to less prosperity generally, which would have made it even harder for the Palestinian towns to afford the tribute.

The increase in the numbers of ‘apiru can be explained by these economic difficulties. The means of sustenance of the Palestinian population were derived from agriculture, the products of which were being absorbed by the Egyptian administration and by raids from ‘apiru and neighbouring towns:

The economic difficulties acted therefore on the peasants either by driving them to emigrate, or by compelling them to assume debts which could not then be paid on account of the poor harvest so that their children and they themselves were turned into slaves. Thus it is that the particular economic pressure could not but emphasise the causes that produced the phenomenon of refugeeism: the ranks of the babiru swelled continually... (Liverani 1979, 17–19).

It can be argued, then, that the diversion of resources to pay for the upkeep of the Egyptian colonial administration, and its control of trade, were the main causes of the decline of certain areas of Palestine in the LBA. One aspect of this decline was the rise in the rate of refugeeism, which further contributed to the degenerating situation by producing more marauding bands which raided and destroyed settlements. The overall decline of the economy, not surprisingly, was felt particularly in those places where Egyptians were not living and which therefore were not receiving any substantial benefit from agricultural surpluses and trade profits. These were essentially the less densely populated areas of Palestine and Transjordan, especially the hill regions. Though not under direct Egyptian control many towns in these areas are mentioned in the lists of Tuthmosis III and the 19th Dynasty kings and were apparently theoretically under Egyptian administration and within reach of an Egyptian army. The localised economic decline was reflected in the gradual degeneration of the material culture and also in the generally low quantity, quality and extent of settlements.

7.12 The decline of LB Jericho

from Bienkowski (1986:155)

The increased poverty of Jericho and its eventual abandonment can be understood against this background of economic difficulties. The LB village, never very prosperous, would have found it hard to survive in an atmosphere of recession (although one cannot totally discount the theory that radio-activity of the Jericho spring may have contributed to the site being abandoned, cf Blake 1967). The potters (who may have been under the control of a local ruler or chieftain as at Ugarit) were probably forced to make cheaper products for two reasons:

People no longer had the resources to pay for more expensive well-made pottery of good quality.

The potters needed to get a reasonable return on their product so as to make a satisfactory living.

The result was that not only did the quality of workmanship suffer as potters spent less time and care on their products, but the fabric also became cheaper. The decline in flint-tempering at LB Jericho suggests that the potters cut down on it because it was too labour-intensive a process with not enough economic return. The re-introduction of straw inclusions in pottery, a very cheap, easily available and quick to prepare form of temper, can be similarly explained.

It has been argued in this study that there is some evidence of worsening conditions at Jericho during LBIIa. It may not be a coincidence that at the start of LBIIb, as unrest rippled through Palestine and the Egyptians increased their presence with probably repressive effects, the small settlement of Jericho was apparently abandoned.

7.13 Summary of Conclusions

from Bienkowski (1986:156)

The evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho consists of three tombs originally used in the Middle Bronze Age and a small area of occupation on the tell, dated c.1425–1275 B.C. The settlement was unwalled and probably did not extend much further than the area of the ‘Middle Building’. It seems to have been abandoned in early LBIIb. There is no archaeological evidence of fortifications or for a destruction.

Study of the LB pottery reveals a progressive decline in pottery manufacture compared with the MBA, illustrated by a regression to the slower potter’s wheel and the use of cheaper raw materials. This picture of decline is echoed throughout Palestine. Analysis of the nature of Egyptian rule in LBA Palestine suggests that it was concentrated in the more densely populated areas. These continued to be relatively prosperous, while other regions declined. This decline was probably caused by the diversion of resources, in the form of annual tribute, to the Egyptian empire, and by its control of trade. The Egyptian presence increased repressively in early LBIIb, which may have hastened the abandonment of Jericho. The site was not re-occupied until the 11th century B.C.

Ben-Menahem (1991)

from Ben-Menahem (1991)

No.	Date	Time	N°	E°	Location	Δf, km	M_L	Details
1,2	2100–1560 B.C.E.				Dead Sea region		6.8	Two upheavals in southern Dead Sea. Destruction of Jericho in circa 2100 B.C.E. and 1560 B.C.E. The former is responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Earthquake accompanied by burning of carbon disulphide, hydrogen sulfide, oil, and asphalt. Zoar probably located east of Lisan peninsula at Bab-a-Dara'a. In Jericho and Tel Beit-Mirsim, a layer of ash was found, dated circa 1560 B.C.E., followed by a break of the occupation of these cities for the next 100 years [Kenyon, 1978, 1979; Neev and Emery, 1967; Gen. 19, 23–29; Isa. 15, 5; Tristram, 1874; Albright, 1924]. The 2000-year-old conjecture of Josephus, that the cities were flooded by the Dead Sea waters is unfounded and inconsistent with the seismotectonics of the area.

Wood (1990a)

from Wood (1990a)

The story of the Israelite conquest of Jericho (Joshua 2-6) is one of the best known and best loved in the entire Bible. The vivid description of faith and victory has been a source of inspiration for countless generations of Bible readers. But did it really happen as the Bible describes it?

The site has been excavated several times in this century. Based on the conclusion of the most recent excavator, British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, most historians and Bible scholars would answer with a resounding "No, certainly not! There was no city there at the time Joshua supposedly conquered it."

Some 30 years after her excavation of the site – indeed, 12 years after Kenyon’s death – the detailed evidence has now become available in the final report. So it is time for a new look.

Ancient Jericho is located at Tell es-Sultan, next to a copious spring on the western edge of the Jordan Valley, just north of the Dead Sea. The site’s excellent water supply and favorable climate (especially in winter) have made it a desirable place to live from the very beginning of settled habitation. A Neolithic settlement at the site goes back to about 8000 B.C.E.,* thus giving Jericho the distinction of being the world’s oldest city. At 670 feet below sea level, it is also the lowest city in the world.

The site is strategically located. From Jericho one has access to the heartland of Canaan.¹ Any military force attempting to penetrate the central hill country from the east would, by necessity, first have to capture Jericho. And that is exactly what the Bible (Joshua 3:16) says the Israelites did.

After wandering in the Sinai desert for 40 years, the Israelites prepared to cross the Jordan River and enter the Promised Land from opposite Jericho. Before making the crossing, however, Joshua, the Israelite commander, dispatched two spies to reconnoiter the city. Narrowly escaping capture, the spies brought back valuable intelligence collected from Rahab, a harlot who lived within the city wall. Although the Jordan was in flood at the time the Israelites crossed, the waters were miraculously stopped and the Israelites were able to cross "on dry ground." They then marched around the heavily fortified city daily for seven days. On the seventh day, to the blast of the ram’s horn, the walls came tumbling down. The Israelites rushed into the city and put it to the torch.

Because of its importance in Biblical history, Jericho was the second site in the Holy Land, Jerusalem being the first, to feel the excavators’ picks. The first documented excavation was undertaken in 1867 and 1868 by the famous British engineer Charles Warren.² Jericho was one of nine tells, or mounds, he excavated in the Jordan Valley in an effort to determine if they were natural or artificial. He dug six vertical shafts and three trenches at Jericho. Based on his findings, Warren was able to provide an answer to what had been a serious question until that time:

As a general result on the completion of these excavations it may be said for a certainty that these mounds are artificial throughout, and that they probably are the remains of ancient castles.³

He was wrong about the castles, but he was certainly right that the mounds were ancient ruins.

The first major excavation at Jericho was conducted by an Austro-German expedition under the direction of Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger from 1907 to 1909 and again in 1911.⁴ This was before pottery chronology was well developed, so their dating was far off the mark. Watzinger later revised the chronology, however,⁵ and their carefully drawn plans (see below) and sections can still provide valuable information.⁶ For example, they traced the Middle Bronze revetment wall around three-quarters of the base of the tell, although at the time they did not fully understand the complexities of the Middle Bronze fortification system. It was only when Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site in the 1950s that the nature of the revetment wall was clarified, as we will soon see.

After his redating, Watzinger concluded that Jericho was unoccupied (and therefore obviously unfortified) during the Late Bronze period (c. 1550-1200 B.C.E.), the time when the Israelites first appeared in Canaan.

John Garstang, a British archaeologist, questioned these results and mounted an expedition of his own to gather further evidence regarding the date of the fortifications at Jericho.⁷ Garstang was the first investigator to use modern methods at the site, although his work was still crude by today’s standards. He dug from 1930 to 1936 and promptly published his findings in a series of preliminary reports.⁸ Although the Second World War prevented Garstang from publishing a final report on his work, after the war, in collaboration with his son, he published a popular account that summarized his final views on Jericho.⁹

Garstang excavated a collapsed double city wall on the summit of the tell that he dated to the late-15th to early 14th-century B.C.E. (the Late Bronze Age). He also excavated a residential area on the southeast slope of the mound which he believed was part of the city fortified by the double wall. He designated this "City IV." It had been thoroughly destroyed in a violent conflagration.

Garstang concluded that City IV came to an end about 1400 B.C.E., based on pottery found in the destruction debris, on scarabs recovered from nearby tombs and on the absence of Mycenaean ware. He ascribed the destruction to invading Israelites. The matter seemed settled in Garstang’s mind:

In a word, in all material details and in date the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative. Our demonstration is limited, however, to material observations: the walls fell, shaken apparently by earthquake, and the city was destroyed by fire, about 1400 B.C. These are the basic facts resulting from our investigations. The link with Joshua and the Israelites is only circumstantial but it seems to be solid and without a flaw."¹⁰

But was the matter really settled? Hardly. In reality, Garstang’s conclusions precipitated considerable controversy among his colleagues.¹¹ After a few years, and further advances in the knowledge of Palestinian archaeology, Garstang asked an up-and-coming British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon to review and update his findings. Kenyon did so and came up with more or less the same conclusion Sellin and Watzinger had reached 25 years earlier: Jericho was destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the mid-16th century B.C.E. and was unoccupied throughout the Late Bronze Age, except for a very small area occupied for a short time in the 14th century B.C.E.¹² So much for progress in Palestinian archaeology!

As an outgrowth of questions raised in her critique, Kenyon headed up yet another campaign to the ruins at Tell es-Sultan. This one lasted from 1952 to 1958. Kenyon’s excavation ushered in a new era in Palestinian archaeology. She introduced rigorous stratigraphic excavation techniques entailing detailed analysis of soil and debris layers and careful recording of the sides of the excavation squares called balks.¹³ Kenyon concluded that her field work confirmed her earlier review of Garstang’s work. The double city wall Garstang associated with the Israelite invasion in about 1400 B.C.E. in fact dated to the Early Bronze Age some 1,000 years earlier. The destruction of Garstang’s City IV, which he had dated to about 1400 B.C.E., occurred, according to Kenyon, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, about 1550 B.C.E.¹⁴

In short, there was no strongly fortified Late Bronze Age city at Jericho for Joshua to conquer. The archaeological evidence conflicted with the Biblical account – indeed, disproved it.

Based on Kenyon’s conclusions, Jericho has become the parade example of the difficulties encountered in attempting to correlate the findings of archaeology with the Biblical account of a military conquest of Canaan. Scholars by and large have written off the Biblical record as so much folklore and religious rhetoric. And this is where the matter has stood for the past 25 years.

Kenyon died in 1978 without living to see the final publication of her excavation of the tell. Her conclusions were reported only in a popular book published the year before she completed her fieldwork,¹⁵ in a series of preliminary reports¹⁶ and in scattered articles. The detailed evidence, however, was never supplied. This became available only in 1982 and 1983 when two volumes on pottery excavated from the tell were published.¹⁷ This, together with the stratigraphic data from the excavation, published in 1981,¹⁸ makes it possible to perform an independent assessment of Kenyon’s conclusions.

I first became interested in Jericho while working on my Ph.D. dissertation on Canaanite pottery of the Late Bronze Age. I would occasionally thumb through Garstang’s preliminary reports to see if there was anything of interest. I became intrigued by a considerable amount of what appeared to be Late Bronze I (c. 1550-1400 B.C.E.) pottery he had excavated. This was precisely the period Kenyon repeatedly said was absent at Jericho! Because of the lack of precision in Garstang’s field work and the rambling nature of his preliminary reports, it was not possible to gain a clear picture of the stratigraphic sequence at Jericho from Garstang’s work alone. Kenyon’s conclusions, on the other hand, could not be checked because her work remained unpublished.

After completing my dissertation in 1985, I decided to pursue the matter further, since by this time the Jericho reports were available.

There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in dating the double wall on top of the tell to the Early Bronze Age. In this she was right and Garstang wrong. But there is a serious question about her dating of the destruction of the residential area of the final Bronze Age city (Garstang’s City IV) to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.). Here I believe Garstang was right after all!

Before explaining why Garstang’s date for the destruction of City IV – about c. 1400 B.C.E., in the Late Bronze Age – is to be preferred to Kenyon’s date at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, let me say a few words about Kenyon’s methodology.

As I have already observed, during her lifetime, Kenyon never published a definitive study of the pottery from the last phases of City IV, before its destruction. The final excavation reports published after her death reflect Kenyon’s meticulous field work and contain a complete and detailed presentation of her excavation results. But they merely present the raw data, with no analysis or comment. To understand how Kenyon reached her conclusion, we must piece together scattered statements in various writings. When we do this, it becomes clear that Kenyon based her opinion almost exclusively on the absence of pottery imported from Cyprus and common to the Late Bronze I period (c. 1550-1400 B.C.E.). This imported Cypriote ware had been previously found mainly in some Megiddo tomb groups, and Kenyon used this pottery to construct her ceramic typology for the Late Bronze I period.¹⁹ Although she also mentions certain local pottery types used in this period,²⁰ it is obvious she paid little attention to these common domestic forms since they appear regularly in the final phases of City IV. That she did not focus more on the local pottery is especially strange because considerable stratified local daily-use pottery from the Late Bronze I period had been excavated and was available for her to work with even at the beginning of her excavation at Jericho. Instead, Kenyon chose to emphasize the imported wares in reaching her chronological conclusions. As a result, Kenyon reached the following determination: When the material is analyzed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs [found to the northwest of the tell] between c. 1560 B.C. and c. 1400 B.C.²¹ (From the period after 1400 B.C.E., she found a residence-type structure and associated outbuildings, which she dated to about 1325 B.C.E. After that, the site remained abandoned until about the 11th century B.C.E.)

Signs of destruction from the final phase of City IV betray the calamity that befell Jericho. "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area. This debris is visible in the west balk behind the meter stick in the photo above (a balk is a side of an excavation square left standing to preserve a record of the square’s strata). The destruction debris has been removed elsewhere to expose the remains of the destroyed city. At the top of the north balk, upper right corner in the above photo, is an erosion layer consisting of material washed down from further up the slope. Within the destruction debris of the north balk, we can see the remains of a late-14th- century B.C.E. structure. At upper left is a cobbled, stepped street (seen in close-up below left). The line of stones that extends from the center left edge of the larger photo to the center bottom is a drain that passed under the street preserved at upper left. The drain was originally covered with stones, but the channel of the drain is exposed here in the upper part. The street led from the summit of the city’s southeast slope to the spring on the east side of the city, which today fills the modern reservoir seen at right in the plan "City IV" above.

click on image to open in a new tab

Wood (1990a)

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.

Kenyon drew her comparative material from large cities like Megiddo situated on major trade routes far from Jericho. Jericho, by contrast, is a small site²² well off the major trade routes of the day.

A careful examination of the Jericho excavation reports as a whole, moreover, makes it clear that both Garstang and Kenyon dug in a poor quarter of the city where they found only humble domestic dwellings. Kenyon writes of the final phase of City IV:

The picture given... is that of simple villagers. There is no suggestion at all of luxury.... It was quite probable that Jericho at this time was something of a backwater, away from the contacts with richer areas provided by the coastal route.²³

Why then would anyone expect to find exotic imported ceramics in this type of cultural milieu!

To make matters worse, Kenyon based her conclusions on a very limited excavation area – two 26-foot by 26-foot squares. An argument from silence is always problematic, but Kenyon’s argument is especially poorly founded. She based her dating on the fact that she failed to find expensive, imported pottery in a small excavation area in an impoverished part of a city located far from major trade routes!

Rather than unusual imported wares, attention should be given to the ordinary domestic pottery that Kenyon and Garstang both found in abundance.

Kenyon went on to associate the destruction of City IV with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1570 B.C.E.²⁴ But this analysis, too, has its problems. Kenyon argued that not only City IV at Jericho, but other destroyed Middle Bronze Age cities in Palestine had met their end at the hands of the Hyksos.²⁵ And, if not the Hyksos, these cities were destroyed by the Egyptians in follow-up campaigns as they pursued the fleeing Hyksos whom they expelled from Egypt, where they once ruled.²⁶ It makes little sense, however, for the Hyksos to destroy the very cities to which they were fleeing and in which they were seeking refuge. As for Egyptian punitive campaigns into Canaan, there is no textual evidence in Egyptian literary sources to indicate that the Egyptians went beyond Sharuhen in southwest Canaan in their pursuit of the Hyksos. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the Egyptians ever campaigned in the southern Jordan Valley in the XVIIIth Dynasty, the period in Egyptian history following Hyksos rule. The Egyptian interest at this time was in the trade routes on the Mediterranean coast and the Kishon-Jezreel Valley and in points further north, not in the Jordan Valley.²⁷

Moreover, Jericho itself has produced evidence that militates against a destruction of City IV by the Egyptians. In the burnt debris of City IV both Garstang and Kenyon found many store jars full of grain, indicating that when the city met its end there was an ample food supply.²⁸ This flies in the face of what we know about Egyptian military tactics. Egyptian campaigns were customarily mounted just prior to harvest time – food supplies stored inside the cities would be at their lowest level then; the Egyptians themselves could use the produce in the fields to feed their army; and what the Egyptians did not want for their own use they could destroy, thereby placing a further hardship on the indigenous population. This was clearly not the case at Jericho.

Finally, the Egyptian strategy for capturing a strongly fortified city such as Jericho was by siege. Sharuhen was besieged by the Egyptians for three years;²⁹ the siege of Megiddo lasted seven months.³⁰ The ample food supply at Jericho indicates that it succumbed quickly, not after a long siege; and this occurred after harvest time, not before.³¹

So Kenyon is on weak ground both in dating the destruction of City IV to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.) and in her historical reconstruction that attributes the destruction of Jericho to the Hyksos or to the Egyptians.

Let us look now at the evidence that supports Garstang’s conclusion that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., at the end of what archaeologists call Late Bronze I. Four lines of evidence converge to support this conclusion: First and foremost is the ceramic data; second, stratigraphical considerations; third, scarab evidence; and fourth, a radiocarbon date. Although I will spare the reader a technical discussion of the Jericho pottery, we will look at a few examples from the final phases of City IV – all excavated by Kenyon. To anyone familiar with Bronze Age pottery it will be obvious that these forms are from the Late Bronze I period and not the Middle Bronze Age. In particular, a cooking pot with an internal lip is found only in the Late Bronze I period.³² The simple round-sided bowl with concentric circles painted on the inside (No. 2 in the drawing) has a limited life span in Cisjordan confined to the last part of Late Bronze I, in the latter half of the 15th century B.C.E.³³ Flaring carinated (angled) bowls with a slight crimp (No. 1), conical bowls, store jars with a simple folded rim (No. 3), everted rim cooking pots with flange (No. 4), water jars with painted stripes and small dipper juglets (No. 5), are all characteristic of the Late Bronze Age. Many more examples of this type of pottery can be found in the excavation reports of both Kenyon and Garstang.³⁴

Ironically, Garstang found a considerable quantity of pottery decorated with red and black paint which appears to be imported Cypriot bichrome ware, the type of pottery Kenyon was looking for and did not find! Cypriot bichrome ware is one of the major diagnostic indicators for occupation in the Late Bronze I period. At the time of Garstang’s excavation, the significance of this type of pottery was not recognized, so it was simply published along with all the other decorated pottery without being singled out for special notice. It showed up in erosional layers on the east side of the tell. Evidently it originated in a large structure upslope, which Garstang referred to as the palace. Only a portion of the eastern wall of this building remained at the time of his excavation. It appears that Kenyon’s Area H was too far north to be in the path of the runoff from the palace and thus no bichrome ware was found in her squares.

Now let us look at the stratigraphy of City IV, which is related, in a very elementary way, to time. With her careful excavation techniques, Kenyon was able to identify many different occupational phases during the Bronze Age at Jericho. Middle Bronze III, the last subperiod of Middle Bronze, lasted from about 1650 to 1550 B.C.E. The beginning of the Middle Bronze III phase at Jericho can be fixed quite confidently at Kenyon’s Phase 32.³⁵ From Phase 32 to the end of the life of City IV, Kenyon identified 20 different architectural phases, with evidence that some of these phases lasted for long periods of time, Over the course of the 20 phases there were three major and 12 minor destructions. A fortification tower was rebuilt four times and repaired once, followed by habitation units that were rebuilt seven times.³⁶ If Kenyon were correct that City IV met its final destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze Period (c. 1550 B.C.E.), then all these 20 phases would have to be squeezed into a mere 100 years (Middle Bronze III). It is hardly likely that all of this activity could have transpired in the approximately 100 years of the Middle Bronze III period.³⁷

The next item of chronological significance is a scarab series discovered by Garstang. Scarabs are small Egyptian amulets shaped like a beetle with an inscription (sometimes the name of a pharaoh) on the bottom. In his excavation of the cemetery northwest of the city, Garstang recovered a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs extending from the 18th century B.C.E. (the XIIIth Dynasty) to the early 14th century B.C.E. (the XVIIIth Dynasty). The XVIIIth Dynasty scarabs include four royal-name scarabs – one of Hatshepsut (c. 1503-1483 B.C.E.), one of Tuthmosis III (c. 1504-1450 B.C.E.) and two of Amenhotep III (c. 1386-1349 B.C.E.) – as well as a seal of Tuthmosis III. The continuous nature of the scarab series suggests that the cemetery was in active use up to the end of the Late Bronze I period.³⁸

Finally, one Carbon-14 sample was taken from a piece of charcoal found in the destruction debris of the final Bronze Age city. It was dated to 1410 B.C.E., plus or minus 40 years,³⁹ lending further support to the view that the destruction of City IV occurred around the end of the Late Bronze I period, about 1400 B.C.E. [Editorial note: See comments section below for an update on this C-14 data].

JW: This one uncalibrated radiocarbon date presented by Wood (1990a) is of limited chronological use.

All this evidence converges to demonstrate that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., not 1550 B.C.E. as Kenyon maintained.

If the Hyksos did not destroy Jericho and the Egyptians did not destroy Jericho, then who did? The only written record to survive concerning the history of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age is that found in the Hebrew Bible.

When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the Biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of Jericho, we find a quite remarkable agreement.

First, a few words about the Israelite crossing of the Jordan River. The Bible describes the crossing of the Jordan River in vivid and very explicit language:

The waters coming down from above stood and rose up in a heap far off, at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan, and those flowing down toward the sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, were wholly cut off; and the people passed over opposite Jericho (Joshua 3:16).

The Jordan was apparently blocked at Adam, modern Damiya, some 18 miles upstream from the fords opposite Jericho. How could this happen? Historians and Bible scholars have focused on the "miraculous" nature of the event, with little regard for the seismology of the southern Jordan Valley. In fact, the blocking of the Jordan has happened a number of times in recent recorded history. Jericho is located in the Rift Valley, an unstable region where earthquakes are frequent. Geophysicist Amos Nur of Stanford University has studied the well-documented earthquakes of this area in an effort to find ways to predict them. He has noted several earthquakes that caused phenomena quite similar to what is described in the Book of Joshua:

Today Adam is Damiya, the site of the 1927 mud slides that cut off the flow of the Jordan. Such cutoffs, typically lasting one to two days, have also been recorded in A.D. 1906, 1834, 1546, 1267, and 1160.⁴⁰

The 1267 C.E. mudslide was recorded by the Arab historian Nowairi. He writes that a large mound on the west side of the Jordan at Damiya fell into the river damming it up. No water flowed south from Damiya for 16 hours. In the 1927 quake, a section of a cliff 150 feet high collapsed into the Jordan near the ford at Damiya, blocking the river for some 21 hours.⁴¹

So the stoppage of the Jordan’s flow as described in the Bible is not so far-fetched as it might at first seem.

Jericho is most famous, of course, as the city where the walls came tumbling down. As we have seen, according to Kenyon, there was no city here during the Late Bronze Age and therefore there was no city wall at that time to come tumbling down. I believe, however, that the evidence indicates that Kenyon’s Middle Bronze Age city lasted into the early part of the Late Bronze Age and was not destroyed until about 1400 B.C.E. (at the end of Late Bronze I). This is what Garstang maintained all along. If this view is correct, then there was a strongly fortified city at Jericho at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Kenyon herself determined that City IV had an impressive fortification system. The type of fortification that constituted Jericho’s defensive system was not really understood until Kenyon’s careful stratigraphic work at Jericho. This fortification system consisted first of all of a stone revetment wall some 15 feet high at the base of the mound. At the northern end of the site, all three archaeological expeditions to Jericho found remnants of a mudbrick parapet wall on top of the revetment wall (see section drawing opposite, middle). At one point, it was preserved to a height of about 8 feet.⁴² It is likely that this parapet wall originally extended all the way around the city.

The revetment wall held in place a massive packed-earth embankment or rampart with a plastered face that extended to the top of the tell. Atop this earthen embankment was yet another city wall, as determined from an earlier phase of the defensive system that survived at only one point on the tell.⁴³ Unfortunately, the upper portion of the embankment on the rest of the tell had eroded away (or had been excavated away). Accordingly, the upper wall that surrounded City IV when it was finally destroyed does not survive today. The lower revetment wall and most of the embankment, however, still exist and can be seen at the site.

Despite the fact that the area where the upper wall once stood is gone, there is evidence, incredible as it may seem, that this wall came tumbling down and, in the words of the Biblical account in Joshua, "fell down flat" (Joshua 6:20). Again, the evidence comes from Kenyon’s own careful stratigraphic excavation and the detailed, final report that describes it.

Kenyon made three cuts through the city’s ramparts – on the north, west and south. In all three cuts, she carried her excavation to the lower revetment wall; in the west cut, however, she went even beyond the revetment wall to the area outside the wall.

What Kenyon found outside the revetment wall in the west cut was quite astounding. There, outside the revetment wall, she found bricks from the city wall above that had collapsed. I will let her describe it in her own words (you can follow this more easily while looking at the stratigraphic section):
Above the fill associated with the kerb wall [marked "KE" at lower left], during which the final M[iddle] B[ronze] bank [or rampart] remained in use, was a series of tip lines against the [outer] face of the revetment [wall]. The first was a heavy fill of fallen red [mud]bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment [wall]. These [red bricks] probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank [emphasis supplied].⁴⁴
Over what she described as "the main collapse," she found a gravelly wash from later erosion.⁴⁵ In less technical language, it appears that a wall made of red mudbricks existed either on top of the tell, as Kenyon postulates, or on the top of the revetment wall itself, or both, until the final destruction of City IV. The red mudbricks came tumbling down, falling over the outer revetment wall at the base of the tell. There the red mudbricks came to rest in a heap.⁴⁶

Thus, in Kenyon’s opinion, the pile of bricks resting against the outer face of the revetment wall came from the collapsed city wall. Here is impressive evidence that the walls of Jericho did indeed topple, as the Bible records. (See artist’s rendition, p. 47). The amount of bricks showing in the cross-section in Kenyon’s balk (80 square feet) is sufficient for an upper wall 6.5 feet wide and 12 feet high.

When the wall was deposited in this fashion at the base of the tell, the collapsed mudbricks themselves formed a ready ramp for an attacker to surmount the revetment wall.⁴⁷ According to the Biblical account, the Israelites who encircled the city "went up into the city, every man straight before him" (Joshua 6:20). Note that the Bible states that they went up into the city. The collapse of the city wall may well have been the result of an earthquake, since there is ample evidence for earthquake activity at the end of the life of City IV.⁴⁸ Again, geophysicist Amos Nur:

This combination, the destruction of Jericho and the stoppage of the Jordan, is so typical of earthquakes in this region that only little doubt can be left as to the reality of such events in Joshua’s time."⁴⁹

Now let us turn to the remains of the city itself. One of the most intriguing questions about the story in Joshua concerns the location of Rahab’s house. We know her house had a roof exposed to the elements because she hid the spies under some flax that was drying there (Joshua 2:6). It was also built against the city wall, thus facilitating the escape of the spies: "Then she let them down by a rope through an opening, for her house was at the surface of the wall, since she lived within the wall" (Joshua 2:15).

Sellin and Watzinger found a number of domestic structures from the final phase of City IV on the north side of the tell.⁵⁰ They were located on the lower slopes of the rampart, just inside the revetment wall. It is possible that Rahab lived in just such a house. If so, it would have been within the city wall, i.e., between the revetment wall with the mudbrick parapet and the upper city wall at the crest of the rampart. It could also have abutted the revetment wall, with a window through the parapet wall overlooking the stone revetment below. The houses built on the rampart appear to have comprised the poor quarter of the city because they were constructed of thin walls only one brick in width.

Remnants of the final phase of City IV were also found on the southeast slope, just above the spring, by both Garstang and Kenyon. What Garstang and Kenyon found here is most revealing. Garstang dug a large area, about 115 feet by 165 feet, which he called the "palace storeroom area"; Kenyon found remains from the final phase of City IV only in two excavation squares (H II and H III). The results reveal that City IV was massively destroyed in a violent conflagration⁵¹ that left a layer of destruction debris a yard or more thick across the entire excavation area.⁵² Again, we will let Kenyon describe the calamity:
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 the fire."⁵³
The last observation in this quotation suggests that an earthquake preceded the conflagration. This description may be compared with the Biblical account. According to the Bible, after the Israelites gained access to the city, they "burned the city with fire and all that was therein" (Joshua 6:24). In short, after the collapse of the walls – perhaps by earthquake – the city was put to the torch.

The most abundant item found in the destruction, apart from pottery, was grain. As noted above, both Garstang and Kenyon found large quantities of grain stored in the ground-floor rooms of the houses.⁵⁴ In her limited excavation area, Kenyon recovered six bushels of grain in one season!⁵⁵ This is unique in the annals of Palestinian archaeology. Perhaps a jar or two might be found, but to find such an extensive amount of grain is exceptional. What conclusions can we draw from this unusual circumstance?

Grain was a very valuable commodity in antiquity. The amount stored after harvest provided food until the next harvest. Grain was so valuable, in fact, that it was used as a medium of exchange. The presence of these grain stores in the destroyed city is entirely consistent with the Biblical account. The city did not fall as a result of a starvation siege, as was so common in ancient times. Instead, the Bible tells us, Jericho was destroyed after but seven days (Joshua 6:15,20). Successful attackers normally plundered valuable grain once they captured a city. This of course would be inconsistent with the grain found here. But in the case of Jericho the Israelites were told that "the city and all that is within it shall be devoted to the LORD for destruction," and they were commanded, "Keep yourselves from the things devoted to destruction" (Joshua 6:17-18). So the Israelites were forbidden to take any plunder from Jericho.⁵⁶ This could explain why so much grain was left to burn when City IV met its end.

Another inference can be drawn from the grain: The city fell shortly after harvest, in the spring of the year. This is precisely when the Bible says the Israelites attacked Jericho: Rahab was drying freshly harvested flax on the roof of her house (Joshua 2:6); the Israelites crossed the Jordan while it was in flood at harvest time (Joshua 3:15); and they celebrated Passover just prior to attacking the city (Joshua 5:10).

Despite my disagreements with Kenyon’s major conclusion, I nevertheless applaud her for her careful and painstaking field work. It was she who brought order to the confused stratigraphic picture at Jericho. Her thoroughgoing excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E. The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data and a Carbon-14 date all point to a destruction of the city around the end of Late Bronze I, about 1400 B.C.E. Garstang’s original date for this event appears to be the correct one!

Was this destruction at the hands of the Israelites? The correlation between the archaeological evidence and the Biblical narrative is substantial:

The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:5, 20).
The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6; 3:15; 5:10).
The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1).
The siege was short (Joshua 6:15).
The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20).
The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17–18).
The city was burned (Joshua 6:20).

One major problem remains: the date, 1400 B.C.E. Most scholars will reject the possibility that the Israelites destroyed Jericho in about 1400 B.C.E. because of their belief that Israel did not emerge in Canaan until about 150 to 200 years later, at the end of the Late Bronze II period.

A minority of scholars agrees with the Biblical chronology, which places the Israelite entry into Canaan in about 1400 B.C.E. The dispute between these two views is already well-known to BAR readers**.

But recently, new evidence has come to light suggesting that Israel was resident in Canaan throughout the Late Bronze II period. As new data emerge and as old data are reevaluated, it will undoubtedly require a reappraisal of current theories regarding the date and the nature of the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

Fotnotes

* B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) are the religiously neutral terms used by scholars, corresponding to B.C. and A.D.

** See John J. Bimson and David Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," BAR, September/October 1987

1 See James M. Monson, "Climbing into Canaan," Bible Times 1 (1988): 8-21.

2 Warren’s 1867 work is described in Charles Warren, Underground Jerusalem (London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1876), 164-89. The results of the 1868 expedition were first published in 1869 in a little-circulated, untitled report to the members of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF). This report is in the library of the PEF in London, bound in a volume titled Palestine Exploration Fund Proceedings and Notes, 1865-1869. Warren’s findings are on pp. 14-16 of a longer account of a journey up the Jordan made in February-March 1868, which included soundings at Jericho and eight other tells in the vicinity. The report of the 1868 work was reprinted in Underground Jerusalem, 192-97, and in The Survey of Western Palestine, Vol. III, by C. R. Conder and H.H. Kitchener (London: Committee of the PEF, 1883), 224-26. Warren’s reports have been incorrectly cited by subsequent investigators: John Garstang ("Jericho: City and Necropolis," 3; see endnote 8), Kathleen Kenyon (p. xxiii in Jericho 3; see endnote 18), and Piotr Bienkowski (Jericho in the Late Bronze Age [Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips, 1986], 189).

3 Underground Jerusalem, 196.

4 Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Jericho) (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1913).

5 Carl Watzinger, "Zur Chronologie der Schichten von Jericho," Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gessellschaft 80 (1926): 131-36.

6 See David Ussishkin, "Notes on the Fortifications of the Middle Bronze II Period at Jericho and Shechem," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 276 (1989), forthcoming.

7 John Garstang, "The Date of the Destruction of Jericho," Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (PEFQS) 1927: 96-100; Garstang, "Jericho: Sir Charles Marston’s Expedition of 1930," PEFQS 1930: 123-25; Garstang, "A Third Season at Jericho," PEFQS 1932: 149; Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," in Wonders of the Past, ed. J.A. Hammerton (New York: Wise, 1937), 1216.

8 John Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology (LAAA) 19 (1932): 3-22, 35-54; LAAA 20 (1933): 3-42; LAAA 21 (1934): 19-136; LAAA 22 (1935): 143-84; LAAA 23 (1936): 67-76.

9 John Garstang and J.B.E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, rev. ed., 1948).

10 John Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1222.

11 E.g., Louis Hugues Vincent, "The Chronology of Jericho," PEFQS 1931: 104-105, and "A travers les fouilles palestineennes II. Jericho et sa chronologie," Revue Biblique 44 (1935): 583-605; Alan Rowe (with John Garstang), "The Ruins of Jericho," PEFQS 1936: 170; William F. Albright, "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology," BASOR 74 (1939): 18-20; and G. Ernest Wright, "Epic of Conquest," Biblical Archaeologist 3 (1940): 35-36.

12 Kathleen M. Kenyon "Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C.," Palestine Exploration Quarterly (PEQ) 1951: 101-38.

13 Kathleen Kenyon, Beginning in Archaeology (New York: Praeger, 3rd rev. ed., 1972).

14 Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (London: Ernest Benn, 1957), 262; Kenyon, "Jericho," in Archaeology and Old Testament Study (AOTS), ed. D. Winton Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 265-67; Kenyon, "Jericho," in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (EAEHL), vol. 2, ed. Michael Avi-Yonah (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976), 551, 564; Kenyon, The Bible in Recent Archaeology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 33-37.

15 Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho.

16 Kathleen Kenyon, "British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem Excavations at Jericho 1952," PEQ 1952: 4-6; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho 1952," PEQ 1952: 62-82; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho, 1953," PEQ 1953: 81-96; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho, 1954," PEQ 1954: 45-63; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho, 1955," PEQ 1955: 108-17; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho, 1956," PEQ 1956: 67-82; Kenyon, "Excavations at Jericho, 1957-58," PEQ 1960: 88-113.

17 Kathleen Kenyon and Thomas A. Holland, Excavations at Jericho Volume 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds (Jericho 4) (London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem [BSAJ], 1982); and Excavations at Jericho Volume 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds (Jericho 5) (London: BSAJ, 1983).

18 Kathleen Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (Jericho 3), ed. Thomas A. Holland (London: BSAJ, 1981).

19 Kathleen Kenyon, "The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata at Megiddo," Levant 1 (1969): 50-51; Kenyon, "Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty," in Cambridge Ancient History (CAH3), Vol. 2.1, ed. I.E.S. Edwards et al. (Cambridge: The University Press, 3rd ed., 1973), 528-29; Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (New York: Norton, 4th ed., 1979), 182-83.

20 Kenyon, "The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata," 51; Kenyon, "Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty," 528-29; Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 182.

21 Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 182.

22 The area inside the city wall was originally about 5-6 acres (John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho. The Marston-Melchett Expedition of 1931," PEFQS 1931: 186; Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 19: 3), while the total area, including the fortification system, was approximately twice that, or 10-12 acres (John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho," 187; Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 19: 3; Kenyon, "Jericho," EAEHL, 550 [4 hectares = 9.9 acres]). Magen Broshi and Ram Gophna list the size of the site as 1.5 ha (3.7 acres; Broshi and Gophna, "Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population," BASOR 261 [1986]: Table 4), but this is no doubt the estimated size of the site as it is today. A considerable portion of the tell was removed in the construction of the reservoir and the modern road.

23 Kenyon, "Jericho," AOTS, 271.

24 Kenyon, "Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age," in CAH3, 92-93; Kenyon, "Jericho," EAEHL, 563.

25 Kenyon, "Jericho," AOTS, 272; Kenyon, "Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty," CAH3, 528.

26 Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 229; Kenyon, "Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty, CAH3, 528; Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 177, 180.

27 James Hoffmeier, "Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine," Levant 21 (1989): 181-93.

28 See below, notes 54 and 55.

29 J.A. Wilson, "Egyptian Historical Texts," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd ed., 1969), 233.

30 Wilson, "Egyptian Historical Texts," 238.

31 John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho," 193-94.

32 Yigael Yadin et al., Hazor 1, An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), 104; Ruth Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land (Pottery) (Jerusalem: Masada, 1969), 135.

33 Garstang recognized the chronological significance of this bowl and correctly dated it to the 15th century B.C.E. ("Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 21: 121). It is the common bowl of Ashdod stratum XVII (Moshe Dothan, Ashdod 2-3: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Antiqot 9-10 [English Series, 1971], 81) and Hazor stratum 2 (Yigael Yadin et al., Hazor 2: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960], 94; Yadin, Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970 [London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1972], 32).

34 The majority of Garstang’s tell pottery remains unpublished. It was distributed to supporting museums and institutions in Britain and Europe. The largest collection is at Garstang’s home institution, the University of Liverpool. I have examined the known collections and found additional examples of LB I forms. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Annie Caubet, conservator in chief, Marielle Pic and Patrick Pouys-segur, of the Dépt. des Antiquitiés Orientales, Musée du Louvre, for their kind assistance in making the necessary arrangements for me to examine the Jericho material in their collection. Travel funds for this examination were provided by a National Endowment for the Humanities grant and the generosity of members and friends of the Associates for Biblical Research, Akron, PA.

35 Inverted-rim bowls with a beveled outer edge and chocolate-on-white ware begin appearing with regularity in this phase (Jericho 4, figs. 104:3; 105:4, 18; Jericho 5, figs. 168:1, 9, 15; 169:6). They are both diagnostic types for the MB III period (Lawrence E. Toombs and Wright, "The Fourth Campaign at Balatah [Shechem]," BASOR 169 [1963]: 51; Amiran, Pottery, 158-59; Joe D. Seger, "Two Pottery Groups of Middle Bronze Shechem," in Wright, Shechem: Biography of a Biblical City [New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965], 236; Seger, "The Middle Bronze II C Date of the East Gate at Shechem," Levant 6 [1974]: 123, 130; J. B. Hennesy, "Chocolate-on-White Ware at Pella," Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. Jonathan N. Tubb [London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985]).

36 Kenyon, Jericho 3, 354-70.

37 Based on the ceramic evidence, I would suggest reassigning Phases 44 to 52 to the LB I period.

38 Garstang and Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 126.

39 Kenyon, Jericho 5, p. 763, sample BM-1790.

40 Amos Nur, quoted in "The Stanford Earth Scientist," pull-out section of the Stanford Observer (Stanford Univ. News Service), November 1988, p. 5.

41 Garstang and Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 139-40; John Garstang, Joshua, Judges (reprinted Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1978), 136-37.

42 Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, 58.

43 Kenyon found the foundations for this wall from phase one of the three phases of the defensive system. It was about 7 feet wide and she was able to trace it for about 16 feet (Digging Up Jericho, 216; Jericho 3, 374-75).

44 Kenyon, Jericho 3, 110. It is also possible that the bricks could have come from a parapet wall atop the stone revetment wall, if one existed at this point.

45 Kenyon, Jericho 3, 110.

46 The Austro-German team and Garstang also found evidence of collapsed bricks at the base of the revetment wall (Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, Abb. [Figure] 35.6; John Garstang, "Jericho: Sir Charles Marston’s Expedition," 128.

47 I am grateful to William H. Shea for this observation.

48 John Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 21: 105, 126; Garstang, "The Fall of Bronze Age Jericho," PEFQS 1935: 67; Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1219; Garstang and Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 122-23; Kenyon, Jericho 3, 370.

49 Nur, quoted in "The Stanford Earth Scientist," p. 5.

50 Sellin and Watzinger, Jericho, Taf. (Plan) III.

51 John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho. The Marston-Melchett Expedition," 192; Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 21: 122-23; Garstang, "The Fall of Bronze Age Jericho," 68; Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1220; Garstang and Garstang, The Story of Jericho, 123. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 232; Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 171, 181-82; Kenyon, Jericho 3, 368-70.

52 It is clear that the destruction continued beyond the excavation area, since erosion debris from upslope was colored brown, black and red by the burnt material it contained (Kenyon, Archaeology In the Holy Land, 182).

53 Kenyon, Jericho 3, 370.

54 John Garstang, "The Walls of Jericho. The Marston-Melchett Expedition," 193-94; Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," LAAA 21: 123, 128, 129; Garstang, "The Fall of Bronze Age Jericho," 66; Garstang, "Jericho and the Biblical Story," 1218. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 171; Kenyon, Jericho 3, 369-70.

55 Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, 230.

56 I am indebted to David Dorsey for calling this prohibition to my attention.

Bienkowski (1990)

from Bienkowski (1990)

In “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” BAR 16:02, Bryant Wood argued that the destruction level at Jericho (John Garstang’s City IV), previously dated by Kathleen Kenyon to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.), should be dated to the end of Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He pursues this argument in an attempt to show that this destruction was the one inflicted by the Israelites, as recorded in Joshua 6 and Judges 3.

Each of Wood’s arguments is flawed: At each point he is either wrong, does not take account of previously published data or his argument is simply irrelevant.

Introducing his topic, Wood says that Kenyon based her dating of Jericho City IV to the Middle Bronze Age on the absence of Cypriote imports of Late Bronze I. Wood states that imported Cypriote pottery in Palestine has been found primarily in tombs in large urban centers and thus we should not expect to find any at Jericho, a relatively marginal site. However, Cypriote imports were found at Jericho, both in tombs and on the tell, dating to Late Bronze II. ¹ Absence of Late Bronze I Cypriote imports may thus be significant, and Wood’s criticism of Kenyon is misplaced.

Wood notes Kenyon’s view that Jericho and other Middle Bronze Age sites were destroyed by the Hyksos fleeing from Egypt about 1550 B.C. He questions the historicity of this and its use as a basis for dating. This point, however, is irrelevant to the date of the destruction. It is perfectly legitimate to question Hyksos involvement 046in the destructions and yet to accept the Middle Bronze Age date, as I have done elsewhere by suggesting a period of fighting and mutual destruction between the Middle Bronze Age Palestinian towns. ²

Wood uses four lines of argument to support his conclusion that Jericho City IV was destroyed about 1400 B.C.: ceramic data, stratigraphical considerations, scarab evidence and a radiocarbon date. Having suggested why one of Wood’s arguments is misplaced and another is irrelevant, I will consider each of these arguments in turn to show why Wood’s conclusions are mistaken.

Ceramic Data

Wood illustrates five vessels, which he claims are Late Bronze I, not Middle Bronze II. ³ His argument is flawed in three ways:

Wood illustrates forms that have a long life and that are not particularly diagnostic of either the Middle or Late Bronze Age. Middle Bronze II parallels for most of these forms can be found at Gibeon, which is fairly close to Jericho and thus has a similar pottery repertoire. ⁴ He cites parallels for only two forms, from Hazor in the north of Palestine and Ashdod on the coast. His attempt to achieve a precise dating by parallels from such a distance is unconvincing. There is no reason to doubt the Middle Bronze dating of this pottery.

If the Hyksos were not involved in the destructions—as Wood himself argues—it is likely that the destructions at the end of the Middle Bronze Age at different sites occurred at different times and for different reasons. So the “end” of the Middle Bronze Age at different sites could be anywhere between about 1600 and 1500 B.C., or even later. For example, the “Middle Bronze Age” town of Gezer continued without destruction well into what archaeologists call the Late Bronze Age. ⁵ Aharon Kempinski has suggested that Jericho City IV was destroyed well before the end of Middle Bronze II. ⁶

Wood uses only published parallels to support his chronological conclusions. However, recent research has shown that during the Late Bronze Age there was a technological change in the production of pottery. There is growing evidence of the abandonment of the fast potter’s wheel, for example at Tell Deir ‘Alla, the Baq’ah Valley and, indeed, Jericho. ⁷ Although drawings of some of these Late Bronze Age handmade and slow-wheel-finished forms appear similar to Middle Bronze Age forms in manufacture, weight and “feel,” they are quite different. The pottery Wood cites from Jericho is entirely fast-wheel made and dates to Middle Bronze II.

Wood’s reference to what “appears” to be Late Bronze I Cypriote bichrome ware from Garstang’s excavations at Jericho is quite wrong. The pottery he illustrates⁸ is standard Late Bronze II painted ware, not Cypriote bichrome. ⁹ Wood is also wrong in ascribing this pottery to the erosional layers on the east side of the Jericho tell. The excavation markings on the pottery he illustrates (MI, MI/4, MIII) refer to rooms in the Late Bronze II structure overlooking the spring to the east of the tell, dating between about 1400 and 1275 B.C. ¹⁰

Stratigraphy

Wood refers to Kenyon’s Phase 32 as “the beginning of Middle Bronze III at Jericho,” starting about 1650 B.C., and argues for the implausibility of squeezing the following 20 phases into a mere 100 years. Elsewhere I have argued that it is difficult to divide the period between about 1800 and 1550 B.C. in Palestine into two parts, Middle Bronze II and Middle Bronze III.¹¹ Wood is wrong in citing certain pottery types as “diagnostic” of Middle Bronze III. ¹² There are no forms accepted as diagnostic of Middle Bronze III. ¹³ At Jericho, in particular, analysis of the pottery shows that there is no justification for any subdivision. ¹⁴ Similarly, no major stratigraphic break can be discerned at Jericho which might correlate with the Middle Bronze II/III subdivision. ¹⁵ Thus, Wood’s attempt to fix this fictional break “quite confidently” at Phase 32 is simply misinformation.

Scarab Evidence

Wood cites XVIIIth-Dynasty scarabs from the cemetery excavated by Garstang as evidence for continuity into Late Bronze I at Jericho. However, scarabs of well-known XVIIIth-Dynasty kings were very common, and could remain in circulation (or even be made) long after the kings themselves had died. The Middle Bronze Age Jericho tombs in which these scarabs were found were all reused in Late Bronze II. ¹⁶ Far more significant is the scarab of Maibre Sheshi of the XVth “Hyksos” Dynasty, found in Middle Bronze Age tomb H13 (Group V) at Jericho, which was not reused. ¹⁷ Scarabs of obscure Hyksos kings are not known to have been kept as heirlooms or manufactured later, and thus are a better guide to the absolute date of burial. The XVth-Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 would suggest a date of about 1600 B.C. for the end of the use of the Jericho tombs. ¹⁸

Radiocarbon Date

Wood cites a carbon-14 date of 1410 B.C. for a piece of charcoal found in the destruction debris of City IV, which he claims lends support to his view that the destruction of that level occurred about 1400 B.C. Unfortunately, Wood has ignored my treatment of this very point. ¹⁹ The carbon-14 date comes from the Middle Bronze Age building level Site H Stage XII.li, implying a Late Bronze Age occupation which does not occur at Site H until Stage XIV. However, this can be explained by probable contamination of Kenyon’s Stage XII from later Late Bronze Age levels: It is quite clear that Garstang penetrated through the floor of a room in Kenyon’s Stage XII, which is exactly where the carbon-14 sample came from. ²⁰

Conclusion

Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support this conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon’s dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood’s attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected.

Wood (1990b)

from Wood (1990b)

Piotr Bienkowski has challenged the results of my analysis of the date of the destruction of the fortified Bronze Age city at Jericho, maintaining that Kathleen Kenyon's date of about 1550 B.C.E. is correct and should be retained.

Before taking up Bienkowski's remarks, I wish to correct a misstatement at the beginning of his paper. He states that in my article,¹ I was attempting to show that the destruction was inflicted by the Israelites as recorded in Joshua 6 and Judges 3. This is an erroneous statement. The events described in Judges 3 did not enter into my discussion at all. I dealt with the correspondence that exists between the archaeological findings at Jericho and the Biblical account in Joshua 3-6. With a correction in the dating of the destruction of the city, it is now feasible to make a connection between the two.

Bienkowski's attempt to explain away the evidence for lowering the date of the destruction of Jericho is misguided and void of substance. Assertions made without data to back them up are unconvincing. His discussion is superficial, at best, lacking both depth and precision.

Bienkowski begins by making the point that since Cypriote imports from the Late Bronze IIA period (1400-1300 B.C.E.) were found at Jericho, Kenyon was quite correct in utilizing the absence of these wares from the Late Bronze I (1550-1400 B.C.E.) period as a basis for her dating. The occupation in Area H, however, where Kenyon found the ruined Bronze Age city, was much different in the Late Bronze II A period than in the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period. There was a protracted time of abandonment between the two periods, resulting in a cultural discontinuity. In the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period a fortified urban center existed at the site, with Area H being a poor domestic quarter. In the Late Bronze IIA period, on the other hand, Area H was occupied by an isolated palace, or residency, with associated outbuildings. Commercial relations, trade patterns and the types of ceramic wares in use would not necessarily be the same in the two periods. Be that as it may, it is simply poor methodology to base dating almost exclusively on the lack of imported pottery. While the "absence of Late Bronze I Cypriote imports may thus be significant" as Bienkowski has stated, the primary method of dating should be a thorough analysis of the local pottery. This has never been done. The presence or absence of imported pottery can be used as a supporting argument, but it should not be the sole basis for determining a date.²

Bienkowski next states that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in the mid-16th century bears no relevance to the dating of the destruction of Jericho. This was exactly my contention; I am glad that he agrees with me on this point! The two events should not be correlated, as Kenyon had done.³

Bienkowski then suggests that even though the Egyptians or Hyksos were not responsible for the destruction of Jericho, a destruction could have occurred in the mid-16th century as a result of local conflicts between the various Middle Bronze urban centers. Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of Bienkowski's suggestion, it contributes nothing to the determination of the date of the destruction of Jericho, the major issue at stake.

Bienkowski then turns to the four types of data which I put forward as evidence for a date of about 1400 B.C.E. for the destruction of Jericho. He discusses each item in turn, a format which I, too, shall follow. Of these four lines of evidence, the ceramic data are first and foremost. The other three are merely supportive and are not in and of themselves sufficient to compel a revision of Kenyon's date. Taken together, however, they form a strong case for lowering Kenyon's date.

Ceramic Data

A discussion of the ceramic data is somewhat premature, since my detailed study of the pottery of the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period at Jericho has not yet been published. Since Bienkowski raised a number of points, however, I shall be happy to discuss the pottery, probably to the chagrin of the majority of BAR readers! Bienkowski refers to the figure of pottery types that appeared on page 52 of my article and comments that they are forms "that have a long life and that are not particularly diagnostic of either the Middle or Late Bronze Age." The particular forms illustrated were chosen by the editors from a larger plate which I submitted with the article. The entire plate is reproduced here. The plate shows a selection of Late Bronze I forms from Kenyon's excavation. John Garstang, having excavated a much larger area, recovered many more diagnostic Late Bronze I types.

To begin with, it is important to recognize that the pottery of the Late Bronze I period is very similar to that of the final phase of the Middle Bronze period. In fact, the material culture of the Late Bronze I period is simply a continuation of that of the Middle Bronze period. As a result, many Middle Bronze forms continue into Late Bronze I. There are subtle differences in a number of types, however, and several new forms are introduced. With careful study of the pottery evidence, therefore, it is possible to distinguish the Late Bronze I period from the terminal phase of the Middle Bronze period. Let us now examine the pottery illustrated in the plate.

Figure 1 is referred to as a "flaring carinated bowl." This type has a long history, as Bienkowski points out. But during this history, changes were taking place. In the Middle Bronze period, the bowl had a pronounced crimp at the point of carination. In the Late Bronze period, on the other hand, the crimp became less pronounced until it finally disappears altogether at the end of the Late Bronze Age.⁴ In the Late Bronze I period, then, the crimp is generally less pronounced than in the Middle Bronze period. Bienkowski cites a Middle Bronze II parallel for this form from Gibeon tomb 30.⁵ Here, Bienkowski is falling into the same trap as Kenyon—he is using unstratified tomb pottery to date a stratified occupational deposit! Bienkowski himself has commented on the impropriety of this procedure.⁶ Tomb groups are isolated deposits which cannot be placed in a chronological sequence as can stratified tell deposits. Moreover, tombs were often used for long periods of time; the material in them is mixed and represents a wide chronological spectrum. Stratified tell material should be given preference over tomb material, rather than the reverse. Given that the material in Gibeon tomb 30 all dates to the Middle Bronze II period as Bienkowski suggests, the discerning eye will note that the Gibeon example has a more pronounced crimp and therefore should be placed earlier than the Jericho example. One could argue this point, however, since the difference is slight. The important point is that the flaring carinated bowl with slight crimp is perfectly at home in the Late Bronze I period, as seen by the many parallels from well-dated stratified Late Bronze I contexts such as Lachish Fosse Temple I,⁷ Megiddo IX,⁸ Hazor 2,⁹ Hazor cistern 9024, level 3¹⁰ and Hazor cistern 7021, level C.¹¹

Figures 2, 3 and 4 are conical bowls with concentric circles painted on the inside. I discussed this type at some length in my article since it is a strong diagnostic indicator for the latter half of the Late Bronze I period.¹² It is one of "only two forms" for which I cited parallels in the article. The reason for this is obvious. A semipopular journal such as BAR is not the place to enter into a detailed discussion of Late Bronze I pottery. Bienkowski dismisses the cited Late Bronze I parallels from Ashdod and Hazor by stating that an "attempt to achieve a precise dating by parallels from such a distance is unconvincing." This is a desperate attempt to discount this telling evidence. The distances to these sites are well within the orbit of itinerant merchants, the primary agents for the diffusion of ceramic wares in antiquity. Thus, similar types at these sites should be considered to be contemporary.¹³ Not only is the conical bowl with interior concentric circles a major bowl type in the latter half of Late Bronze I levels of Ashdod and Hazor, but it is also found at virtually every site where there are remains from the latter half of Late Bronze I, such as Lachish Fosse Temple I,¹⁴ Shechem XIV,¹⁵ Mevorakh XI¹⁶ and Megiddo VIII.¹⁷

Figures 5, 6 and 7 are bowl types that are more in the Late Bronze tradition than Middle Bronze. Parallels from Late Bronze I strata are, for figure 5, Rabud LB4¹⁸ and Shechem XIV;¹⁹ for figure 6, Lachish Fosse Temple I;²⁰ for figure 7, Lachish Fosse Temple I,²¹ Mevorakh XI,²² Megiddo VIII²³ and Hazor 2.²⁴

Figure 8 is a store jar for which Bienkowski cites a supposed Middle Bronze parallel from one of the Gibeon tombs.²⁵ The parallel in this case is invalid. Bienkowski's "parallel" is not a store jar at all, but rather a smaller jar usually called a water jar. It has a rim diameter of about 5.1 inches compared to 6.1 inches for our figure 8, while its maximum body diameter is 10.6 inches compared to 16.5 inches. These are two completely different types of vessels with differing modes of typological development. In the Middle Bronze period, the store jar comparable to our figure 8 had a short neck and a thick heavy rim, many times profiled, which was only slightly everted. In the Late Bronze Age, on the other hand, the neck was longer, with a simple outward-folded rim that had a more pronounced eversion. The Jericho store jar can be compared with Late Bronze I examples from Lachish Fosse Temple I,²⁶ Rabud LB4,²⁷ Shechem XIV²⁸ and Hazor cistern 7021, level C.²⁹

Figure 9 is a saucer lamp with slight pinching to form a spout. Good parallels are found in Lachish Fosse Temple I.³⁰

Figures 10, 11 and 12 are round-bottomed, everted-rim cooking pots. Figure 10 simply shows the continuation of the simple everted rim which had its beginnings in the Middle Bronze period. Parallels in Late Bronze I are found in Lachish Fosse Temple I,³¹ Shechem XIV,³² Michal XVI,³³ Mevorakh XI³⁴ and Hazor 2.³⁵ Figure 11 is significant because it shows the widened rim flange which developed in the course of the Late Bronze I period. The evolution of the cooking pot during the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze transitional period is well documented at Jericho. The end of this developmental series is firmly tied to similar examples from Lachish Fosse Temple I³⁶ and other Late Bronze I deposits such as Rabud LB4,³⁷ Ashdod XVII,³⁸ Michal XVI³⁹ and Hazor XV/2.⁴⁰ Figure 12 is the other type for which I cited references in the article because, again, this is a distinctive form unique to the Late Bronze I period.⁴¹ It has an unusual feature—an inner lip, or gutter, which may have served to support a cover. Well-stratified parallels have been found in Hazor 2.⁴²

Figure 13 is a water jar decorated with painted stripes. This form also is a Late Bronze form not found in the Middle Bronze period. Similar decorated jars are found in Late Bronze I contexts in Ashdod XVII,⁴³ Hazor 2⁴⁴ and Hazor cistern 7021, level C.⁴⁵

Last but not least is figure 14, a dipper juglet for which Bienkowski gives us a Middle Bronze parallel in Gibeon tomb ll.⁴⁶ Although this type had its beginnings at the end of the Middle Bronze period, it is transitional between the long dipper juglet of the Middle Bronze and the Late Bronze II short dipper juglet, and is the common form for Late Bronze I. Good Late Bronze parallels come from Lachish Fosse Temple.⁴⁷

Bienkowski's second point under Ceramic Data is puzzling. He states that the Middle Bronze period ended at different times at different sites for different reasons. That is all well and good, but what does that have to do with the date of the destruction of Jericho? The implication is that each site must be investigated individually to determine the date and nature of its demise. This is exactly what I am advocating for Jericho! We can no longer say that all of the Middle Bronze centers in Palestine came to an end at the same time by the same agency, as has been argued in the past. He then goes on to say, "Kempinski suggested that Jericho City IV was destroyed well before the end of Middle Bronze II." Checking the reference for this statement,⁴⁸ we find that Kempinski said nothing of the sort. The reference is to a comparative stratigraphic-chronological table in which Kempinski places Kenyon's tomb group V in the mid-17th century B.C.E. He says nothing about the tell strata. It is extremely difficult to correlate the tomb groups with the tell strata,⁴⁹ as Bienkowski himself has acknowledged.⁵⁰

In point 3 under Ceramic Data, Bienkowski suggests that there was a technological change in pottery manufacture in going from the Middle Bronze to Late Bronze I ("fast" wheel versus "slow" wheel), and that since all of the pottery I illustrated was made on a fast wheel it must date to the Middle Bronze. Again, Bienkowski has his facts mixed up. Patrick E. McGovern has conclusively shown that the switch from fast wheel to slow wheel took place between Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II, not between the end of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze I.⁵¹ Pottery in Late Bronze I was made on a fast wheel, as it was in the Middle Bronze period. I would question how Bienkowski reached the conclusion that "the pottery Wood cites from Jericho is entirely fast-wheel-made." It is not always possible to make a conclusive determination of the method of manufacture from an examination of the vessel itself, let alone from a drawing. Based on considerable xeroradiographic testing of ceramics from the Baq'ah Valley in Jordan, McGovern concluded that "macroscopically visible features of ceramics are not adequate in defining specific technologies and their development."⁵²

Bienkowski next takes up the matter of the pottery decorated with black and red paint which I said "appears to be imported Cypriote bichrome ware."⁵³ Bienkowski says this is "standard Late Bronze II painted ware." Not so! The fabric of the Jericho bichrome pottery is much different than the local Late Bronze II wares. The fabric of Late Bronze II pottery generally is of a poor quality. It has large grits and is not fired all the way through. The Jericho bichrome pottery, on the other hand, is of a high quality. It is the pinkish-buff, well-levigated fabric common to Cypriote bichrome ware. It has a finely ground temper all but invisible to the naked eye and is well fired with no core. Garstang published a considerable amount of this pottery, which he referred to as "red ware." Among the sherds he published are several with classic Cypriote bichrome ware motifs.⁵⁴

Bienkowski clinches his argument by stating that this pottery did not come from the erosional layers on the east side of the tell as I stated, but rather from the rooms of the Late Bronze II "Middle Building," as the markings on the sherds indicate. Again, Bienkowski has not done his homework. Following the destruction of the Bronze Age city at Jericho, the site lay abandoned for a considerable period of time. During this period, material from the top of the tell washed down the slopes, forming a thick layer of erosional debris (Garstang's "streak," Kenyon's "wash"). Toward the end of the Late Bronze IIA period (second half of the 14th century B.C.E.), a large palace or residency (Garstang's Middle Building), with its associated outbuildings, was built into the erosional layer on the east side of the tell. The Middle Building was occupied only for a generation or so and then abandoned. After this abandonment, material again washed down from the higher elevations, covering the ruined building.⁵⁵ When Garstang excavated the Middle Building, he found almost no pottery on the floors of the building itself,⁵⁶ a fact duly noted by Bienkowski.⁵⁷ For record-keeping purposes, however, Garstang labeled his finds according to the areas defined by the rooms of the Middle Building, with notations concerning the level, that is, whether from high in the debris (the upper erosional layer), on the floor of the building, beneath the foundations of the structure (the erosional layer below) or, in some cases, in the ruins of the Bronze Age city below. Thus, as Kenyon observed some time ago,⁵⁸ most of the pottery excavated by Garstang in this area came from the erosional layers above or beneath the Middle Building, even though it was labeled with the room numbers of the Middle Building. Since there were no other Late Bronze II structures up slope of the Middle Building, even the material that covered the ruined building after its abandonment was from the earlier Bronze Age city. Since there was little in situ material in the structure, and since it was occupied only for a relatively short period of time, almost all of the pottery recovered from this area derives from the earlier Bronze Age city.

Let us now examine the exact find spots for each of the bichrome sherds illustrated in my original article.

Stratigraphy

Bienkowski says that I am off base in claiming that the Middle Bronze III period begins at Phase 32 at Jericho, because it is not possible to identify pottery from the final phase of the Middle Bronze period. In fact, he goes so far as to say "there are no forms accepted as diagnostic of Middle Bronze III." With this statement, Bienkowski brushes aside 30 years of research by some of the finest scholars in the field of Palestinian archaeology! Men such as Joe Seger,⁶³ Dan Cole,⁶⁴ Bill Dever⁶⁵ and others have spent many years studying Middle Bronze pottery in order to isolate the features that differentiate the final phase from the middle phase.⁶⁶ I will not enter into the results of their research. Suffice it to say, it is possible to recognize the pottery of the final phase of the Middle Bronze period. One can argue whether this should be labeled as a separate period or simply a later phase of the earlier period.⁶⁷ This is a matter of semantics. The important point is that, from a chronological perspective, the stratigraphic levels belonging to the final phase of the Middle Bronze period can be identified. In addition to the inverted-rim bowls with beveled outer edge cited in my article,⁶⁸ another important ceramic type characteristic of the Middle Bronze III period is white-slipped and burnished fine ware.⁶⁹ Both the unpainted⁷⁰ and painted (usually referred to as "Chocolate-on-White" ware)⁷¹ varieties already appear in Phase 32. The appearance of the flat-bottomed cooking pot with molding at the rim⁷² and the everted-rim cooking pot⁷³ attest to the Middle Bronze III nature of Phases 32-36 at Jericho. Similar pottery in Shechem XVIB (temenos 6),⁷⁴ the first Middle Bronze III stratum at that site, securely places Jericho Phase 32 at the beginning of the Middle Bronze III period.

Scarab Evidence

Bienkowski cautions against using royal-name scarabs for dating purposes since "scarabs of well-known XVIIIth-Dynasty kings were very common, and could remain in circulation (or even be made) long after the kings themselves had died." The scarabs in question are those of Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III.⁷⁵ I would heartily agree with Bienkowski with regard to scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, but the scarab of Hatshepsut is of a different nature. Both Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III were revered after their deaths and their scarabs served amuletic purposes. The situation with Hatshepsut, however, was not the same. After her death she was maligned, her name systematically obliterated from monuments and inscriptions.⁷⁶ As a result, her scarabs were not kept or copied as good luck charms. Because of this, scarabs of Hatshepsut are extremely rare and are excellent chronological indicators. In addition, Garstang found a seal of Tuthmosis III. It is flat and inscribed on both sides with the cartouches of this pharaoh. Again, this is a rare find and can be considered a contemporary artifact. With these two being contemporary, it lends credence to the contemporaneity of the other scarabs. The scarab of Hatshepsut and the seal of Tuthmosis III, then, along with the associated scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, suggest that the cemetery at Jericho was in active use throughout the 15th century B.C.E.

Radiocarbon Date

Bienkowski rightly points out that Garstang had previously made a sounding in Kenyon's Area H. He then suggests that the radiocarbon sample Kenyon took from this area was from Garstang's pit, which was contaminated with material from the Late Bronze Middle Building above. Thus the sample yielded a date in the Late Bronze rather than the Middle Bronze. This is highly unlikely. Kenyon was digging a layer of severely burned debris from the destruction of the Bronze Age city as much as 3 feet thick. Included in this debris were collapsed roof beams, a hearth surrounded by a "thick spread of charcoal" and a quantity of charred sticks.⁷⁷ Bienkowski wishes us to believe that Kenyon, the epitome of the careful, accurate, scientific excavator, turned her back on this material and instead took her sample from an intrusive pit that she herself acknowledged was there!⁷⁸ Personally, I would give her more credit than that. This issue could be resolved quite simply by checking Kenyon's field records, something Bienkowski could easily do.

JW: One uncalibrated radiocarbon date presented by Wood (1990a) is of limited chronological use.

A review of the evidence relevant to the date of the destruction of Jericho reveals that Bienkowski's objections do not stand up to critical assessment. Kenyon's Phase 32 is strongly linked to Shechem XVIB, which dates to the beginning of the Middle Bronze III period. Phase 52, the destroyed Bronze Age city, on the other hand, is solidly correlated with the Late Bronze IB strata of Shechem XIV, Lachish Fosse Temple I, Ashdod XVII, Hazor 2, Megiddo VIII, Mevorakh XI, Michal XVI and Rabud LB4.

Unless Bienkowski is prepared to rewrite the archaeological history of Palestine, he is going to have to accept the fact that Jericho was destroyed early in the Late Bronze Age, in about 1400 B.C.E.

Fotnotes

1 Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho." Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 1990, 44-58.

2 Kay Prag, "The Imitation of Cypriote Wares in Late Bronze Age Palestine," in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. Jonathan N. Tubb (London: Institute of Archaeology, 1985), 155-56; Barry M. Gittlen, "Studies in the Late Cypriote Pottery Found in Palestine," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1977), 523.

3 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," p. 58, notes 24-26.

4 Wood, "Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: An Investigation of the Terminal LB IIB Phase," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1985), 374-76; Larry G. Herr, "Pottery: A Boon to Archaeologists," Ministry (July 1984), 28-29.

5 James B. Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery at Gibeon, Museum Monograph (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1963), fig. 32: 11.

6 Piotr Bienkowski, "The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Palestine," Levant 21 (1989): 172.

7 Olga Tufnell, Charles H. Inge, and Lankester Harding, Lachish 2: The Fosse Temple (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1940), pl. 42: 129.

8 Gordon Loud, Megiddo 2: Seasons of 1935-39, Oriental Institute Publications, Vol. 42 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1948), pl. 53: 19.

9 Yigael Yadin et al., Hazor 3-4: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), pl. 263: 3-16.

10 Yadin et al., Hazor 1: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958), pl. 123: 1-9.

11 Yadin et al., Hazor 1, pl. 136: 1-7.

12 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," p. 52 and n. 33.

13 Bryant G. Wood, The Sociology of Pottery in Ancient Palestine: The Ceramic Industry and the Diffusion of Ceramic Style in the Bronze and Iron Ages, JSOT/ASOR Monograph Series 4, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 103 (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1990).

14 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pl. 37: 1.

15 Lawrence E. Toombs and G. Ernest Wright, "The Fourth Campaign at Balâtah (Shechem)," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 169 (1963): fig. 23: 2.

16 Ephraim Stern, Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part Two: The Bronze Age, Qedem 18 (Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ., 1984), fig. 5: 7.

17 Loud, Megiddo 2, pl. 61: 18.

18 Moshe Kochavi, "Khirbet Rabud Debir," Tel Aviv 1 (1974): fig. 4: 3.

19 Toombs and Wright, "The Fourth Campaign," fig. 23: 1.

20 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pls. 41: 98, 104, 105; pls. 42: 127.

21 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pls. 37: 3, 4, 7 and 38: 32, 33.

22 Stern, Mevorakh 2, fig. 5: 11-14.

23 Loud, Megiddo 2, pl. 61: 13, 14.

24 Yadin et al, Hazor 3-4, pl. 288: 3.

25 Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery, fig. 69: 8.

26 Tufnell et al, Lachish 2, pg. 57: 389.

27 Kochavi, "Khirbet Rabûd," fig. 4: 10.

28 Toombs and Wright, "The Fourth Campaign," fig. 23:14.

29 Yadin et al., Hazor 1, pl. 141:2.

30 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pl. 45: 186, 187.

31 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pl. 355: 361.

32 Toombs and Wright, "The Fourth Campaign," fig. 23: 19, 20.

33 Ze'ev Herzog, George Rapp, Jr., and Ora Negbi, ed., Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Michal), Publ. of Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology No. 8 (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1989), fig. 5.6: 3.

34 Stern, Mevorakh 2, fig. 7: 9.

35 Yadin et al., Hazor 1, pl. 138: 4.

36 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pl. 55: 354.

37 Kochavi, "Khirbet Rabûd," fig. 4:6.

38 Moshe Dothan, Ashdod 2-3: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967, 'Atiqot English series, vols. 9-10 (Jerusalem: Dept. of Antiquities and Museums, 1971), fig. 33:7.

39 Herzog et al., Michal, fig. 5.6: 8.

40 Yadin et al., Hazor 3-4, pls. 199: 19 and 289:7.

41 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," 51-52. Also, see Herzog et al., Michal, 53.

42 Yadin et al., Hazor 1, pl. 139: 1-4.

43 Dothan, Ashdod 2-3, fig. 33: 13.

44 Yadin et al., Hazor 3-4, pl. 266:15.

45 Yadin et al., Hazor 1, pl. 141: 12.

46 Pritchard, The Bronze Age Cemetery, fig. 16:2.

47 Tufnell et al., Lachish 2, pg. 52: 297, 303.

48 Aharon Kempinski, Syrien und Palastina (Kanaan) in der Letzten Phase der Mittelbronze IIB-Zeit (1650-1570 v. Chr.) (Weisbaden, Ger.: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), 225.

49 William A. Ward, "Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context," American Joumal of Archaeology 91 (1987): 518-21; Kathleen M. Kenyon and Thomas A. Holland, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds (Jericho 4) (London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem [BSAJ], 1982), 270-74.

50 Bienkowski, "The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C," 172-73.

51 Patrick E. McGovern, The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages of Central Transjordan (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1986), 172-77.

52 McGovern, The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, 177; see also 167 and 176.

53 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," 52. It is also possible that it was a locally made imitation (see Bryant G. Wood, "The Stratigraphic Relationship of Local and Imported Bichrome Ware at Megiddo," Levant 14 [1982]: 73-79). The two types are impossible to distinguish, except by neutron activation testing (see Michal Artzy, F. Asaro, and I. Perlman, "Imported and Local Bichrome Ware in Megiddo," Levant 10 [1978]: 99-111).

54 John Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fourth Report," University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21 (1934): pls. 29:4, 7, 12; 34: 3; 36: 12; 39: 5.

55 Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," 106.

56 Garstang "Jericho: City and Necropolis," 111.

57 Piotr Bienkowski, Jericho in the Late Bronze Age (Warminster, UK: Aris and Phillips, 1986), 112.

58 Kathleen Kenyon, "Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium. B.C.," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83 (1951): 120-21.

59 Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," caption of the plate in which the sherd was published, pl. 33: 18.

60 Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," p. 111; published in p. 31:8.

61 Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," p. 111; published in p. 34: 10.

62 Garstang, "Jericho: City and Necropolis," caption of the plate in which the sherd was published, pl. 32: 16.

63 Joe Seger, "The Pottery of Palestine at the Close of the Middle Bronze Age," unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1965.

64 Dan P. Cole, Shechem I: The Middle Bronze IIB Pottery, American Schools of Oriental Research Excavation Reports (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1984).

65 William G. Dever, Gezer IV: The 1969-71 Seasons in Field VI, the "Acropolis" (Jerusalem: Keter Press, 1986), 33-35; Dever, "The MB IIC Stratification in the Northwest Gate Area at Shechem," BASOR 216 (1974): 31-52.

66 See also Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" p. 58 n. 35.

67 Bienkowski, "The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C."

68 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," p. 58, n. 35.

69 J.B. Hennessy, "Chocolate-on-White Ware at Pella," pp. 100-13 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages, pp. 110-113; A. Bernard Knapp, "Pots, PIXE, and Data Processing at Pella in Jordan," BASOR 266 (1987): 1-30.

70 Kenyon and Holland, Jericho 4, figs. 103: 6 and 118: 2.

71 Kenyon and Holland, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds (Jericho 5) (London: BSAJ, 1983), figs. 168: 15; 169: 6; 170: 1; 210: 9.

72 Kenyon and Holland, Jericho 5, fig. 170: 11.

73 Kenyon and Holland, Jericho 4, fig. 151: 2.

74 Toombs and Wright, "The Fourth Campaign," fig. 25: 45, 46; Dever, "The MB IIC Stratification," fig. 14: 25; Joe Seger, "The Middle Bronze IIC Date of the East Gate at Shechem," Levant 6 (1974): fig. 3: 12, 17, 25, 26, 31.

75 Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?," 53.

76 Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 182.

77 Kathleen M. Kenyon, ed. Thomas A. Holland, Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell (Jericho 3) (London: BSAJ, 1981), 368-70; the publication of the sample merely states that it was "charcoal," without giving further details as to the nature of the sample or where it was taken from (Jericho 5, 762-63).

78 Kenyon, Jericho 3, 368.

Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

Notes

Jericho Estimated period of occurrence c. 2300–1950 BC. Extract of pertinent statement by author relating to earthquake damage:

Trench I

‘Intermediate Early Bronze Age–Middle Bronze Period. In Stage XLI there was apparently a period of EB–MB camping occupation during which there is no evidence of solid buildings. During this period the W-shaped ditch of Stage XXXIX gradually silted up. In the silt were shards of EB–MB pottery.

In Stage XLII, phase 1IV, the first EB–MB houses appear. They are terraced into the underlying deposits. An area of erosion between a western and eastern complex has removed any stratigraphical links. The western complex is built over the stage XLI fill in the ditch. In it were two solid clay blocks in adjacent rooms, which might be altars. A foundation burial beneath the dividing wall and a bin that could have been for offerings could support the suggestion of a cult center, but this is not certain. The eastern complex, of irregular plan, on three widely different levels, is terraced into the EB deposits, on the south side cutting back into the final EB town wall. All the walls are of the characteristic EB–MB type, a single brick-course thick, and the bricks are of the distinctive greenish clay of the period.

After a period of which the length is indicated by a considerable number of occupation levels, and some rebuilding, there was in phase 1IV a considerable rebuilding. In the eastern complex this consisted only of slight extensions of the middle terrace and a considerable raising of level in the western terrace. In the western complex most of the original walls are rebuilt and the wall dividing the original two rooms disappears, as do the solid clay blocks. A new division in the eastern part of the complex is only just within the excavated area.

In the western complex there is above the phase 1IV floors a considerable collapse and a raised floor, with a new wall creating a passage.

The collapse of the final EB–MB buildings is marked by a tumble of bricks on the floors. A ragged gully that has removed the western walls of the eastern complex may be evidence of an earthquake. The collapse and the gully are covered by a silt wash that must indicate a period of abandonment and erosion before the MB bank was constructed. Within this erosion period, a gully cut down deeply on the south side of the excavated area and was then refilled’ (Kenyon 1981, 16).

‘XLII. Tr. I In the eastern complex, wall JD is at the north side of the trench cut down into the burnt debris against the face of EB Town Wall M (pl. 88a), the final EB town wall, and into the underlying fill, to the depth of 2 m. To the east, the contemporary floor sealed the EB wall, while to the west the floor was nearly at the foot of wall JD; the difference in level was 1.85 m. The original wall JD only survives for a short distance beyond the earlier line, and is then extensively patched in stone. To the south, beyond the patch, the wall angles sharply back to the south-east, and cuts right into the brickwork of wall M, with its foundations resting on the stone foundations of that wall (pl. 88b). At the point where wall JD angles back, wall JE runs up to it from the west.

The original west wall of the room west of wall JD was JF, which likewise cuts down into the EB levels. The original level to the west of JF was presumably at the foot of the wall, and therefore 0.55 m below that to the east. The existing surfaces, however, run up to a steep slope at the foot of wall JF, and the earliest surviving is 0.50 m beneath the foot of the wall. This was presumably the result of erosion, followed by a period when occupation levels gradually raised the floor nearly to the base of the wall. The pit against the western foot of JD may also be the result of erosion, filled by subsequent occupation. The fill of these erosion areas is hatched as 1IV (E) b.

The western end of this complex is lost in a ragged gully (section I, pl. 236, c. 17 m W.), which cuts it off from the western complex. Presumably somewhere in the area destroyed by the gully there was a wall bounding this terrace, and there was either a lower terrace joining the two complexes, or a connecting surface; in either case evidence was removed by erosion at the end of the EB–MB period. The gully is covered by the wash of this erosion period; it could be a rain-water gully, but is perhaps more likely to be in origin an earthquake crack’ (Kenyon 1981, 106–107).

‘L’étude minutieuse à laquelle nous nous sommes livrée, nous a permis d’établir que les couches de destruction et d’incendie de Beit Mirsim, niveau C1, celles du Bronze Récent II de Jéricho... ont été la conséquence du même tremblement de terre qui a ravagé Ugarit vers 1365 avant notre ère’ (Schaeffer 1948, 5).

‘Selon ces indices et étant donné la nature des trouvailles, il est permis d’admettre que la destruction du second palais et d’une partie de la ville de Jéricho par un tremblement de terre correspond à la destruction due à la même cause du niveau C1 de Beit Mirsim et de l’Ugarit Récent 2, vers 1365. Cette date est donc plus basse que celle proposée par le fouilleur pour la destruction du second palais, env. 1425 avant notre ère.

Une tablette incomplète et brûlée en cunéiformes a été retirée de la couche correspondant au second palais. D’après Mr. Sidney Smith, la tablette semble être du XIVe siècle et il pense qu’elle n’est pas plus ancienne que l’époque d’El Amarna. Étant donné son état de conservation, il y a donc une forte chance qu’elle soit antérieure au tremblement de terre et à l’incendie de Jéricho de 1365.

Cette conclusion s’accorde avec le fait qu’à Ras Shamra toutes les tablettes jusqu’ici trouvées sont aussi antérieures au séisme de 1365. Comme nous l’avons observé à Ras Shamra, à Jéricho aussi les bâtiments avaient été relevés ou réparés après le tremblement de terre et utilisés pendant la dernière période du Bronze Récent. Ils ont tous été détruits de nouveau, cette fois au cours d’une conflagration générale qui avait consumé la dernière ville du Bronze, appelée ville D par le fouilleur. La destruction a été suivie par un hiatus et une occupation intermittente’ (Schaeffer 1948, 139).

‘The LB II levels at Jericho appear to end c. 1275 BCE, so that Schaeffer’s c. 1365 BCE date is much too high’ (Dever 1992, 31 n. 3).

References

Ambraseys, N. N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900.

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage

Kennedy (2023)

Abstract

from Kennedy (2023:1)

The ancient city of Jericho, located at the archaeological site of Tell es-Sultan west of the Jordan River and adjacent to the Ein es-Sultan spring on the edge of modern Jericho, has often been associated with the biblical city of Jericho and the story found in the book of Joshua. The identification of Jericho with Tell es-Sultan is not disputed, and numerous excavation teams have affirmed Tell es-Sultan as Jericho. While excavations have also uncovered the fiery destruction of a walled city at Jericho, the date of the fall of Bronze Age Jericho and the association of this destruction with the narrative in the book of Joshua have been a point of disagreement among archaeologists for more than a century. The first excavations at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) occurred in 1868 under the direction of Charles Warren, followed by soundings conducted by F. J. Bliss in 1894, the expeditions of 1907–1909 and 1911 by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, the excavations of 1930–1936 directed by John Garstang, the 1952–1958 project of Kathleen Kenyon, brief excavations by Shimon Riklin in 1992, and the most recent excavations and restorations by the joint Italian-Palestinian team from 1997 to 2000 under Nicolo Marchetti and Lorenzo Nigro, followed by the 2009–2017 seasons directed by Jehad Yasin, Hamdan Taha, and Lorenzo Nigro. Although there is a significant deviation in views over the exact date of the destruction and abandonment, archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment. However, assessing all of the archaeological data from Jericho IVc, both new and old, including pottery wares, Egyptian scarabs, a cuneiform tablet, stratigraphic analysis, and radiocarbon samples, allows a more definitive historical reconstruction concerning the chronology of the destruction of Jericho and its connections to the biblical narratives.

1. Introduction

from Kennedy (2023:2)

... The current, prevailing view amongst modern archaeologists regarding Jericho is that the narrative in the book of Joshua about the destruction of the walled city is a "romantic mirage," which contradicts the archaeological findings, and that "there was no trace of a settlement" around 1230 BC, "the suggested date of the conquest" (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, pp. 76, 81-82; Joshua 6: 1-26)¹. This perspective is widely held in academia and asserts that the Jericho conquest is a later literary invention and mythical propaganda devoid of historical information, or at best a legendary historical core that might preserve loosely similar earlier events combined with reflections of later periods (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, pp. 107, 118; Dever 2003, pp. 51-74; Na'aman 1994, pp. 280-81; Fritz 1987, p. 84; Killebrew 2005, p. 152; Finkelstein and Mazar 2007, pp. 61-62; Lemche 1985, p. 56; Thompson 1987; Van Seters 2001). However, many other scholars have argued that the conquest of Jericho was a historical event that archaeological data supports (e.g., Albright 1957, pp. 273-89; Bright 1981, pp. 129-43; Garstang [1931] 1978; Wood 1999, pp. 35-42; Younger 2009, pp. 237-41). Within this "historical" view are two main subdivisions: that the fall of Jericho occurred about 1230 BC in Late Bronze IIB or that the destruction happened around 1400 BC at the end of Late Bronze IB. Although the vast majority of scholars over the last few decades have placed the hypothetical conquest of Jericho in the 13th century BC, and that is primarily the view mentioned and summarily rejected by most modern scholars, the conclusions of Kenyon following her excavations at Jericho asserted that neither ca. 1230 BC nor ca. 1400 BC would be possible for the fall of Jericho, since allegedly the last Bronze Age city existed during the Middle Bronze Age in the 16th century BC, not anytime in the Late Bronze Age, and therefore the story contradicts archaeological findings at the site (Kenyon 1957, pp. 213-18, 257-58; 1967; 1970; 1975, pp. 562-64)². The debate between a conquest of Jericho in the 13th century BC versus around 1400 BC has been extensively discussed elsewhere and in relation to the Exodus and conquest generally, but it is almost universally acknowledged by archaeologists that there is no trace of the destruction of Jericho in the 13th century BC or an inhabited and walled city of Jericho at that time (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, p. 76; Wood 2005, pp. 475-89; 2007, pp. 249-58; Hoffmeier 2007, pp. 225-47).³ However, the dispute at Jericho revolves around archaeological data related to the date of the fall of Jericho city IV, the final Bronze Age city, and how closely the specifics of the Joshua narrative about the fallen walls, fire destruction, looting, timing, and subsequent abandonment and settlement match the findings at the site. ...

Footnotes

1 The conquest of Canaan, the Holy Land, is also mentioned in the Quran (Surah 5 Al-Ma'ida, 20-26), although the city of Jericho is not specified.

2 The view of Kenyon that Jericho was destroyed around 1550 BC was based primarily on the expulsion of the Hyksos and the alleged lack of Cypriot pottery of the Late Bronze Age discovered in the Jericho excavations. Note that Watzinger thought that Jericho was destroyed by 1600 BC or even earlier in an evaluation of his excavations (cf. Watzinger 1926).

3 The view that the conquest of Canaan occurred during the 13th century BC or around approximately 1230 BC was promoted by Albright and prompted by his excavation findings of destruction at Tell Beit Mirsim which he dated to the 13th century BC and connected to the conquest of Canaan.

2. The Middle Bronze Age Wall at Jericho

from Kennedy (2023:3)

Jericho is one of the many settlements in Canaan where a formidable fortification system was constructed during the Middle Bronze Age. During this period, the people of Jericho built a cyclopean wall around the city, which utilized a stone retaining wall and an upper wall of mudbrick. This city wall was rebuilt in Middle Bronze III around 1600 BC and encompassed an area of about 17 acres, although part of the site was destroyed in modern times due to road construction, so calculations are only approximate (Nigro and Taha 2009, pp. 731-34; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). According to the early German excavations, when less damage had been done to the site, the stone retaining wall was approximately 4 to 5 m high, and the upper mudbrick wall on top of the retaining wall was approximately 6 to 8 m high and 2 m thick (Sellin and Watzinger [1913] 1973, p. 58; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). Inside this was another wall, made of mudbrick, which, according to the Italian-Palestinian team, reached a height of 12.11 m above ground level outside of the fortifications (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 142). Both a stone retaining wall and a rampart of debris piled on the MB I and MB II fortifications were built in MB III, or approximately 1650-1550 BC/1600-1500 BC (Marchetti et al. 1998, pp. 131, 138, 141; Marchetti 2003, pp. 311-12; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 731; Nigro 2020, p. 201). Besides the ceramic typology indicating the date of the construction in Middle Bronze III, excavations have demonstrated that the Cyclopean Wall cuts through Tower A1, which was in use during Middle Bronze I and II (Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 734). A report about the 1952 excavations had come to similar conclusions, stating that the latest surviving defenses are Middle Bronze Age and that this system had been preceded by two previous Middle Bronze Age walls built prior (Tushingham 1952, pp. 8-10). Although these final city walls appear to have been constructed in Middle Bronze III, this does not mean that Jericho had no walls in the subsequent Late Bronze I period. Rather, as was the case at many other sites in Canaan, the massive fortifications could have remained in use into the Late Bronze Age or beyond. One of the clearest parallels for this comes from Hazor, where it was obvious that the city of the Late Bronze Age reused Middle Bronze fortifications and repaired or strengthened them, and this was perhaps also the case at Jericho (Yadin 1959, pp. 9-19; 1975, pp. 266-67; 1982, p. 22). Other sites, such as Gezer and Tell Jerishe, demonstrate the continued use of the Middle Bronze Age fortification system into the Late Bronze Age (Dever 1992, p. 17; Sukenik 1942, p. 199). It is therefore possible that the city wall built at Jericho in Middle Bronze III continued to be used into the subsequent period of Late Bronze Age I. However, whether or not the city was occupied in Late Bronze I can only be determined by an analysis of other data. (See Figure below).

3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

from Kennedy (2023:4-7)

Temporarily setting aside the question of Middle Bronze III versus Late Bronze I for the fall of Jericho IVc, while acknowledging the possibility that the Middle Bronze Age fortifications could have continued in use into the Late Bronze Age, the correlation between the manner of destruction found in excavations at Jericho and the Joshua narrative about the conquest of Jericho should be examined. The book of Joshua records that not long after the spring harvest, the Israelites besieged Jericho, the walls of the city fell, the army walked up into the city, a restriction had been placed to not loot Jericho except for metals, and finally the city was burned (Joshua 3: 15, 4: 19, 5: 10, 6: 1-24). Additional information related to stratigraphy indicates that a city may not have been rebuilt at Jericho subsequent to its destruction until the 9th century BC, except for a briefly used residential building by Eglon of Moab during the Judges period (Joshua 6: 26; Judges 3: 12-30; 1 Kings 16: 34). Therefore, after the fall of Jericho, there should have been no city at the site until the Iron Age II and only a residence during the Late Bronze II.

According to archaeological excavations at Jericho, including the Kenyon and Italian-Palestinian excavations, the mudbrick wall on top of the stone retaining wall had collapsed and fallen in front of the retaining wall around most of the city and had essentially formed a pile of sloping bricks resembling a ramp (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 143; Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 110; Wood 1990b, pp. 54-56; 1999, p. 37). The outward falling of the city walls, which was followed by a massive fire that engulfed Jericho and included the collapse of buildings in the city, was proposed by excavators as possibly being the result of an earthquake rather than a battering ram or other siege equipment (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 138-139, 159; Kenyon 1957, pp. 179, 262; Kenyon and Holland 1981, pp. 110, 370)⁴. This "terrible destruction" of Jericho by fire has been posited by various excavators and other researchers as the result of a violent attack by either a foreign enemy or another city-state, without agreement regarding the identity of the attackers (Nigro 2016, p. 15; 2020, p. 201). The falling or collapse of the wall was the first phase, while the destruction by fire was the second phase. The collapse of the city wall, which was constructed in the Middle Bronze Age III, and other associated architecture in the final Bronze Age City IVc Jericho is dated on the basis of its construction period. The finds sealed by the destruction layer on top of collapsed architecture and subsequently constructed architecture such as the "Middle Building" mean the falling of this wall, building collapse, and the destruction of the city must have occurred within the periods of either Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I.

Although Kenyon separated the falling of the walls and the following fire destruction into separate phases, the two events need not be separated by vast amounts of time, and there is no indication that the city was abandoned or lay dormant in between the collapse and the fire. Perhaps it is more than a coincidence that the sequence is the same as that recorded in the book of Joshua—fallen city walls, then the intentional burning of the city by the attacking Israelites (Joshua 6: 20-24). Because battering rams would cause the walls to fall into the city at specific points of attack rather than outside and in front of the retaining wall all around nearly the entire city, this facet of the destruction has often been attributed to an earthquake, although other explanations may be possible. Indeed, rather than displaying the characteristics of a battering ram siege and forcing entry at a particular weak point or points of the city defenses, as would be expected from conventional warfare, an earthquake or another action with similar result might have caused wall sections to crumble both outside and inside the line of the stone retaining wall. However, perhaps more important than the specific cause of the collapse is that, according to archaeological observations, the walls of Jericho City IVc fell down the slope, resulting in the formation of a simple ramp up into the city. This phenomenon of a fallen mudbrick wall forming a pile that people could use to march over and past the walls and into the city accords with the description in the Joshua narrative about the wall falling upon itself and the army then walking up into Jericho (Joshua 6: 20). (See Figures 2 and 3 below).

After the walls fell, the next archaeologically observable event in the sequence was the burning of the city. The fire destruction of Jericho IVc was found in numerous excavation areas at the site, and it was a severe and complete destruction, including blackened walls and floors, fallen bricks and timber, burnt debris, collapsed roofs, and burned remains around the MBIII wall (Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 370; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 735). The fire was so intense and so widespread, including residential houses, the palace and the temple, that it appeared to indicate a deliberate burning of Jericho rather than an accidental or localized fire restricted to a particular building or section of the city (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 136, 142). This is further supported by the long abandonment of the site, with the next architecture dating to Iron II except for the briefly occupied "Middle Building," indicating that significant death and destruction that occurred at Jericho. (Marchetti 2003, p. 317). This violent destruction brought an end to the stratum known as Jericho IVc (Jericho 1997-2000 Seasons Report: http://www.lasapienzatojericho.it/Results%201997-2000/res_sullVc.htm, accessed on 22 February 2023). (See Figure 4 below).

However, the collapse of the walls and the city being engulfed in a destructive fire were not the only details found at Jericho that match the Joshua narrative. Prior to attacking the city, the Israelites had observed Passover (March/April), and then the Israelite army had been instructed to loot only the metals from Jericho but to leave everything else in the city to be destroyed (Joshua 5: 10, 6: 19-20). Excavations in the destruction layer at Jericho uncovered numerous ceramic storage jars containing significant amounts of grain, specifically barley, that had been burned along with the buildings rather than looted (Kenyon 1957, pp. 230, 261; Garstang 1931, pp. 193-94; 1948, p. 141). These finds indicate an attack on Jericho soon after barley harvest time in March/April and by an army that was not concerned with looting the food supplies of the city, matching the timing and methodology of the invading Israelite army in the Joshua narrative (Joshua 2: 6, 3: 15, 5: 10; cf. Gezer Calendar; Exodus 9: 31-32; Ruth 1: 22; 2 Samuel 21: 9). Although this would explain why there was so much burned grain found in the city at the time of its destruction, it also directly contradicts the typical military practice of the period, as the full grain jars indicate that the city was conquered while food stores were still abundant and the attacking army neglected to loot food from the city. Campaigns were usually launched before the spring harvest, when the city under siege would have the lowest amount of resources, and sieges were usually quite long, such as the 3-year siege of Sharuhen and the 7-month siege of Megiddo (Pritchard 1969, p. 246; Cline 2002, p. 21). Besieging a city in the spring season prior to harvest would not only starve out the defenders but also allow the attacking army to harvest and use the grain in the fields outside of the city for an additional food source (Lichtheim 1976, p. 34). At Jericho IVc, the attack was initiated after harvest, the siege was brief, and the invaders simply burned the food supplies inside the city. (See Figure 5 below).

Footnotes

4 While there was also an Early Bronze Age II earthquake dated to around 2700 BC at Jericho which provides an example of such phenomenon, and many significant earthquakes throughout history are known to have occurred in the Jericho region, the events should not be conflated (Nigro 2020, p. 188).

4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

from Kennedy (2023:8-10)

Although there may be general agreement about the basic manner in which Jericho IVc was destroyed and perhaps even acknowledgement that the events and sequence appear consistent with the Joshua narrative, there is much dispute concerning the exact date when the city was destroyed and if those events could connect to the fall of Jericho recorded in the book of Joshua. In order to establish a firm date for the destruction of Jericho, it is necessary to analyze the chronology of the ceramic remains, royal scarabs found at the site, a clay tablet discovered in excavations, and the various radiocarbon dates.

Ceramic remains are the most abundant material found from excavations in this region, and the chronology of pottery typology is widely used for establishing the date of excavated strata. At Jericho, thousands of sherds were excavated in association with the destruction layer and the final Bronze Age city, including local wares, imported wares, and locally produced exotic imitation wares. The types of pottery that are most distinctive are usually decorated wares, and excavations at Jericho have certainly uncovered much of this material.

Cypriot Bichrome Ware, with its characteristic painted red/brown and blue/black decoration along with fine clay, is one type of pottery that can indicate the occupation of the site in Late Bronze I or ca. 1500-1400 BC (Gitin 2019, pp. 339-41; Amiran 1970, pp. 152-57). Garstang excavated various bichrome fragments in the destruction layer of the final Bronze Age city (Wood 1990b, pp. 37, 53; 1990a, pp. 48, 49; Bienkowski 1986, pp. 128-30; Garstang 1934, pls. 29: 4, 7, 12; 34: 3; 36: 12; 39: 5; p. 111, pl. 34: 10; and pl. 31: 8). Chocolate on White Ware, which is another painted ware that was found in significant amounts at Jericho from numerous excavations, may be even more indicative of Late Bronze I occupation around 1500-1400 BC (Fischer 1999, pp. 1-22; Gitin 2019, pp. 169-70; Amiran 1970, pp. 158-60). Another possible indicator of the fall of Jericho and its abandonment prior to Late Bronze II could be the lack of Western Anatolian Gray Ware imports, which appear in the Levant beginning in Late Bronze IIA (Gitin 2019, p. 381).

Although Kenyon argued for dating the destruction of Jericho IVc to around 1550 BC rather than slightly later in the 15th century BC due to an alleged absence of exotic wares such as Cypriot Bichrome and Chocolate on White, the excavation reports on Jericho tell a different story. Both Cypriot bichrome and Chocolate on White can be seen on plates and descriptions in the Kenyon expedition reports, which were published posthumously, demonstrating that this type of pottery was in fact discovered (Kenyon and Holland 1983, pp. 436, 464-72). This exotic ware characteristic of Late Bronze I was also found in the Sellin and Watzinger excavations and can be seen in the excavation report of 1913, although ceramic chronology was not well understood and defined at that time (Sellin and Watzinger [1913] 1973, pp. 123-29, 142-46). However, Watzinger eventually argued that Jericho was unoccupied during Late Bronze I (Watzinger 1926, pp. 131-36). The Kenyon expedition did in many places mention the presence of Late Bronze pottery, even noting parallels to Late Bronze IB strata at other sites such as Megiddo Level VIB and Beth-Shean stratum A (Kenyon 1951, p. 133; Tushingham 1953, p. 63). The excavations under Kenyon surely found Late Bronze I pottery, which is consistent with the findings from other expeditions at Jericho. However, because the Kenyon excavations focused on deep trenches rather than broad trenches, only a sampling of findings from each period was uncovered rather than extensive material culture from a single period. While using narrow excavation trenches encompassing only very small areas of the site may have been a pragmatic method to probe and discover an overall stratigraphic profile of the site, this technique also had major shortcomings for understanding any one occupational period at Jericho (Herr 2002, p. 53; Wood 1990a, p. 47).

The excavations at Jericho led by Garstang, which dealt extensively with Middle Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age structures, tombs, and materials, found considerable amounts of Late Bronze Age pottery, including local and imported wares. Among the distinctive Late Bronze I pottery types were Cypriot wares and imitations, but a lack of Mycenaean wares indicated that occupation of the city had ceased by Late Bronze II (Garstang 1941, pp. 369-71). However, the local wares excavated at Jericho were the most prolific of the pottery finds. It is therefore significant that these local wares have clear parallels to Late Bronze I strata at other sites in Canaan. Wood analyzed the local wares in detail and explained numerous parallels, refuting the idea that these local wares could all belong to Middle Bronze II or III (Bienkowski 1990, p. 46; Wood 1990a, pp. 45-49, 68-69). Among the numerous forms found at Jericho with clear parallels from other sites were "the flaring carinated bowl with slight crimp" from Late Bronze I contexts at the Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 42: 129), Megiddo IX (Loud 1948, pl. 53: 19), Hazor 2 (Yadin 1961, pl. 263: 3-16), Hazor cistern 9024 level 3 (Yadin et al. 1958, pl. 123: 1-9), and Hazor cistern 7021 level C (Yadin 1972, pl. 136: 1-7; Wood 1990a, pp. 47-48). Conical bowls with painted interior concentric circles, a typical Late Bronze IB form found all over the southern Levant, were also found at Jericho (Garstang 1934, p. 121). Parallels in Late Bronze I contexts come from Ashdod XVII (Dothan 1971, p. 81), Hazor 2 (Yadin 1960, p. 94; 1972), Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 37: 1), Shechem XIV (Toombs and Wright 1963, fig. 23: 2), Mevorakh XI (Stern 1984, fig. 5: 7) and Megiddo VIII (Loud 1948, pl. 61: 18). Another bowl form found at Jericho has Late Bronze I strata parallels from Rabud LB4 (Kochavi 1974, fig. 4: 3) and Shechem XIV (Toombs and Wright 1963, fig. 23: 1) (number 5), Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pls. 41: 98, 104, 105, pls. 42: 127) (number 6), and Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pls. 37: 3, 4, 7 and 38: 32, 33), Mevorakh XI (Stern 1984, fig. 5: 11-14), Megiddo VIII (Loud 1948, pl. 61: 13, 14) and Hazor 2 (Yadin 1961, pl. 288: 3) (number 7), although this has also been found in Middle Bronze III contexts and is probably a form that continued from MB into LB (Wood 1990a, p. 48). The storage jar type found at Jericho (number 8) is another typical Late Bronze I form, with parallels from Late Bronze I strata such as Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 57: 389), Rabud LB4 (Kochavi 1974, fig. 4: 10), Shechem XIV (Toombs and Wright 1963, fig. 23: 14) and Hazor cistern 7021, level C (Yadin 1972, pl. 141: 2). Oil lamps, which continuously changed over time and are quite distinctive by archaeological period, are another indicator from Jericho that the city was occupied during Late Bronze I, as the saucer form with a slightly pinched spout (number 9) is typical of Late Bronze I with a clear parallel from Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 45: 186, 187). Cooking pots were prolific due to their common use and short lifespan, and they are another pottery type that is quite distinctive by period. At Jericho, the everted rim cooking pots with a round bottom (numbers 10, 11, 12) have numerous parallels in other Late Bronze I contexts, such as Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 55: 361), Shechem XIV (Toombs and Wright 1963, fig. 23: 19, 20), Michal XVI (Herzog et al. 1989, fig. 5.6: 3), Mevorakh XI (Stern 1984, fig. 7: 9), Hazor 2 (Yadin 1972, pl. 138: 4), Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 55: 354), Rabud LB4 (Kochavi 1974, fig. 4: 6), Ashdod XVII (Dothan 1971, fig. 33: 7), Michal XVI (Herzog et al. 1989, fig. 5.6: 8), Hazor XV/2 (Yadin 1961, pls. 199: 19 and 289: 7), and Hazor 2 (Yadin 1972, pl. 139: 1-4). The water jar with painted stripes (number 13) was unique to the Late Bronze Age, and the type found at Jericho is also known from Late Bronze I strata at Ashdod XVII (Dothan 1971, fig. 33: 13), Hazor 2 (Yadin 1961, pl. 266: 15), and Hazor cistern 7021 level C (Yadin 1972, pl. 141: 12). The dipper juglet from Jericho (number 14), while occurring from Middle Bronze I to Late Bronze II, also appears to have a form consistent with Late Bronze I at the Lachish Fosse Temple I (Tufnell et al. 1940, pl. 52: 297, 303). The most recent excavations at Jericho have also affirmed Late Bronze IB pottery at the site from a building in the palace area near the center of the city (Nigro 2009, p. 362).

While the idea that Jericho was completely unoccupied during the Late Bronze Age is not accepted by archaeologists, a variety of ideas about the extent of the settlement and the dates of occupation have been proposed, ranging from only occupation at the "Middle Building" in the 14th century BC to a small settlement that allegedly lasted into the beginning of LB IIB before being abandoned until the Iron Age IIA (Nigro 2020, pp. 201-6). These discrepancies are mostly due to differing chronologies about 18th Dynasty Pharaohs, incorrectly placing LB I pottery into LB II (e.g., Chocolate on White Ware), and claiming that the evidence for the LB II settlement disappeared due to erosion, dumping, or leveling. While erosion can move archaeological material or cover it, pits and dumping can jumble the chronology of sections of strata, and leveling can cover or damage architectural remains, the evidence for entire strata does not simply disappear from archaeological sites and is not a phenomenon observed elsewhere in the region. The ceramic data from excavations at Jericho since 1907 indicate that the site was indeed inhabited during the Late Bronze I. (See Figures 1 and below).

5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

from Kennedy (2023:11-15)

While the ceramic data from Jericho indicates the occupation of city IV into Late Bronze I and, by extension, the destruction of this final city during Late Bronze I, the evidence from inscribed scarabs is an important secondary form of chronological information that can help pinpoint an accurate date for the fall of Jericho. During the course of excavations at Jericho, numerous scarabs have been discovered, some of which are stylistic and others that contain the names of rulers. For the purposes of unraveling the dispute about the date of the fall of Jericho, a series of Egyptian scarabs inscribed with the names of kings from the 13th Dynasty to the middle of the 18th Dynasty (18th to 14th centuries BC) are especially useful. The most important of these royal scarabs were those of the 18th Dynasty Pharaohs Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Amenhotep III (Garstang 1948, p. 126). The scarabs of Thutmose III, one of the most powerful and prestigious Pharaohs, are one of the few of Pharaohs whose scarabs may have been manufactured after his death or even handed down as an heirloom. In contrast, the scarab of Hatshepsut is a very unusual find, as Pharaoh-Queen Hatshepsut suffered damnatio memoriae after her reign in an attempt to wipe her name and image from history, and her scarabs would not have been reproduced or circulated later (Gardiner 1964, pp. 182, 198). Another artifact of note is a two-sided seal, not a scarab, of Thutmose III (Garstang 1948, p. 126). This seal, unlike the scarabs of Thutmose III, is a rare artifact and one that can be restricted to the years of his reign in the early to middle 15th century BC. The scarabs of Amenhotep III, a rather isolationist and insignificant Pharaoh, were also not reproduced after his reign nor held in high regard, so the idea that all of these scarabs were heirlooms or reproductions from centuries later is implausible. However, many scarabs of Amenhotep III have been found in stratified LB IB contexts from Canaan. The presence of scarabs of Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III at Jericho, after which no more Pharaohs are attested at Jericho, indicates that the occupation of the site ceased during the reign of Amenhotep III and at the end of Late Bronze IB around 1400 BC. Recent studies and discussion of 18th Dynasty chronology may have a slight bearing on the exact date of these connections, but would not change overall conclusions (e.g., Ramsey et al. 2010). Indications of Egyptian weakness in Canaan and the inability or refusal to send troops to help combat the invading "Habiru" in the region during the reign of Amenhotep III as described in the Amarna Letters should also be considered as related to the fall of Jericho during this period (cf. Johnson 1996, pp. 65-82; Moran 1992). The chronology from the inscribed royal scarabs, in agreement with data from pottery excavated at Jericho, therefore seems to indicate that the destruction of the final Bronze Age city of Jericho occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III at the end of the Late Bronze IB and near 1400 BC (Garstang 1948, pp. 135, 179; cf. Garstang 1944, p. 380). Indeed, even the most recent expedition at Jericho acknowledges the possibility that the city could have been destroyed in Late Bronze IB in the second half of the 15th century BC, although it attributes the attack to the Egyptians led by Thutmose III (Nigro 2020, p. 201). While it is possible that Thutmose III could have conducted a military campaign against Jericho, the city appears nowhere in Egyptian annals or topographic lists around this period, and the method of destruction and looting does not fit the typical military practice of the Egyptians. (See Figure 8 below).

In addition to the ceramic and scarab data indicating destruction of Jericho in Late Bronze IB ca. 1400 BC, the abandonment and reoccupation of the site in the following periods also suggests that the overall narrative about Jericho in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings spans Late Bronze IB to Iron IIA. Following the destruction of the city, although the city itself remained abandoned until Iron IIA, a lone residential structure on the site was later built and occupied in Late Bronze IIA during the 14th century BC, at what came to be designated the "Middle Building" due to its stratigraphic positioning beneath the Hilani and above the Palace storerooms of Areas H-I 6 (Bienkowski 1986, pp. 112-21; Garstang 1941, pp. 369-70; 1948, p. 180; Kenyon 1957, p. 261). After the destruction of Jericho IVc, the final Bronze Age city, Jericho was vacant for a number of years. Dirt, pottery, and other material washed down from the higher areas of the mound and was called the "streak" or the "wash" (Wood 1990a, p. 49). When the Middle Building in Area H on the east side of the tell was built, this layer of wash was underneath its foundations. After the Middle Building was abandoned, along with the rest of the site, erosion again formed a wash layer over the stratum of the Middle Building. Because of this, the Late Bronze IIA material of the Middle Building was both above and below some Late Bronze I material (Wood 1990a, p. 49; Garstang 1934, pp. 106, 111; Bienkowski 1986, p. 112; Kenyon 1951, pp. 120-21). In the Iron Age, the Hilani structure was built over the Middle Building, but after its abandonment, erosion from the top of the mound again washed down and covered the stratum of the Hilani. Thus, material from the top of the mound, especially from the final Bronze Age city, is found in various strata because of erosion. However, the most important stratigraphic relationship to note is that the Late Bronze IIA Middle Building was constructed over the stratum of Jericho IVc (except where the "wash" brought materials from Jericho IV), and thus there is an indication of a short period of an occupational hiatus in between the two layers. This means that the last phase of Jericho City IVc precedes Late Bronze IIA, but not for a long period of time. The "Middle Building" is also significant because it can be linked to another phase in the history of Jericho, which is recorded in connection to Eglon of Moab and an event that occurs decades after the destruction of Jericho by Joshua (Judges 3: 13-26). This Middle Building was identified as a large residence or villa associated with Eglon of Moab in the 14th century BC, measuring about 14.5 m by 12 m and being the sole occupied area at the previously destroyed city (Garstang 1948, pp. 177-80). (See Figure 9 below).

Another significant find associated with the Middle Building was a cuneiform clay tablet dated to the 15th century BC on the basis of epigraphy (van der Toorn 2000, p. 98; Bienkowski 1986, p. 113; Garstang 1934, pp. 116-17). Tablets in the Bronze Age southern Levant are rare, with very few examples coming from any city south of Ugarit. From Hazor, Tell el-Hesi, Taanach, Shechem, Jerusalem, Megiddo, and elsewhere in Canaan, only about 40 total tablets or tablet fragments from the Late Bronze Age have been discovered (e.g., Horowitz et al. 2002, pp. 753-66). Unfortunately, the Jericho tablet found in the Middle Building was in extremely poor condition, with few signs visible, and no plausible reading for the text has yet been determined. Although this tablet was found in excavations of the Middle Building, it was dated to the 15th century BC and may have been part of the "wash" material from the previous stratum, further indicating occupation at Jericho in Late Bronze I and the 15th century BC. (See Figure 10 below).

After the abandonment of the Middle Building, the city of Jericho was not rebuilt until the Iron Age II, including the reuse of the MB III-LB I cyclopean wall and the construction of the Hilani building (Nigro 2020, pp. 204-6). During the 9th century BC reign of Ahab in Iron Age II, a small settlement was built over part of the ruins of Jericho, including tripartite pillared buildings associated with Israelite architecture. While slightly later, according to the biblical narrative, the city was also apparently occupied in the time of Elisha by "sons of the prophets," and LMLK ("for the king") imprinted jar handles likely dating to the reign of Hezekiah was also found at the site (1 Kings 16: 34; 2 Kings 2: 4-18).

Radiocarbon samples from Jericho have also been an important subject of discussion, but unfortunately, the radiocarbon dates from the Jericho IVc destruction have been inconsistent and therefore have not yet been able to support a particular date for the fall of the city. Initial radiocarbon samples taken from Jericho were eventually analyzed by the laboratory at the British Museum, and a date was published as 1410 BC +/- 40 (Kenyon and Holland 1983, p. 763). However, due to a problem with equipment calibration that affected many samples for the years 1980-1984 and caused uncertainty of the results, BM-1790 from Jericho was revised to 3300 +/- 110 BP (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 74).⁶ Another analysis of 18 samples from the Kenyon excavations at Jericho yielded results ranging from 3393 +/- 17 BP (GrN-18368) to 3312 +/- 14 BP (GrN-18539), with an outlier of 3614 +/- 20 (GrN-18538) that may have been from an older and reused wooden beam; the calibrated probable dates given during the time of the study were 1601-1566 calBC or 1561-1524 calBC (Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, pp. 213-20). Using OxCal with IntCal20 and no adjustments for geographical location, these samples would yield calibrated dates ranging from 1699 to 1623 calBC 70.3% probability (GrN-18368) to 1617-1531 calBC 95.4% probability (GrN-18539), with the outlier (GrN-18538) 2031-1899 calBC 95.4% probability (https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/calibration.html, accessed 20 April 2023; cf. Christopher Bronk Ramsey 2009, pp. 337-60). These samples from the Kenyon excavations indicate that their calibrated radiocarbon dates are significantly higher than the historical dates when compared to the proposed dates of destruction published by the various excavation teams. In 2000, the Italian-Palestinian expedition tested two samples that were excavated from a building that appeared to contain debris from the final destruction of the Bronze Age city that had washed down to the bottom of the mound. These two most recent samples yielded calibrated dates of 1347 BC +/- 85 and 1597 BC +/- 91, which could accommodate either proposed approximate historical destruction dates of around 1550 BC or 1400 BC if the calibration curves were accurate (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, pp. 206-7, 330, 332). However, it is a known issue that the radiocarbon dates for Bronze Age sites in the Levant often conflict with the chronological information derived from ceramics and inscriptions and that some samples can be from burned wooden beams cut from trees that were harvested over 100 years before their destruction (Mazar and Ramsey 2008, pp. 159-80; Levy and Higham 2005; Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999, p. 36). Thus, radiocarbon dates should be viewed with caution, and dating strata by means of pottery typology continues to be the primary and most reliable method employed by archaeologists. While a few radiocarbon samples from Jericho do fit a Late Bronze IB destruction of the city around 1400 BC, others match more closely to a 1600-1500 BC destruction timeframe. Essentially, the radiocarbon dates from Jericho at present appear to only rule out a ca. 1230 BC destruction hypothesis but have not been able to solve the dispute between a Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I destruction of the city.

Footnotes

6 BP or "Before Present" and referring to the year 1950.

6. Conclusions

from Kennedy (2023:15)

When all of the chronological data from Jericho IV is assessed and assembled, including specific pottery wares and forms of Late Bronze I 18th Dynasty Egyptian scarabs concluding with Amenhotep II, a cuneiform tablet dated tentatively to the 15th century BC, and radiocarbon samples that would at least allow the possibility of a destruction around the Late Bronze IB period, the destruction of the final walled Bronze Age city of Jericho appears to have occurred near the end of the Late Bronze I period around 1400 BC. The mudbrick wall falling upon itself all around the city, similar to an earthquake rather than a specific point of entry, an apparently intentional fire that consumed the entire city, the many storage jars of grain that were not looted, and the timing of the attack soon after the spring harvest all agree with the specifics of the Joshua account regarding the methods of destruction. An abandonment of Jericho following its destruction until Iron IIA, except for a palatial residence briefly occupied in Late Bronze IIA, also matches the narratives and sequences in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings. Thus, archaeological excavations and analysis at Jericho appear to place the destruction of the final Bronze Age city ca. 1400 BC in a manner consistent with the account in the book of Joshua.

Bolded Sections List

Caveat: Many Kenyon (1981) excerpts describe evidence from earlier earthquakes

"The destruction of Middle Bronze Age Jericho has already been described. Over the leaning and distorted tops of the walls, and the debris within the rooms, is a most striking stratum (Pl. 62 A). It is about a metre thick, and consists of streaks of black, brown, white and pinkish ash. It is in fact the wash down the slope of burnt buildings farther up the mound. This wash is the evidence of a period in which the elements were given free play with Jericho. Winter rains in the Jordan Valley are violent while they last, and summer heat tends to reduce all surfaces to crumbly dust, easily washed away by the next rains. On the west side of the hill we found layer after layer of the resultant silt, which with the aid of superimposed layers we could date between the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, between the Iron Age and the Roman period, and from the Roman period down to modern times. When the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age town took place by burning, the crest on the west was crowned by the great bank of the contemporary defences, so the wash of the levels of the last town of this period is only found on the eastern slope, but they, equally with those on the west slope, indicate a period of abandonment and an appreciable lapse of time" - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"A review of the finds made in these tombs suggests that, as with the tombs found in the more recent excavations, the main use ceased at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, early in the sixteenth century B.C. In a limited number of instances, among tombs on the west side of the town (but not so far in the northern cemetery excavated by us), the tombs were then re-used between about 1400 B.C. and c. 1350–1525 B.C. On the tell Professor Garstang found a small quantity of pottery of the same period, and a single building, his Middle Building, which might belong to it.

That there was occupation of the town during the fourteenth century is shown by the finds in these tombs. Our excavations have shown clearly what has happened to its remains. Over most of the area we have excavated on the west side of the mound, the thick layer of burning above the Middle Bronze Age buildings is the highest surviving level. But in the photograph (Pl. 62 A), it will be seen that there is a row of stones just under the modern surface (the upper mound is an excavation dump). These stones are the foundations, and all that remains, of the wall of a room (Pl. 63 A). To the south of this wall, a small irregular area of contemporary floor survives. In the photograph it can be seen clearly how to the south and east the modern surface is below the level of this floor. On the floor is a small mud oven, just like those still used by peasant women in Palestine today (Pl. 63 B). Beside the oven, a single dipper juglet was lying on the floor. This juglet (Pl. 62 A) is the only Late Bronze Age vessel we have found in situ on the tell. Its date is fourteenth century, and fits in well with the more precisely datable finds in the tombs made by Professor Garstang.

The houses of Late Bronze Age Jericho have therefore almost entirely disappeared. We have already seen that over most of the summit of the tell even the houses of the certainly populous Middle Bronze Age town have vanished, and only levels of the Early Bronze Age remain. We have also seen how the process of erosion was washing away the Middle Bronze Age houses on the east slope, during an interval of perhaps 180 years. This process was arrested when the town of 1400 B.C. was built on top of the wash, but this in turn was abandoned, and erosion has almost removed it.

It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. The erosion which has destroyed much of the defences has already been described. It will be remembered that the summit of the Middle Bronze Age rampart only survives in one place. The Late Bronze Age town must either have re-used this, or a new wall may have been built above it, so nothing remains of it. Professor Garstang believed that he had identified the defences of the period. But additional evidence about the stratification makes it quite clear that these are to be dated to the Early Bronze Age.

The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua. One can visualise the Children of Israel marching round the eight acres of the town and striking terror into the heart of the inhabitants, until all will to fight deserted them when on the seventh day the blast of the trumpets smote their ears. But as to what caused the walls to fall down flat, we have no factual evidence. We can guess that it was an earthquake, which the excavations have shown to have destroyed a number of the earlier walls, but this is only conjecture. It would have been very natural for the Israelites to have regarded such a visitation as divine intervention on their behalf, as indeed it can be regarded" - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"The rest of the history of Jericho is only an epilogue to the story of its greatness as a town. This is fully in accord with the Biblical record. Joshua said "Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city, Jericho." The first man, according to the Bible, who defied the curse, and paid the penalty in the loss of his firstborn and youngest sons, was Hiel the Bethelite, in the time of Ahab, that is to say about 880 B.C. On this evidence, there would have been a gap in occupation of some 450 years" - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"Of the occupation of the period of Hiel the Bethelite, in fact, no clear evidence has been found. Probably it in its turn was washed away. Judging from the amount of pottery found on the slopes, there was very considerable occupation in the Iron Age, but at a later date, mainly seventh century B.C." - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"This last occupation of the ancient site of Jericho probably comes to an end with the second exile, when the inhabitants of Judah were carried off into captivity in Babylonia. Certainly the mound was never built over on any scale again. The Jericho of Herod the Great was a mile and three-quarters to the south-west, where the Wadi Qelt provides another source of water, beside which Herod built as his palace a striking copy of the great villas of his Roman masters. The Crusaders depended and the modern inhabitants of Jericho depend on the same water supply as did the earliest inhabitants, but the centre of their town is about a mile downstream. In the Roman period the ancient mound served only as a burial ground" - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"In the Byzantine period and probably at all times down to the present, it served as a quarry for decayed mud-brick, and thus man has helped the elements to destroy the full record of its history. The last man to live on the site was the occupant of a little stone-built house on the slopes above the stream. His pottery was largely Byzantine but with that mixture of a new element which is typical of the beginning of the Ommayad period when the Arab ruler Hisham was building his great palace at Khirbet Mefjer, a mile or so to the north" - Kenyon (1957:259-265)

"All sorts of solutions have been proposed for the "route of the Exodus". The only dictum that seems to make sense is that of Father de Vaux, that there was no route and that it is futile to try and trace it" - Kenyon (1978:33-40)

"A sounding was made in the mound of Jericho in 1867; it was excavated by an Austro-German expedition from 1907 to 1909, by a British expedition under Professor John Garstang from 1930 to 1936 and by a British expedition from 1952 to 1958 with American and Canadian collaborators in several of the seasons. In the 1930 to 1936 excavations it was claimed that evidence had been found of a destruction of the city in c. 1400 BC, a date which, it was believed, accorded with a dating method working back from the building of Solomon's temple and adding up the intervening figures for the life of Joshua and the rule of successive Judges — a method of very dubious validity. This claim for the discovery of the details of the period of Joshua was generally accepted, and appears in many text-books. It is, however, quite wrong.

The description of the capture of Jericho is given in the Book of Joshua. After the death of Moses, following his distant view of the Holy Land from Mount Nebo, the leadership was taken over by Joshua. It is part of the later narrator's unification of the entry into the Promised Land that this Moses-led group has, in the account, become the ancestors of all the tribes of Israel, all entering by the route across the Jordan from the east and all taking part in the capture of Jericho as the first event in the conquest. Of the site of Gilgal, where a shrine was set up to commemorate the crossing of the river, archaeology has completely failed to find any trace.

By the late second millennium BC, there was beside the spring of Ain es Sultan a mound (35) rising some fifty feet above the surrounding plain, built up by the accumulation of collapsed mud-bricks derived from the successive towns on the site over a period from c. 9000 BC. It is generally accepted that this was the site of the town that barred the route into Palestine of the group led by Joshua, though it has to be admitted that there is no absolute proof.

The story of the capture of Jericho is dramatically told in Joshua 6. After the Israelites, carrying with them the Ark, had marched once round the city on six successive days, on the seventh day they made seven circuits. At the end of this, the trumpets blew mightily and the people shouted and the walls fell down. It has been suggested that a quite reasonable natural explanation is that while the Israelites were investing the town there was an earthquake which the Israelites very naturally interpreted as Yahweh's intervention on their behalf. Earthquakes are frequent in the Jordan valley, with as many as four major ones a century. The 1952–8 excavations showed that there were no less than seventeen buildings and rebuildings of the city wall during the eight hundred years or so of the Early Bronze Age. Some of the collapses were certainly due to earthquakes. Such evidence can be seen in the line of bricks from the face of a wall which has collapsed from the stones of its foundations to lie face down on the contemporary surface (38). Above is the higgledy-piggledy tumble of the bricks from the core of the wall, and upon this was founded the town wall of the next stage. This could well represent the sort of collapse that enabled the attackers to swarm into the town, but it in fact belongs to a town some one thousand years earlier.

Professor Garstang in his 1930–6 excavations uncovered the remains of a stage in the town wall that had collapsed in this manner, with against it the evidence of a terrific conflagration. This certainly fits the description of the fate of Jericho given in Joshua 6, and it was ascribed by Professor Garstang to this period. Unfortunately, he was misled into believing that this wall belonged to the last stages in the history of Jericho by the chance that erosion had removed much of the evidence. The wall in question in fact belonged to the Early Bronze Age, c. 2300 BC. This wall was the final wall of the Early Bronze Age town. It was succeeded by a camping settlement and then an unwalled village of the EB–MB period that represents the incursion of the semi-nomadic Amorites (p. 101). A walled town was re-established in the succeeding Middle Bronze Age, probably c. 1900 BC. The buildings and culture of these Middle Bronze Age people has been described (p. 20) as an example of the urban civilisations which fringed the semi-desert area in which the wandering of the Patriarchs took place. The Middle Bronze Age town was once more walled. At first these were free-standing walls of mud-bricks, similar to those of the Early Bronze Age, which survived only in the area adjacent to the spring. In the eighteenth century a new system of fortification was introduced in which a great artificial bank was piled up, for the most part on the crest of the pre-existing mound, but on the east side apparently swinging out into the plain. This bank was given a facing of smooth plaster. The height of the defences was thus greatly increased and the angle of approach steepened and given a more slippery surface. The sequence of stages is shown on the sectional drawing of the trench on the west side of the mound (36). Here, the successive walls of the Early Bronze Age town are shown in part. The earlier series is on the right, and is quite clearly succeeded by a later series in the centre; of these, the uppermost, with burnt debris against it, is that ascribed by Professor Garstang to the period of Joshua. The section shows that it was overlain by material of the EB–MB period and buried beneath the slight plaster-faced bank of the Middle Bronze Age, which had two later reconstructions.

However, the complete story is not given in this trench. The western crest of the mound was considerably denuded (37). The complete height of the bank only survives in the north-west corner, where a short stretch of the stone foundations of the wall that originally crowned its summit survives. The whole of the top of the bank and the associated wall has disappeared by erosion over most of the circuit of the town.

These Middle Bronze Age defences lasted from the eighteenth century to about the middle of the sixteenth century. They could have survived sufficiently to be repaired for use in the Late Bronze Age towns but since so much of the Middle Bronze Age defences have disappeared, it is absolutely certain that nothing at all of walls of the later town, to the period of which the entry into Palestine must belong, can survive. Archaeology will thus never be able to provide visual evidence of the walls that fell down in front of the attacking Israelites.

Excavations have, however, produced enough evidence that there was a Late Bronze Age town and to give some slight evidence of the date at which it was destroyed. Over nearly the whole site the houses of the Middle Bronze Age, and anything later, had shared the fate of the defences and had disappeared due to erosion. One small area of the Middle Bronze Age town survived on the east side, adjacent to the spring. The houses had been destroyed by fire at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, in the first half of the sixteenth century BC. After, it is certain that there was then an abandonment during which erosion carried the burnt debris down the slope of the mound, to create a thick layer over the seventeenth–sixteenth century houses. Overlying this debris layer there survived at the east end of the excavated area the stone foundations of a single wall. This wall was so close to the modern surface that only about a square metre of the contemporary floor survived, with elsewhere the modern surface cutting down into it (40). The one juglet surviving on its surface, lying by a small clay oven, and a limited amount of Late Bronze Age pottery beneath the floor, suggests that the building is late fourteenth century in date. A Late Bronze Age occupation of the site is thus proved, but the excavations within the town provide little detail.

The best evidence for dating the reoccupation of the site after a period of abandonment at the end of the Middle Bronze Age comes from the tombs excavated during the 1930–36 excavations. Professor Garstang was misled in the interpretation of the evidence from them by then current misdatings of sixteenth to fourteenth century pottery. He also failed to realise that in the process of burial in these rock-cut tombs, the latest burial is usually at a low level in front of the tomb, with the remains of earlier burials pushed back and mounded up to the rear (41). Absolute height of burials within the tomb chamber means nothing, and Professor Garstang was led to believe that later objects found on the same level as earlier ones were contemporary. A wholly false impression of continuity and early chronology was thus given. The finds in the tombs cleared in these excavations indicated that a very few of the Middle Bronze tombs were re-opened and some later burials were placed in them.

Associated with the burials in this period of Late Bronze Age re-use there were Mycenaean vessels. Unfortunately no sufficiently diagnostic features survive to pin-point the period of these tombs. The acknowledged leading authority on the subject, Professor Furumark, considers that the finds cannot be more closely dated than within the period of LM III A and LM III B (1300–1230 BC). Mrs Hankey, however, would put the vessels concerned in LM III A2 (1375–1300). The attribution of the vessels within LM III is not sufficiently precise to provide close dating. The only thing that is important is that one can say on the basis of archaeological evidence that there was a break in continuity at the end of the Late Bronze Age reoccupation. It would be very difficult on the pottery evidence to put this as late as the end of the thirteenth century. The general evidence, both from the Mycenaean pottery and the other wares would allow for a date as late as 1300 BC but not later. After this occupation ceases until Iron Age II" - Kenyon (1978:33-40)

"Overlying the surface of Stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeeded by new buildings in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction or decay." - Kenyon (1981:77–79)

"The most striking point about this filling is that it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty, mostly without crania, and some of them dismembered at a stage when the various parts of individual limbs were still held together by the ligaments." - Kenyon (1981:77–79)

"These two bodies at least suggest that a number of individuals were killed in the destruction of the buildings of Stage XVII and left to lie where they fell. It is tempting to interpret the deaths as a result of enemy action… A more probable explanation therefore is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:77–79)

"It would appear that there was always a tendency for the skin wall to peel away from the original core, perhaps as a result of earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:42–43)

"In section B–C the external building level to the east was not so low, but the floor level connecting with the south segment shows that the interior face of the wall had collapsed to an equally low level… Within house BE 4 and sealed by the original floor was a deep grave containing the skeletons of four or five children." - Kenyon (1981:42–43)

"The long-lived buildings in Square F I come to an end with a considerable collapse, indicated by a fill up to 0.60 m. thick of fallen mud-bricks on the plastered floor of the principal room." - Kenyon (1981:85–86)

"The new building in Square F I is on approximately the same plan as that of the preceding stages… and in the earthquake destruction that ended phase F I. xxxvii, it slid off the underlying wall, and here does not survive at all." - Kenyon (1981:85–86)

"The buildings of Stage XXIII were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from the north end of Square F I. Here, wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the final floor of the central room to the south." - Kenyon (1981:87)

"The collapse of the superstructure of the enclosures would be due to the same cause as the collapse of the skin wall, probably an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:42–43)

"In the rebuilding after the earthquake, the main features of the plan in all the squares were preserved. The greater part of Square F I continued to be occupied by a main room with a burnished plastered floor…" - Kenyon (1981:88–90)

"The collapse of the final EB–MB buildings is marked by a tumble of bricks on the floors. A ragged gully that has removed the western walls of the eastern complex may be evidence of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:16)

"The gully is covered by the wash of this erosion period; it could be a rain-water gully, but is perhaps more likely to be in origin an earthquake crack." - Kenyon (1981:106–107)

"The floors of the latest building stages of both eastern and western complexes are overlain by a tumble of bricks mixed with silt. The collapse may have been brought about by an earthquake…" - Kenyon (1981:108)

"There is relatively clear evidence that the tower, like wall A+B, was abolished at least by the time of the earthquake at the end of phase xxxix." - Kenyon (1981:97)

"The collapse of wall B is a good example of earthquake action. In the north section it can be seen how the face of the wall collapsed down the slope as a whole, leaving the core and the eastern face standing." - Kenyon (1981:97–98)

"The earthquake damage was made good by wall C, cut into the debris of collapse and filling, and filling in the raw edge of wall B." - Kenyon (1981:98)

"It seems more likely that there had been butt joints between walls OCP and OCQ against the superstructure of wall OCN, perhaps as an anti-earthquake device, and that in a destruction preceding phase lxi wall OCN had collapsed…" - Kenyon (1981:155–156)

"Portions of three rooms, two connected by a doorway, survived within the excavated area. The plan is irregular in the extreme. The walls were very slender, the thickness of a single brick laid as a stretcher. They had all tilted badly to the north… The tilting took place presumably at the time of the collapse that filled the interior of the rooms with fallen bricks… It is possible that an earthquake was responsible for the tilting." - Kenyon (1981:166–167)

"The destruction at the end of phase bd was a major one, for it involved all three terrace walls and all the interior structures except NDS, the west end of NDR and NDQ. It may be presumed to have been caused by the collapse of a wall further south, probably the town wall, for the line of erosion dips down steeply south of NDT, an erosion line followed in subsequent collapses. At the north end of the trench silt levels accumulated over NCT and NCS-NDE to a height of about 11.30 m. H." - Kenyon (1981:204)

"The destruction at the end of phase lxii was a severe one, which resulted in the collapse of all the structures in the southern half of the trench. It was accompanied by heavy burning, and fallen burnt timbers were especially noticeable in the area south of NDY (east section 9.25 m. to 13 m. S., c. 10.50 m.–10.80 m. H.). The collapse of wall NDQ into the area between it and NDR showed that this area had remained open, down to the original floor level until this period. The tilting of NDQ suggests that the collapse may have been due to an earthquake, and the disappearance of the higher levels that must have existed between NDR and NDS together with the upper part of these walls suggests that once more a wall further south must have collapsed. The whole complex NDQ, NDR, NDS, and silo NEC were buried in debris and disappeared." - Kenyon (1981:204–205)

"Following this period of occupation, there was apparently some collapse, especially marked in a fill of burnt debris into the continuing sag over silo NEH–NEJ, seen in the west section at 9.95 m.–11.10 m. S., 11.50 m.–11.87 m. H. It is possible that to the same stage belongs the collapse of wall NEN in a tumble of bricks, seen in the east section at 3.75 m.–4.75 m. S., c. 11.62 m. H., and in the west section at 3.25 m.–4.37 m. S., c. 11.75 m. H., which is suggestive of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:207)

"A substantial crack in section J–K (pl. 297) at 9.87 m.–10.30 m. NW., in the surface at 8.22 m. H., which precedes MBE, may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:243)

"This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was terraced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii a courtyard levels (pl. 160b) could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably to be associated with the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack, but Professor Zenner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards." - Kenyon (1981:298–300)

"This phase represents a major break in the history of the site. All the previous buildings were abolished. It does not appear that this is the result of the collapse of the terrace wall for this seems to have continued into the next phase. This destruction was certainly not followed by any erosion, for the stumps of the walls are covered by bricky debris piled against their faces and over their tops (see, e.g., section E–F (pl. 323) between 1.37 and 8.85 m. N., and c. 3.20 and 3.55 m. H., and section C–D (pl. 321), between 3.55 and 6.65 m. E., c. 3.50–4.05 m. H. against walls ZV and ZX). It seems likely therefore that the collapse was due to a severe earthquake. The new building was on entirely different lines. But this was so completely destroyed in the subsequent erosion and in phase L that the remains are entirely disjointed and nothing can be made of the plan." - Kenyon (1981:325)

"In erosion following this destruction, there was a collapse of at least the southern end of the terrace wall ZAO; the combination of a collapsed terrace and a fire may suggest that the cause was an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:328)

"The north wall HCG of phase xxxvi collapsed and has completely disappeared. Into the debris of its collapse and on top of wall HCC of phase xxxvii was built wall HCV, as seen in Sections VI and VII, and as described above, p. 357. The east wall HCK did not collapse completely, but a rebuilding HCW is seen in Section XVII, the associated levels of which could be traced round to show that it was contemporary with wall HCV. It should be noted that wall HCW was badly split by earthquake cracks, one of which has cut down its east face and that of HCK beneath it, severing the levels from the two walls, but the interpretation of their significance is clear. In the south section, wall HCW was considerably destroyed in the 1930–6 excavations, but its stump survives. The north wall HCF of phase xxxvi, however, continued in use, as can be seen by the correlation of Section VI and the south section." - Kenyon (1981:359-360)

"The lowest levels reached belonged to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Above was clear evidence of a wall, A.TW. 1, destroyed by earthquake. Over the debris of this collapse was constructed A.TW. 2." - Kenyon (1981:372)

"Above the Stage A levels there appears evidence of the earliest town wall within the area excavated. It must be emphasized that this town wall is not necessarily the earliest of the period on the site, for an earlier one could well be slightly to the east, and to this could have belonged the deposits of Stage A. The in situ evidence of wall A.TW. 1 is minimal. Section pl. 343 and pl. 100a, however, give vivid evidence of the collapse of a wall from its foundations. In pl. 100a on the left at the base of the trench is visible a single course of stone foundations." - Kenyon (1981:372-373)

"On to this plaster level the face of the wall fell in such a way that the bricks are vertical. The surviving remains show that a height of 1 m. of the face of the wall fell forward in one piece, before there had been in this area any building up of levels, and this feature extended to the west beyond the excavated area. Above the fallen face is the evidence of the collapse of the core of the wall, at first of broken fragments and bricks, then, above that, of complete bricks higgledy-piggledy. The top of this level is seen on pl. 200b. This destruction phase is certainly to be interpreted as an earthquake collapse, with a first sharp collapse, followed by more gradual crumbling. The evidence closely resembles that in Trench I, where wall B provides similar evidence, though there the collapse of the face was not right to the foundations. It could be that the destruction on both sites belongs to the same earthquake, but this cannot be certain over a distance of nearly 70 m. in a wall so frequently destroyed. At any rate, both come early in the history of the Early Bronze town, probably in E.B. I." - Kenyon (1981:372-373)

"In the suggested rebuild A.TW. 3a there would be a gap to the south of the straight joint. All the other straight joints found, for instance in Trench I and M I, belong to cavities interpreted as anti-earthquake devices." - Kenyon (1981:374)

"It would appear, then, that the bodies were first interred entire, if unceremoniously, one on top of the other. This possibly bespeaks a hasty evacuation of the city following a deadly plague—for not one of the bones bore signs of violence such as might have been expected as the result of a massacre.Shallow common graves were dug¹, the bodies heaped in without regard to age or sex, but with a certain care as to their attitudes. Where any natural arrangement at all could be observed, the bodies seem to have been laid, flexed or contracted, on their sides, not thrown in with limbs outspread as might have been the case with enemy casualties treated as unrespected carrion ." - Kenyon (1981:400-401)

"1 In fact there was no clear evidence of graves in most cases, see above p. 78, and also for the suggestion that an earthquake was responsible. [K. M. K.]" - Kenyon (1981:400-401)

"Earthqake Collapse, p. 97" - Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

"Bricky collapse caused by an earthquake between phases xxxiv, p. 87, and xxxv, p. 88, shown on section K—L, pl. 243b." - Kenyon (1981:523, 531)

"John Garstang of Liverpool University, who was critical of Watzinger's conclusions, directed the Marston-Melchett excavations at Jericho from 1930–36." - Bienkowski (1986:2)

"The stratigraphy of the Neolithic levels is very unreliable. In general, Garstang's Level VIII (Late Neolithic) may correspond to the Pottery Neolithic B of Kenyon's subsequent work, and his Level IX (Middle Neolithic) to Kenyon's Pottery Neolithic A." - Bienkowski (1986:2–3)

"Garstang's Levels X–XVII (Early Neolithic) are especially suspect: he made no distinction between what Kenyon later called Pre-Pottery Neolithic A and B." - Bienkowski (1986:2–3)

"The stratigraphy of these levels is also very confused and unreliable. Garstang concluded that there were two phases of city and wall construction, Cities A and B." - Bienkowski (1986:2–3)

"The double wall which Garstang attributed to the Late Bronze Age was dated by Kenyon to two successive phases of the Early Bronze Age." - Bienkowski (1986:2–3)

"He noted that there were no fresh fortifications or architectural development, and suggested that the traces of occupation, with the characteristic flat bottoms and lug handles of the pottery, represented an Aramaean migration." - Bienkowski (1986:3)

"Garstang excavated the MBII defences at the foot of the slope, now well known from Kenyon's excavations… On the slopes on either side were rooms stacked with bins and storage jars containing carbonised grain… The whole of this area was destroyed by fire." - Bienkowski (1986:3)

"There were two types of tomb: grotto (shaft) tombs, and open graves apparently without cover except for a few large stones piled on the debris. They seem to have contained multiple successive burials, as in the tombs Kenyon excavated later." - Bienkowski (1986:3)

"The walls which Garstang dated to the Late Bronze Age were in fact Early Bronze Age, as noted above." - Bienkowski (1986:3–4)

"In fact, according to her, there was a gap in occupation on the tell and in the tombs between the end of MBII (c.1550 B.C.) and c.1400 B.C. She argued that there was no 13th century B.C. occupation on the site." - Bienkowski (1986:3–4)

"Only a few remains of the Iron Age were found by Garstang. They consisted of a four-roomed house, the precise dating of which is uncertain, other odd bits of building, and two tomb deposits." - Bienkowski (1986:4)

"Kathleen Kenyon excavated at Jericho from 1952–58; her reports appeared in PEQ 1952–57 and 1960, Kenyon 1960b, 1965, 1981, Kenyon and Holland 1982, 1983. The results are known well enough not to be repeated here – for a general account see Kenyon 1957b." - Bienkowski (1986:4)

"The Late Bronze Age at Jericho is really represented solely by Garstang's material. Kenyon found only a tiny area of LBA occupation… Much argument has raged over the interpretation of the LBA levels at Jericho because of its role in the Old Testament." - Bienkowski (1986:4)

"The present study is essentially an examination of the published and unpublished LBA material from Garstang's excavations, which is crucial for our knowledge of Jericho's history." - Bienkowski (1986:4)

"The biblical evidence, in particular the Book of Joshua Chapters 2–7, has been deliberately avoided. The convoluted problems of Old Testament chronology and exegesis are beyond the scope of a purely archaeological approach." - Bienkowski (1986:4)

"The sources from which the core of this study is derived comprise John Garstang's published and unpublished records of the excavations at Jericho and the surviving material excavated." - Bienkowski (1986:5)

"The PEF archives include all the records dealing with the excavation of the tell… These sources were all studied and they provided information which complemented and occasionally expanded Garstang's published reports on the tell." - Bienkowski (1986:5)

"In this study Kenyon's terminology for the Middle Bronze Age (MBI, MBIIa, MBIIb) will be used. The MBA absolute chronology which will be utilised is Dever's (1977): MBI c.1950–1800 B.C., MBII c.1800–1550 B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:6–7)

"There is no definable stratigraphic or ceramic break which is valid for the whole of Palestine. The use of the sub-periods MBIIa and b gives the impression of a definable break which imposes a false homogeneity upon the development of Palestinian sites." - Bienkowski (1986:6–7)

"Many scholars still accept that piriform and cylindrical juglets are characteristic of ‘MBIIa’ and ‘MBIIb’ respectively." - Bienkowski (1986:6–7)

"The major failing of Kenyon's Jericho typology, as of all mostly unstratified tomb material, is that it is typology in a vacuum. For such a typology to be truly reliable, it must be checked against a stratigraphic sequence." - Bienkowski (1986:6–7)

"The absolute chronology of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine, Cyprus and the Aegean is dependent ultimately on Egyptian dates. However, Egyptian chronology itself is not very secure." - Bienkowski (1986:7–9)

"After the 12th Dynasty, chronology is very uncertain, and eight possible chronologies emerge. The three main variables are the date of the Sothic rising in Year 9 of Amenophis I, the lunar dates of Tuthmosis III, and the dates for Ramesses II." - Bienkowski (1986:7–9)

"It seems that LBIIa and b are largely differentiated by the imported Mycenaean wares. The change from LBIIa to LBIIb is taken as the break between LHIIIA and LHIIIB." - Bienkowski (1986:7–9)

"Hankey notes that ‘imported goods undoubtedly have a life sometimes lengthened by careful treatment’." - Bienkowski (1986:7–9)

"LBIIb corresponds to Kenyon's Groups E and F. The end of LBIIb is generally taken as the destruction of the LBA towns and the appearance of ‘Philistine’ pottery in the following levels at some sites." - Bienkowski (1986:7–9)

"The 'Palace' and the Middle Building...are the only major constructions excavated which could conceivably date to the Late Bronze Age." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"Garstang dated [the 'Palace'] origin to MBII...A drain ran through the foundations of the 'Palace' wall and seems to have been connected with Garstang's MB 'storerooms'... suggesting at least an MB date for the 'Palace' foundations." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"However, the four sherds which Garstang illustrated from the 'Palace' all look LBA in date." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"If the adjacent Middle Building was in use during the LBA...then we would expect to find at least some L debris within the 'Palace' area...there is too little excavated and recorded information from the 'Palace' to make any firm judgements." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"The Middle Building consisted of seven rooms and measured c.14.4 × 11. metres...The wall must be integral to the Middle Building, since it is on the same axis, but cuts the lines of the earlier MB 'storerooms' and is overlain by the later Iron Age 'Hilani'." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"The floors were described as 'mostly barren', although a surveyor's notebook...mentions 'wood beams' in the floor... This may suggest collapsed ceiling timbers." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"A terracotta figurine about 9 cm high was discovered in Middle Building Room V-2...It is quite likely to date to the Late Bronze Age." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"The Middle Building overlay a deep layer of black burnt debris, called by Garstang the 'Streak'...certainly burnt material washed down the hill." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"The pottery...found in association with the Middle Building...is clearly LBIIa/early LBIIb...a certain dating of this building has proved impossible." - Bienkowski (1986:112–113)

"The pottery which Garstang described as coming from or 'closely associated with' the 'Streak' was wrongly dated by him to LBI...A cuneiform tablet...was tentatively dated to about the time of the Amarna letters." - Bienkowski (1986:113)

"Garstang concluded that the pottery found within the Middle Building, together with the tablet, was contemporary with its use, and he dated the building to c.1450/1400 B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:113)

"In an article published in 1941 Garstang revised the date of the Middle Building...He redated the painted pottery from the Middle Building to LBII." - Bienkowski (1986:113–114)

"Carrying on this line of reasoning, he attributed the Middle Building to Eglon, the king of Moab mentioned in Judges 3:12–14...and was delighted to find a complete parallel between archaeology and the Bible." - Bienkowski (1986:113–114)

"In 1951...Kenyon...isolated the pottery...from the upper debris of the storerooms and the 'Streak', and dated it c.1400–1300 B.C....[It] represented the pre-existing accumulation...Kenyon concluded that the 'Streak' alone was evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation and...the Middle Building was a later intrusive structure lacking datable evidence." - Bienkowski (1986:114)

"Having argued in 1951 that the Middle Building was intrusive, probably post–Late Bronze Age but actually undatable, in later publications Kenyon without explanation dated it to LBII." - Bienkowski (1986:114–115)

"Nowhere did Kenyon explain why she had changed her mind concerning the date of the Middle Building. One can only assume that the evidence of her own excavations led her to believe that in fact it probably dated to LBII." - Bienkowski (1986:115)

"A layer of burnt material corresponding to Garstang's 'Streak'...was found by Kenyon...and dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages...there are only six definite examples of LB pottery...amongst 302 pieces of MBA pottery." - Bienkowski (1986:115–116)

"Garstang's method of excavation probably did not help the precise identification of levels: by excavating in strips rather than following levels, pottery could easily seem to have been 'found in or closely associated with the "Streak"'." - Bienkowski (1986:115–116)

"If the 'Streak' dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the only sensible way to account for the LB pottery found within the Middle Building is to date the construction and use of the building to the Late Bronze Age." - Bienkowski (1986:115–116)

"Garstang’s Middle Building was situated in his Squares H6 and I6...Kenyon’s Square HIII...was in her Grid Square H6...The two areas...are adjacent...and it is possible to correlate the stratigraphy to try to learn some more about the date of the Middle Building." - Bienkowski (1986:116–117)

"Wall HGN is therefore in the same stratigraphic position as Garstang’s Middle Building, overlying the 'Streak'...it seems reasonable...to date the Middle Building by analogy also to the second half of the Late Bronze Age, c.14th century B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:116–117)

"The 'Streak' has been shown to date probably to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The Middle Building, which overlies the 'Streak', was associated with LBIIa/early LBIIb pottery." - Bienkowski (1986:117–118)

"There seems to be no alternative but to date the Middle Building to LBIIa/early LBIIb, c.14th/early 13th centuries B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:117–118)

"The thick enclosure wall of the Middle Building might suggest that it was a small fort of some kind...However, there is nothing to suggest that it was used for military purposes...These could be interpreted as the debris of ordinary domestic occupation." - Bienkowski (1986:117–118)

"Garstang published only a small proportion of the pottery from the tell...Garstang threw away much of the excavated unpainted pottery, and much of what he kept is unmarked." - Bienkowski (1986:118)

"Garstang illustrated whole pots and sherds of typical LBII painted ware from the Middle Building...Much of this pottery was dated by Kenyon to the 14th century B.C., LBIIa." - Bienkowski (1986:118)

"The Type B1b jugs, although incipient in LBI, appeared in Palestine mainly in LBIIa...The number had declined markedly by LBIIb." - Bienkowski (1986:118–119)

"The Middle Building deposit consists mainly of Type 1A [White Slip II] bowls, with only one Type 1C1, which suggests a LBIIa/early LBIIb date." - Bienkowski (1986:119)

"Bearing in mind the incomplete data, we can tentatively date the pottery from the Middle Building to (late LBI)/LBIIa – early LBIIb, c.1425/1400–1275 B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:120)

"It has been suggested that LBA Jericho was limited in area to the region of the Middle Building...However, she [Kenyon] concluded that this lack of LBA levels was evidence not necessarily of their absence, but of the eroded state of the tell." - Bienkowski (1986:120–122)

"In none of the areas 2 to 4 in fig.54 is LBA pottery found in an occupation level. In each case it is in an accumulated layer, often post-Iron Age." - Bienkowski (1986:120–122)

"It does therefore seem that actual occupation at LB Jericho was limited to the area of the Middle Building." - Bienkowski (1986:120–122)

"It appears extremely unlikely that there are any town walls at Jericho which could date to the Late Bronze Age. The actual area of occupation in this period seems to have been limited to the area around the Middle Building." - Bienkowski (1986:124–125)

"Furthermore, only 8 out of 76 known LBA settlements in the whole of Canaan were fortified...The vast majority of settlements were not fortified...a tiny unwalled Jericho fits the pattern in LB Canaan extremely well." - Bienkowski (1986:124–125)

"Very little remains of the MBA town... Some of the houses have yielded vast quantities of loom weights and saddle querns, perhaps indicating weaving and corn-milling establishments." – Bienkowski (1986:126-127)

"The final MBII buildings at Jericho were destroyed violently by fire. The walls were covered by a thick layer of burnt debris... There is no material... which can be dated between the early 16th and the late 15th centuries B.C." – Bienkowski (1986:127-128)

"The reason for the destruction of Jericho is unknown... Either the Egyptians pursuing the Hyksos into Palestine or the Asiatics themselves could have been responsible." – Bienkowski (1986:127-128)

"Kenyon suggested that disease of some sort was responsible for the simultaneous death of entire families... Bartlett has amplified this... 'Plague, earthquake and fire might... have been major factors in bringing about the end of MB Jericho'." – Bienkowski (1986:128)

"Bimson has attempted to demonstrate that MB Jericho was destroyed not in the 16th but in the 15th century B.C. by invading Israelites... the end of the Middle Bronze Age must necessarily be extended by a whole century." – Bienkowski (1986:128-130)

"There has been much disagreement concerning relations between Palestine and Egypt in the Middle Kingdom... The Egyptian material in MBI/early MBII contexts therefore can be accounted for by limited Egyptian trade moving inland." – Bienkowski (1986:130-131)

"The great expansion in relations between Palestine and Egypt occurred in MBII... This development of contacts reached its zenith with the Hyksos... perhaps helped to impoverish Egypt while economically reinforcing the Palestinian towns." – Bienkowski (1986:131)

"The evidence of the MBII pottery from Jericho... shows that this was a thriving period... For Jericho and Palestine as a whole this was a period of vigorous development... although trade was perhaps not extensive." – Bienkowski (1986:135-136)

"The evidence considered in this study suggests that LB Jericho was a small unwalled settlement limited in area to the region of the Middle Building, dating to between c.1425 and c.1275 B.C.... All of these things point to fairly continuous habitation... nothing to suggest that occupation within the LBA was sporadic or discontinuous." – Bienkowski (1986:136-137)

"Jericho seems then to have been a small and fairly simple place, with no signs of wealth or vigorous activity... analysis of the LB pottery has inferred that Jericho suffered progressive decline during the LBA." – Bienkowski (1986:137)

"Following Amosis' siege of Sharuhen... there is no more direct information concerning Egypt's relations with Palestine until the time of Tuthmosis I." – Bienkowski (1986:137-138)

"Tuthmosis I led an expedition to western Asia which penetrated across the Euphrates into Naharin... a commemorative stela was set up there after a battle in which many prisoners were taken." – Bienkowski (1986:138)

"Little is known of Tuthmosis II... The biography of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet records that he accompanied the king on an expedition against the Shasu-beduin... Tuthmosis II also claimed on a stela that he was receiving tribute from Asiatics." – Bienkowski (1986:138)

"Tuthmosis III carried out at least sixteen military expeditions to Palestine and Syria... It seems that Tuthmosis III's authority in Palestine was firmly established after this decisive victory." – Bienkowski (1986:138-139)

"Prior to Tuthmosis III, it seems that the Egyptians were not interested in actually controlling Palestine or Syria. The Asiatic campaigns of the early 18th Dynasty... resulted in booty and some captives, but no permanent occupation." – Bienkowski (1986:139-140)

"Tuthmosis III from the start installed rulers of his own choosing... and carried off to Egypt their brothers or children as hostages." – Bienkowski (1986:140)

"Tuthmosis III seems to have introduced a system of Egyptian governors placed in general control of the vassals and the administration." – Bienkowski (1986:140)

"Egyptian garrisons were installed in places of strategic importance, for instance Jerusalem, Megiddo and Bethshan." – Bienkowski (1986:141)

"The Amarna letters do not document the breakdown of the Egyptian administration in Palestine." – Bienkowski (1986:142)

"The decline of the Egyptian empire was not a sudden event... Egypt soon reached a state of anarchy, and these domestic problems probably had a negative impact on the empire in Palestine." – Bienkowski (1986:144)

"The overall situation in the LBA was very different from that in the MBA." – Bienkowski (1986:150)

"The Amarna letters refer to a large group of stateless people in Palestine and Syria called ‘apiru..." – Bienkowski (1986:153)

"The Amarna letters refer to a large group of stateless people in Palestine and Syria called ‘apiru... One must also take into account the reasons for the growing rate of refugeeism." – Bienkowski (1986:153-154)

"The evidence for Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho consists of three tombs... It seems to have been abandoned in early LBIIb. There is no archaeological evidence of fortifications or for a destruction." – Bienkowski (1986:156)

"LB Jericho a small unwalled settlement (c.1425–1275 B.C.), limited to the Middle Building area, continuously but modestly inhabited and later abandoned, with no LBA tombs beyond reused MBA graves." – Bienkowski (1986:136–137)

"LB Jericho poor, with few imports, largely local pottery, progressive decline through the LBA and apparent abandonment around 1275 B.C., followed by reoccupation only in the 11th century B.C." – Bienkowski (1986:137–138)

"After Amosis’ siege of Sharuhen there is no direct evidence for Egyptian–Palestinian relations until Tuthmosis I; 18th Dynasty campaigns from Tuthmosis I to Tuthmosis III gradually impose Egyptian authority in Palestine and Syria." – Bienkowski (1986:137–138)

"Early 18th Dynasty Asiatic campaigns (pre–Tuthmosis III) consisted mainly of raids without permanent occupation; later, Tuthmosis III installs vassal rulers, takes hostages, and introduces Egyptian governors (‘Overseer of All Northern Countries’), with Gaza a key administrative centre and garrisons such as Ullaza and Sharuhen." – Bienkowski (1986:139–141)

"Amarna-period administration retained native regimes under oath and hostage systems; Egyptian garrisons at Jerusalem, Megiddo and Bethshan; three Syro-Palestinian provinces under Egyptian governors. The Amarna letters do not indicate a breakdown of Egyptian rule but a stable, routine imperial presence." – Bienkowski (1986:141–143)

"19th Dynasty imperial ‘revival’: frequent campaigns by Seti I, Ramesses II and Merneptah, new Egyptian strongholds on strategic routes, a heightened Egyptian presence, but also increasing rebellions and a gradual decline driven by Libyan and Sea-Peoples pressure and internal weaknesses." – Bienkowski (1986:143–144)

"Reasons for Egyptian presence in Palestine: tribute mainly used to support army and administration in Palestine; cereals generally not exported to Egypt; control of Palestine as a political– strategic land bridge to Syria and Mesopotamia rather than for economic exploitation." – Bienkowski (1986:144–146)

"Cypro-Palestinian trade: sharp rise in Cypriot imports from LBI, peaking in LBIIa (notably Base-Ring II), then major decline in LBIIb. Exports tailored to Palestinian demand (jugs, juglets, simpler decoration). Boom linked to Egyptian-imposed stability, decline linked to later unrest." – Bienkowski (1986:146–147)

"Mycenaean pottery in Palestine appears in small quantities, mainly LHIIIB and mostly LBIIb, often a minor accompaniment to Cypriot imports; likely arriving via Cyprus (and perhaps Rhodes) rather than direct Aegean–Levant exchange; distinguishing LHIIIA2 from IIIB1 remains difficult." – Bienkowski (1986:147–149)

"Organisation of trade: at Ugarit, royal control over merchants, craftsmen and taxes in kind stored in granaries; close parallels in Egyptian-controlled Palestine, where Egyptians and vassals controlled trade and where wealth and Egyptian material culture clustered at Tell el-‘Ajjul, Lachish, Megiddo and Bethshan." – Bienkowski (1986:149–150)

"Contrast between MBA and LBA: under Egyptian hegemony, Palestinian towns lose political independence; material culture declines—fewer and smaller settlements, many unfortified sites, degenerating pottery, and recession especially in hill-country regions away from Egyptian centres." – Bienkowski (1986:150–152)

"Rejects the idea that superior imports caused the decline: imports (Cypriot, Mycenaean) cluster at prosperous coastal and Egyptian centres, while poorer inland sites (Jericho, Gibeon, much of Hazor) show the greatest decline and have relatively few imports." – Bienkowski (1986:152–153)

"The ‘apiru as stateless refugees and outlaws concentrated in hill-country zones beyond strong Egyptian control; they contribute to instability but are symptoms of deeper economic and political stresses rather than primary causes." – Bienkowski (1986:153–154)

"Diversion of resources to the Egyptian empire and long-term tribute burdens drive local decline: weaker, poorer populations in shrinking settlements, growing refugeeism (‘apiru), reduced trade and economic contraction, especially in non-Egyptian hill-country and Transjordan." – Bienkowski (1986:154–155)

"Decline of LB Jericho: increasingly cheap pottery fabrics (reduced flint temper, reintroduced straw temper) reflect economic stress; a small, already poor village struggles under wider recession and appears to be abandoned at the start of LBIIb as unrest and Egyptian pressure intensify." – Bienkowski (1986:155)

"LB Jericho (c.1425–1275 B.C.) was a small unwalled village around the Middle Building, with three reused MBA tombs, abandoned early in LBIIb; there is no archaeological evidence for LB fortifications or an LB destruction, and the site is not reoccupied until the 11th century B.C." – Bienkowski (1986:156)

"Garstang excavated a collapsed double city wall on the summit of the tell that he dated to the late-15th to early 14th-century B.C.E. (the Late Bronze Age)." – Wood (1990a)

"Garstang concluded that City IV came to an end about 1400 B.C.E., based on pottery found in the destruction debris, on scarabs recovered from nearby tombs and on the absence of Mycenaean ware." – Wood (1990a)

"The double city wall Garstang associated with the Israelite invasion in about 1400 B.C.E. in fact dated to the Early Bronze Age some 1,000 years earlier. The destruction of Garstang’s City IV, which he had dated to about 1400 B.C.E., occurred, according to Kenyon, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, about 1550 B.C.E." – Wood (1990a)

"There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in dating the double wall on top of the tell to the Early Bronze Age. In this she was right and Garstang wrong. But there is a serious question about her dating of the destruction of the residential area of the final Bronze Age city (Garstang’s City IV) to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.)." – Wood (1990a)

"When the material is analyzed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs between c. 1560 B.C. and c. 1400 B.C." – Wood (1990a, quoting Kenyon)

"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." – Wood (1990a)

"Kenyon went on to associate the destruction of City IV with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in about 1570 B.C.E." – Wood (1990a)

"All this evidence converges to demonstrate that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C.E., not 1550 B.C.E. as Kenyon maintained." – Wood (1990a)

"In ‘Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,’ BAR 16:02, Bryant Wood argued that the destruction level at Jericho (John Garstang’s City IV), previously dated by Kathleen Kenyon to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.), should be dated to the end of Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.)." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Introducing his topic, Wood says that Kenyon based her dating of Jericho City IV to the Middle Bronze Age on the absence of Cypriote imports of Late Bronze I." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Wood uses four lines of argument to support his conclusion that Jericho City IV was destroyed about 1400 B.C.: ceramic data, stratigraphical considerations, scarab evidence and a radiocarbon date." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Wood illustrates five vessels, which he claims are Late Bronze I, not Middle Bronze II. His argument is flawed in three ways… There is no reason to doubt the Middle Bronze dating of this pottery." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Recent research has shown that during the Late Bronze Age there was a technological change in the production of pottery… Although drawings of some of these Late Bronze Age handmade and slow-wheel-finished forms appear similar to Middle Bronze Age forms in manufacture, weight and ‘feel,’ they are quite different. The pottery Wood cites from Jericho is entirely fast-wheel made and dates to Middle Bronze II." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Wood is wrong in citing certain pottery types as ‘diagnostic’ of Middle Bronze III… Thus, Wood’s attempt to fix this fictional break ‘quite confidently’ at Phase 32 is simply misinformation." – Bienkowski (1990)

"Scarabs of obscure Hyksos kings are not known to have been kept as heirlooms or manufactured later, and thus are a better guide to the absolute date of burial. The XVth-Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 would suggest a date of about 1600 B.C. for the end of the use of the Jericho tombs." – Bienkowski (1990)

"The carbon-14 date comes from the Middle Bronze Age building level Site H Stage XII.li, implying a Late Bronze Age occupation which does not occur at Site H until Stage XIV. However, this can be explained by probable contamination of Kenyon’s Stage XII from later Late Bronze Age levels." – Bienkowski (1990)

"the pottery of the Late Bronze I period is very similar to that of the final phase of the Middle Bronze period. In fact, the material culture of the Late Bronze I period is simply a continuation of that of the Middle Bronze period. As a result, many Middle Bronze forms continue into Late Bronze I. There are subtle differences in a number of types, however, and several new forms are introduced. With careful study of the pottery evidence, therefore, it is possible to distinguish the Late Bronze I period from the terminal phase of the Middle Bronze period" – Wood (1990b)

"the flaring carinated bowl with slight crimp is perfectly at home in the Late Bronze I period" – Wood (1990b)

"Bienkowski clinches his argument by stating that this pottery did not come from the erosional layers on the east side of the tell as I stated, but rather from the rooms of the Late Bronze II "Middle Building," as the markings on the sherds indicate. Again, Bienkowski has not done his homework. Following the destruction of the Bronze Age city at Jericho, the site lay abandoned for a considerable period of time. During this period, material from the top of the tell washed down the slopes, forming a thick layer of erosional debris (Garstang's "streak," Kenyon's "wash"). Toward the end of the Late Bronze IIA period (second half of the 14th century B.C.E.), a large palace or residency (Garstang's Middle Building), with its associated outbuildings, was built into the erosional layer on the east side of the tell. The Middle Building was occupied only for a generation or so and then abandoned. After this abandonment, material again washed down from the higher elevations, covering the ruined building.⁵⁵ When Garstang excavated the Middle Building, he found almost no pottery on the floors of the building itself,⁵⁶ a fact duly noted by Bienkowski.⁵⁷ For record-keeping purposes, however, Garstang labeled his finds according to the areas defined by the rooms of the Middle Building, with notations concerning the level, that is, whether from high in the debris (the upper erosional layer), on the floor of the building, beneath the foundations of the structure (the erosional layer below) or, in some cases, in the ruins of the Bronze Age city below. Thus, as Kenyon observed some time ago,⁵⁸ most of the pottery excavated by Garstang in this area came from the erosional layers above or beneath the Middle Building, even though it was labeled with the room numbers of the Middle Building. Since there were no other Late Bronze II structures up slope of the Middle Building, even the material that covered the ruined building after its abandonment was from the earlier Bronze Age city. Since there was little in situ material in the structure, and since it was occupied only for a relatively short period of time, almost all of the pottery recovered from this area derives from the earlier Bronze Age city." – Wood (1990b)

"it is possible to recognize the pottery of the final phase of the Middle Bronze period" – Wood (1990b)

"Bienkowski cautions against using royal-name scarabs for dating purposes since "scarabs of well-known XVIIIth-Dynasty kings were very common, and could remain in circulation (or even be made) long after the kings themselves had died." The scarabs in question are those of Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III.⁷⁵ I would heartily agree with Bienkowski with regard to scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, but the scarab of Hatshepsut is of a different nature. Both Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III were revered after their deaths and their scarabs served amuletic purposes. The situation with Hatshepsut, however, was not the same. After her death she was maligned, her name systematically obliterated from monuments and inscriptions.⁷⁶ As a result, her scarabs were not kept or copied as good luck charms. Because of this, scarabs of Hatshepsut are extremely rare and are excellent chronological indicators. In addition, Garstang found a seal of Tuthmosis III. It is flat and inscribed on both sides with the cartouches of this pharaoh. Again, this is a rare find and can be considered a contemporary artifact. With these two being contemporary, it lends credence to the contemporaneity of the other scarabs. The scarab of Hatshepsut and the seal of Tuthmosis III, then, along with the associated scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, suggest that the cemetery at Jericho was in active use throughout the 15th century B.C.E." – Wood (1990b)

Archaeological work at Tell es-Sultan has firmly identified the mound with ancient Jericho, and while excavations reveal a fiery destruction of a walled Bronze Age city, scholars have long disagreed over the date of its fall and how (or whether) it connects to the Joshua narrative; Kennedy reassesses the pottery, scarabs, tablet and radiocarbon data to refine this chronology. – Kennedy (2023:1)

The prevailing scholarly view in recent decades is that the Joshua conquest story is a “romantic mirage” which contradicts the archaeology, since “there was no trace of a settlement” at Jericho around 1230 BC, the usual conquest date; although some argue for a historical conquest either in LB IIB (~1230 BC) or around 1400 BC at the end of LB IB, it is “almost universally acknowledged” that there is no destroyed walled city at Jericho in the 13th century BC. – Kennedy (2023:2)

Jericho is one of several Canaanite sites with a formidable Middle Bronze fortification system: a cyclopean stone retaining wall some 4–5 m high with a 6–8 m high mudbrick superstructure, inner mudbrick walling rising over 12 m, and MB III ramparts dated around 1650–1550/1600–1500 BC; Kennedy stresses that, as at Hazor, Gezer and Tell Jerishe, such massive MB fortifications could have remained in use into Late Bronze I. – Kennedy (2023:3)

Excavators at Jericho report outward-falling mudbrick walls forming a sloping ramp in front of the MB III stone revetment, followed by a “terrible destruction” by fire with collapsed buildings and long abandonment; this pattern has often been attributed to an earthquake rather than battering rams, and the sequence of fallen walls, city burned, unlooted grain and subsequent occupational hiatus closely mirrors the order of events in Joshua 6. – Kennedy (2023:4–7)

Thousands of sherds from the Jericho IVc destruction layer include Cypriot Bichrome and Chocolate-on-White wares, plus local and imported forms with clear Late Bronze I parallels across the southern Levant; Kennedy argues that both the older German excavations and Kenyon’s own plates contradict Kenyon’s claim that such LB I “exotic” wares were absent, and that Garstang rightly observed a strong LB I component with no LB II (Mycenaean) imports. – Kennedy (2023:8–10)

Kennedy maintains that Jericho was certainly occupied in Late Bronze I, but that differing chronologies, mis-assignment of LB I wares to LB II and appeals to erosion or dumping have produced conflicting reconstructions; he notes that entire strata do not simply “disappear” and that the ceramic evidence from all campaigns since 1907 is best explained by a LB I city destroyed before LB II. – Kennedy (2023:8–10)

Inscribed Egyptian scarabs at Jericho—especially those of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Amenhotep III, plus a rare two-sided seal of Thutmose III—indicate occupation into the reign of Amenhotep III; because Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III scarabs are unlikely to be late heirlooms, Kennedy argues that the final Bronze Age city was destroyed near the end of Late Bronze IB, around 1400 BC, and links this horizon to wider signs of Egyptian weakness in Canaan reflected in the Amarna Letters. – Kennedy (2023:11–15)

The stratigraphic sequence from Jericho IVc through the Late Bronze IIA “Middle Building” and on to the Iron II Hilani suggests a short post-destruction hiatus followed by a single palatial residence in LB IIA (possibly linked with Eglon of Moab), then full rebuilding only in Iron IIA; a badly preserved cuneiform tablet dated to the 15th century BC, probably washed down from Jericho IVc into later levels, further supports LB I occupation. – Kennedy (2023:11–15)

Radiocarbon determinations from Jericho range from ca. 1700–1520 cal BC (Kenyon’s samples) to ca. 1600–1350 BC (Italian-Palestinian samples), and are plagued by calibration issues, old-wood effects and the well-known “high” radiocarbon chronology for Levantine Bronze Age sites; Kennedy concludes that 14C can rule out a ca. 1230 BC destruction but cannot decisively choose between a MB III or LB I date for Jericho IVc. – Kennedy (2023:11–15)

Bringing together pottery, royal scarabs, the cuneiform tablet, stratigraphy, radiocarbon and the later occupational history, Kennedy argues that “the destruction of the final walled Bronze Age city of Jericho” most plausibly occurred near the end of Late Bronze I, around 1400 BC, and that the mode of destruction and subsequent abandonment (save for a single LB IIA residence) are strikingly consistent with the sequence described in the book of Joshua. – Kennedy (2023:15)

Archaeoseismic Effects

End of Sultan Ib Earthquake - PPNA - ~7500 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	different sections of the site Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ Nigro (2016)		Alfonsi (2012:646) noted that evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site from earlier excavations. Alfonsi (2012:646) continued adding that a wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986)

1st Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~7000 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Skeletons beneath collapse	Stage D I, XVII A, F I xxxi, D I xlii, D II xxx–xxxi Point 2 (Kenyon's Trench 1) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3b Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - DI, XVII A FI xxxi, DI xlii, DII xxx–xxxi Overlying the surface of stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeed by new building in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction and decay…;. In this part of DI and over the whole FI there was a bricky fill…; the filling represents a destruction and decay level…;it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty…the bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves…; the complete body lies on the plastered floor position prone as if in the position in which the individual collapse…;. The examination of skeletal remains, provide no evidence of wounds…;.A more probable explanation is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake…;. - Kenyon (1981:77–78) Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing	Point 4 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)		Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Square M, stage XI, phases lxiv–lxvia A substantial crack in section J—K…; may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake. - Kenyon (1981:243) The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). - - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing Major Collapse	Point 9 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3a Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Squares E’s stage XIII, phase liv This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was traced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels, which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii at courtyard level, could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably associated to the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack (fault), but Professor Zeuner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards.” - Kenyon (1981:298) The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)

2nd Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~6000 BCE

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls Collapsed artifacts	Point 3 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3c Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Original picture from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - FI, Stage XXIII–XXIV, FI xxxvii–xxxviii, DI xlvi-xlvii, DII xxxiv–xxxv The buildings of this stage were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from then north end of square FI. Here wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the central room to the south. - Kenyon (1981:87-88) The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Surface fracturing	Point 15 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3d Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Garstang’s excavation level X–XIm To these common cause of decay there should be added the effects of earthquakes, visible traceable at certain of these levels where great fissures appear through walls and floors. These were, however, exceptional, and their trace are generally quite marked. - Garstang and Garstang (1948:58) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 46 The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:645) Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)
Skeletons Surface Fracturing	Point 16 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3f Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Great Garstang’s level XI In the other case a man’s head was found that have been completely severed from his body, as may be seen in our photograph on Plate IXb; but as the excavation continued we noticed a continuous fissure across the floor of the room and running up the walls, telling of an earthquake which by a remarkable coincidence has subsequently produced this curious illusion of decapitation - Garstang and Garstang (1948:62) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 51 Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644-645)

1st and 2nd Sultan IIb Earthquakes Combined

Modified by JW from Alfonsi et al. (2012:Table 2)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description / Notes
Considerable collapses Destruction Decay Rebuilding	Stage XVII, F I xxx, xxxa, Tr. I x–xxi, D I xliii Point 1 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"At the end of stage XVI there was a considerable collapse. The wall stumps of the buildings in square F I were buried beneath a filling of fallen bricks, and the western end of the walls were denuded to floor levels. It is clear that the terrace wall along the western edge of the building must have collapsed....There was however a complete rebuilding." - Kenyon (1981:75)
Earthquake casualties	Stage D I, XVII A, F I xxxi, D I xlii, D II xxx–xxxi Point 2 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3b Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	"Overlying the surface of stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeed by new building in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction and decay....In this part of D I and over the whole F I there was a bricky fill...the filling represents a destruction and decay level... it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty....the bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves....the complete body lies on the plastered floor position prone as if in the position in which the individual collapse....The examination of skeletal remains provided no evidence of wounds....A more probable explanation is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake...." - Kenyon (1981:77–78)
Collapsed wall Collapsed artifacts	F I, stage XXIII–XXIV, F I xxxvii–xxxviii, D I xlvi–xlvii, D II xxxiv–xxxv Point 3 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3c Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Original picture from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012)	"The buildings of this stage were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from the north end of square F I. Here wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the central room to the south." - Kenyon (1981:87–88)
Surface fracturing	Square M, stage XI, phases lxiv–lxvia Point 4 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3a Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	"A substantial crack in section J—K...may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:243)
Collapses Subsequent rebuilding	Trench II, stage IX, phase xxxiv–xxxvi Point 5 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"The destruction of the phase xxxiv buildings is marked by a thick brick fill, up to 0.75 m. thick. All the wall north of point 21 m. were destroyed." - Kenyon (1981:132)
Collapses Brick debris Rebuilding	Squares E’s stage X, phase xxxviii Point 6 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"Phase xxxviii was preceded by a considerable collapse in the eastern half of the area. The new walls and floors were founded on a fill of about 0.35 of broken bricks and debris, and the walls east of, and including the west wall of the old courtyard are new." - Kenyon (1981:291)
Destruction Debris fill	Squares E’s, stage XI, phase xlv—stage XII, phase xvi Point 7 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"Phase xlvi involved the complete rebuilding of the western range, and the almost complete rebuilding of the eastern range. In the western range the debris of the phase xlv buildings produced a fill as much as 0.70 m. thick...." - Kenyon (1981:294)
Surface fracturing	Squares E’s stage XII, phase xlvii Point 8 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"...in the courtyard was observed for the first time a remarkable series of cracks in section, however, showed that it originated in phase iii...." - Kenyon (1981:295)
Surface fracturing Major collapse	Square E’s, stage XIII, phase liii Point 9 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was traced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels, which was clearly visible in section at courtyard level, could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably associated to the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack (fault), but Professor Zeuner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards." - Kenyon (1981:296)
Surface fracturing	Squares E’s stage XIII, phase liv Point 10 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"On the section line there had been a crack in the preceding fill, into which some surface area sagged." - Kenyon (1981:300)
Crushed bodies Considerable destruction Collapse	Square E’s stage XIII, phase lv–lvi Point 11 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"The changes in plans between phase lv and lvi were not great, but the fill between the floors of the two phases nevertheless indicated a fairly considerable destruction, and possibly a major disaster. The fill was full of burnt material—A number of lines could be traced which probably represented fallen roof-beams. These were not actually burnt....presumably they fell before they were thoroughly set on fire....Numerous burnt clay fragments from the roof surface were also in the fill. Within the rooms of the eastern range is a hard bricky fill, presumably derived from the collapsed walls....Still more interesting is the fact that buried beneath the fill were a number of bodies....The skeletons are curiously mutilated and incomplete....The group naturally suggests comparison with the similar but larger group in square F I." - Kenyon (1981:302–303)
Decay level	Square E’s XIII, phase lvii Point 12 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"Between phase lvi and phase lvii there seems to intervene a decay level, in which at least the eastern range was in ruins...." - Kenyon (1981:303)
Considerable destruction Subsequent rebuilding	Square E’s stage XIV, phase lxi Point 13 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"Phase lxi represents the most complete rebuilding for a very long time. From phase liii onwards, there is evidence of considerable destruction at the various stages....Now, thick bricky debris filled the whole range....very well is rebuilt in a slightly different position....in the bricky fill beneath the new western range were some skeletal remains....it is possible that they represent a foundation sacrifice." - Kenyon (1981:305–306)
Major destruction Brick debris	Square E’s stage XV, phase lxv Point 14 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"Phase lxiv was separated from phase lxv by another major destruction, of which the thick brick fill in the western range, and the alteration of the position of wall are evidence. Phase lxv represents the lowest level reached by Professor Garstang, his level XI." - Kenyon (1981:308)
Surface fracturing	Garstang’s excavation level X–XIm Point 15 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3d Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	"To these common causes of decay there should be added the effects of earthquakes, visible as great fissures which at certain levels of these years appear through walls and floors. These were, however, exceptional, and their traces are generally quite marked." - Garstang and Garstang (1948:46)
Skeletons remains Surface fracturing	Great Garstang’s level XI Point 16 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3f Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)	"In the other case a man’s head was found that had been completely severed from his body, as may be seen in our photograph on Plate [Xb]; but as the work progressed we noticed a continuous fissure across the floor of the room and down the excavation edge, telling of an earthquake shock by which a man’s head was subsequently produced, this curious illusion of decapitation." - Garstang and Garstang (1948:51)
Collapse Skeletons	Trench III, stage IX, phase xxi–xxii Point 17 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"It was therefore between phases xix and xx that there was a considerable erosion, which have been due to a serious collapse of the town wall....At the end of phase xxi there was a major destruction or collapse, and very little of the earlier plan survives into the next stage." - Kenyon (1981:186–187)
Squatting stage	F I, stage XXVI, phase xliii, D I I Point 18 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan between 7500 and 6000 BC (Pre-Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) click on image to open in a new tab Alfonsi et al. (2012)		"In square F I, were a number of hearths, hollows, and surfaces that break into the ruins of the last Pre-Pottery B house. They must represent a squatting or camping stage after the disappearance of the Pre Pottery Neolithic B town. No pottery is associated with them." - Kenyon (1981:92)

Sultan IIIa1 Earthquake - EB IA - ~3400-3200 BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	Trench III (Site N) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Plate 267 Trench III Plans: XV. lviii. Errata: In hatching key, Plate xl Re-used should be Phase l Re-used an Phase liv Re-Used should be Phase lv Re-Used. XV.lix. Erraturm: In hatching key, horizontal lines of phase lix should be broken lines XVI.lx, lxi. Earratum: In caaption, PHASE XVI.xli should be PHASES XVI.lx and lxi. XVI.lxii. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	Plate 273 Trench III. West Section. Errata: Metre numbers 0-12 S. at bottom N. end of trench incorrectly numbered 22-12. Lettering of Wall NEN, betweeen 1.60 m. and 2.20 m. S., 11.70 m. H., omitted. Phase lxxvi-lxxviia, between c. 1.50 m. and 3.50 m. S., 15 m. and 16.30 m. H., incorrectly numbered lxxvi-lxxiia. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Plate 274 Trench III. Sections and Key. East Section Section III Section IV Section V. Erratum: Wall NCE should be NCP. Section VI Section VII (N.B. Hatching used to deliniate walls on Sections III-VII and X (Pl. 275(c)) is independent of scheme used on 'Key to Hatching of Sections') Key to Positi0n of Sections Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	"XVI. Phases lxi—lxii (Major destruction), lxi—lxii a (Erosion line of subsequent collapses), lxi—lxii b (Silt levels) - The destruction at the end of phase bd was a major one, for it involved all three terrace walls and all the interior structures except NDS, the west end of NDR and NDQ. It may be presumed to have been caused by the collapse of a wall further south, probably the town wall, for the line of erosion dips down steeply south of NDT, an erosion line followed in subsequent collapses. At the north end of the trench silt levels accumulated over NCT and NCS-NDE to a height of about 11.30 m. H." - Kenyon (1981:204) "XVI. Phases lxii-lxiii - The destruction at the end of phase lxii was a severe one, which resulted in the collapse of all the structures in the southern half of the trench. It was accompanied by heavy burning, and fallen burnt timbers were especially noticeable in the area south of NDY (east section 9.25 m. to 13 m. S., c. 10.50 m.– 10.80 m. H.). The collapse of wall NDQ into the area between it and NDR showed that this area had remained open, down to the original floor level until this period. The tilting of NDQ suggests that the collapse may have been due to an earthquake, and the disappearance of the higher levels that must have existed between NDR and NDS together with the upper part of these walls suggests that once more a wall further south must have collapsed. The whole complex NDQ, NDR, NDS, and silo NEC were buried in debris and disappeared." - Kenyon (1981:204–205) "XVII. Phases lxix—lxx (Fill over silo NEH—NEJ), lxix—lxx a (Collapse of wall NEN) - Following this period of occupation, there was apparently. some collapse, especially marked in a fill of burnt debris into the continuing sag over silo NEH–NEJ, seen in the west section at 9.95 m. – 11.10 m. S., 11.50 m.–11.87 m. H. It is possible that to the same stage belongs the collapse of wall NEN in a tumble of bricks, seen in the east section at 3.75 m. - 4.75 m. S., c. 11.62 m. H., and in the west section at 3.25 m.–4.37 m. S., c. 11.75 m. H., which is suggestive of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:207) "From Kenyon’s estimates there are three layers in Jericho that show some good evidence of earthquake damage, namely during the periods of 8500–7000 BC (stratum PPNB), 3400–3100 BC (stratum EBA I) and 2300–1950 BC (stratum EBA IIIB), none of which, however, can be associated with Joshua and the fall of Jericho." - Ambraseys (2009)

Sultan IIIb2 Earthquake - EB IIB - ~2850-~2700 BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	Wall B of Town Wall 1 in Areas FI, DI, and DII adjacent to and due east of Trench I Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Plate 79b Plate 79b Tower built against Town Wall A (p. 97) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Plate 80a Plate 80a Foundations of tower and face of Town Wall B (p. 97) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Pl. 236 Plate 236 Square FI. Section A-B Erratum: Hatching of diagonally dotted lines incorrect for phase FI.xliii between c. 0.75 m. and 2 m. W., 11.40 m. and 12 m. H. and betweeen c. 6.30 m. and 7.50 m. W., 10.70 m. and 11.20 m. H. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Pl. 240 Plate 240 Tr.I, FI, DI. Sections: Fl. Section W-A'. Erratum: Phase hatched xlix, betweeen 10.25 m. and 11.80 m. N., 11.80 m. and 12 m. H., should be phase xlixa and is incorrectly hatches Dl. Section X-Y Fl. Section QQ-RR. Erratum: Phase FI.xxvi should be FI.xxva FI, Tr.I. Section V-W, W'-Z. Errata: Phase FI.xxvi, between 3.90 m. and 4.90 m. W., 8.50 m. H., should be FI.xxva. Wall numbered 205 should be 208 and Wall 208 should be 205 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	"In Trench I, on the west side of the tell, the Bronze Age fortifications were identified by Kenyon in squares FI-DI. The oldest structure that can be interpreted as a defensive boundary of the original village from the Early Bronze Age and which effectively marks its transformation into a city was called "Wall A." ... Wall A was replaced (and partially incorporated) by Wall B, which was in turn destroyed by a violent earthquake (both structures constitute, in Kenyon's reconstruction, "Town Wall I")." - Nigro (2006c:358-360) "Against the face of wall A was a semi-circular tower, of which little more than the stone footings survive (pl. 79b). It is not bonded into wall A, and is likely to be structurally secondary since on section W'—Z it looks as though the foot of wall A had been slightly eroded before the tower was built, and the bricks of the tower were drab and not white. It is in fact not certain whether the tower belongs to wall A or to the rebuild, wall B, on the same line, in phase xxxix. As pl. 80a shows, the foundations of the tower are somewhat lower than those of wall B. This need not be significant. In the collapse of the tower are mingled drab bricks from the tower and the distinctive white bricks of wall A. But since the southern part of wall A certainly continued in use with the repair to the north, wall B, this would allow of the tower being destroyed only when wall B was destroyed. There is no conclusive evidence as to whether the tower was an addition to wall A continuing in use with wall B, or was added only to wall B. There is relatively clear evidence that the tower, like wall A+B, was abolished at least by the time of the earthquake at the end of phase xxxix. The fallen bricks in section W'— Z do not show the toppled-forward face of the wall so suggestive of an earthquake that is seen in section I (pl. 236) (also visible in pl. 80a), but the surface covering due tumble is the same in each section. In section I, the foundation trench of wall C cutting through the tumble is visible. In section W'—Z, pl. 240, wall C is founded on wall A at the level of the surface." - Kenyon (1981:97) "The collapse of wall B is a good example of earthquake action. In the north section it can be seen how the face of the wall collapsed down the slope as a whole, leaving the core and the eastern face standing. The collapsed bricks are also seen in pl. 80a. The brickwork of the eastern face survives to a height of a metre, and though at that point the collapse of wall C has removed all evidence, it is unlikely that B ever survived higher, since only 0.25 m. of width was left at that point, which would have been quite unstable." - Kenyon (1981:97-98) "The earthquake damage was made good by wall C, cut into the debris of collapse and filling, and filling in the raw edge of wall B." - Kenyon (1981:98) "The excavations have revealed several instances of a collapse which strongly suggests an earthquake, for example that shown in the section of Trench I, where the face of the wall has collapsed outward in a tip of intact bricks." - Kenyon (1957:176) "Based on the available documentation (Table 2), two main defensive circuits can be identified. The first, already consisting of the double wall and evidently planned and built as a single unit, arose at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age III on the rubble of the previous walls of Sultan IIIb, which collapsed, as mentioned, as a result of an earthquake." - Nigro (2006c:372-373)
Collapsed Walls	Town Wall 1 in Site A Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Plate 343a Plate 343a Site A, South Section Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Fig. 38 (equivalent to 200a) Figure 38 Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. At the base, beside the survey pole, the stone foundations and, spreading to the right, the face of the brick wall collapsed onto the contemporary surface. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1978) Fig. 38 Figure 38 Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. JW: Ordered fall of mud-bricks from the face of the town wall is shaded red while the disordered wall of mud-bricks from the core of the wall is shaded pink. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1978) Plate 200b Plate 200b Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff/) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Fig. 16 Figure 16 Dune-yellowish mudbricks tumble down from the EB II city wall at Kenyon’s Site A (after Kenyon 1981, pl. 200b). click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2014) Plate 100a Plate 100a Stone foundation of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM (p.146) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981)	"Further north, still on the west side of the tell, in the trench known as "Site A," Town Wall I was exposed for a short stretch down to the foundations, and its collapse was again confirmed due to an earthquake" - Nigro (2006c:358-360) "The lowest levels reached belonged to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Above was clear evidence of a wall, A.TW. 1, destroyed by earthquake. Over the debris of this collapse was constructed A.TW. 2" - Kenyon (1981:372) "The in situ evidence of wall A.TW. 1 is minimal. Section pl. 343 and pl. 100a, however, give vivid evidence of the collapse of a wall from its foundations. In pl. 100a on the left at the base of the trench is visible a single course of stone foundations. ... On to this plaster level the face of the wall fell in such a way that the bricks are vertical. The surviving remains show that a height of 1 m. of the face of the wall fell forward in one piece, before there had been in this area any building up of levels, and this feature extended to the west beyond the excavated area. Above the fallen face is the evidence of the collapse of the core of the wall, at first of broken fragments and bricks, then, above that, of complete bricks higgledy-piggledy. The top of this level is seen on pl. 200b. This destruction phase is certainly to be interpreted as an earthquake collapse, with a first sharp collapse, followed by more gradual crumbling. The evidence closely resembles that in Trench I, where wall B provides similar evidence, though there the collapse of the face was not right to the foundations. It could be that the destruction on both sites belongs to the same earthquake, but this cannot be certain over a distance of nearly 70 m. in a wall so frequently destroyed." - Kenyon (1981:372-373) "The clearest example was in Site A at the north-west corner of the tell. There the face of the wall can be seen fallen outwards from the stone foundations and to be lying with the bricks vertical on the contemporary surface (Pl. 37A equivalent to Fig. 38). Above is a confused tumble of bricks, which presumably represents the more gradual crumbling of the core of the wall. Above again, on the resulting layer of debris, is built the succeeding wall." - Kenyon (1957:176)
Collapsed Walls	Trenches I, II, and II in addition to Square M, site A, and houses on the northern plateau Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)		".... a terrible earthquake struck, a common event along the Jericho Fault, brought to a sudden end the earliest EB II city. The city-wall, and the majority of buildings, ruinously collapsed⁵⁶, letting this event to be classified between degrees IX-XI of the Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg intensity scale." - Nigro (2014:72) "Kenyon 1957, 175-176, pl. 37a; 1981, 373, pls. 200, 343a; Nigro 2006a, 359-361, 372-373; 2009a, 182; 2010, 326-327. Evidence of such a tremendous earthquake, and related widespread destruction, was detected by Kenyon all over the site, namely in Trench I (Stage XXXV.xli; Kenyon 1981, 97-98), Trench II (Stage XVIII.lxii; Kenyon 1981, 161), Trench III (Stage XVII.lxxi; Kenyon 1981, 207-209), Square M (Stage XXI.ci; Kenyon 1981, 261), Site A (Stage B.Fii-Fi; Kenyon 1981, 373), and in the houses on the northern plateau (Squares EIII-IV, Phase C; Kenyon 1981, 335-336; Nigro 2010, 86). The same dramatic event also occurred at the nearby cAi/et-Tell (Callaway 1993, 42), at Tell el-Mutesellim (Finkelstein - Ussishkin - Peersmann 2006, 49-50), and at Khirbet Kerak (Greenberg et al. 2006, 247), Pella/Tell el-Husn (Bourke 2000, 233-235), Tell Abu Kharaz (Fischer 2008, 31, 34, 71, 181, 383-385) and Tell es-Sacidiyeh (Tubb 1998, 42-43) in the Jordan Valley, up to Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Douglas 2007, 27-28) and Khirbet al-Batrawy (Nigro 2009c, 437; Sala in the volume, 175) in Transjordan." - Nigro (2014:72 n. 56)

Sultan IIIc1 Destruction - EB IIIA - ~2500 BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls	Fortification Walls Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 8 Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016)	Fig. 18 Figure 18 EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east. click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2014)	"Also the EB IIIA (Sultan IIIc1) city occurred an abrupt and violent destruction towards the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. In Area B and B-West, at the southern side of the city, the EB IIIA double line of fortifications was dramatically set on fire. The EB IIIA South Gate was burnt, and its ceilings, supported by tamarisk beams, collapsed (fig. 18). This destructive event was possibly due to an enemy attack, as it heavily involved the city fortifications all around the city-walls perimeter, while it is not apparently attested to in other areas inside the city. ... The second half of the 3rd millennium BC was, in facts, characterized in Palestine by increasing infighting between urban centres and/or semi-nomadic tribes, and violent destructions became common events." - Nigro (2014:75)

Sultan IV a2 Earthquake - MB IB - towards the end of the 18th century BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Debris (due to Collapsed Walls)	Square AqIV13 Figure 2 Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro and Taha (2006) Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016)		"In Square AqIV13, samples of ashes and charcoals were taken from destruction layer F.1688, a up to 0.6 m thick stratum accumulated over courtyard floors L.1680 + L.16605 west of Tower A1 (fig. 2). This layer, including rubble heaps, resulted from a major destructive event, which took place towards the end of the 18th century BC (around the mid of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty) and might be attributed to a violent earthquake" - Nigro and Taha (2013:2-3)

Sultan IVc Destruction - MB III or LB I - ~1650-1400 BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls Fire Burning of Stored Grain Abandonment	Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Figure 1 Composite map of the ancient city of Jericho based on multiple excavations click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Pl. 62A Plate 62A Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Pl. 62A annotated Plate 62A Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them. Burnt material shaded pink (by JW) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig.4 Figure 4 Stratigraphic section of the final Bronze Age destruction layer at Jericho from a Kenyon excavated square on the eastern side of the city, showing collapsed building materials, pottery, charcoal, and ash. click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Signs of destruction from the final phase of City IV betray the calamity that befell Jericho. "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area. This debris is visible in the west balk behind the meter stick in the photo above (a balk is a side of an excavation square left standing to preserve a record of the square’s strata). The destruction debris has been removed elsewhere to expose the remains of the destroyed city. At the top of the north balk, upper right corner in the above photo, is an erosion layer consisting of material washed down from further up the slope. Within the destruction debris of the north balk, we can see the remains of a late-14th- century B.C.E. structure. At upper left is a cobbled, stepped street (seen in close-up below left). The line of stones that extends from the center left edge of the larger photo to the center bottom is a drain that passed under the street preserved at upper left. The drain was originally covered with stones, but the channel of the drain is exposed here in the upper part. The street led from the summit of the city’s southeast slope to the spring on the east side of the city, which today fills the modern reservoir seen at right in the plan "City IV" above. click on image to open in a new tab Wood (1990a) Same as image above except destruction layer is shaded red and erosion layer is shaded pink (by JW) click on image to open in a new tab modified from Wood (1990a) Signs of destruction from the final phase of City IV betray the calamity that befell Jericho. "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area. This debris is visible in the west balk behind the meter stick in the photo above (a balk is a side of an excavation square left standing to preserve a record of the square’s strata). The destruction debris has been removed elsewhere to expose the remains of the destroyed city. At the top of the north balk, upper right corner in the above photo, is an erosion layer consisting of material washed down from further up the slope. Within the destruction debris of the north balk, we can see the remains of a late-14th- century B.C.E. structure. At upper left is a cobbled, stepped street (seen in close-up below left). The line of stones that extends from the center left edge of the larger photo to the center bottom is a drain that passed under the street preserved at upper left. The drain was originally covered with stones, but the channel of the drain is exposed here in the upper part. The street led from the summit of the city’s southeast slope to the spring on the east side of the city, which today fills the modern reservoir seen at right in the plan "City IV" above. click on image to open in a new tab Wood (1990a) Figure 2 Cross section of Trench I showing the Jericho outer city wall built in Middle Bronze III. The pile of fallen mudbricks in the form of a ramp in front of the stone retaining wall originally comprised a mudbrick wall atop the stone retaining wall. click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Figure 4 Section of Trench 1 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957)	Descriptions "The destruction of Middle Bronze Age Jericho has already been described. Over the leaning and distorted tops of the walls, and the debris within the rooms, is a most striking stratum (Pl. 62 A). It is about a metre thick, and consists of streaks of black, brown, white and pinkish ash. It is in fact the wash down the slope of burnt buildings farther up the mound. This wash is the evidence of a period in which the elements were given free play with Jericho. Winter rains in the Jordan Valley are violent while they last, and summer heat tends to reduce all surfaces to crumbly dust, easily washed away by the next rains. On the west side of the hill we found layer after layer of the resultant silt, which with the aid of superimposed layers we could date between the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, between the Iron Age and the Roman period, and from the Roman period down to modern times. When the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age town took place by burning, the crest on the west was crowned by the great bank of the contemporary defences, so the wash of the levels of the last town of this period is only found on the eastern slope, but they, equally with those on the west slope, indicate a period of abandonment and an appreciable lapse of time. ... We have already seen that over most of the summit of the tell even the houses of the certainly populous Middle Bronze Age town have vanished, and only levels of the Early Bronze Age remain. We have also seen how the process of erosion was washing away the Middle Bronze Age houses on the east slope, during an interval of perhaps 180 years. This process was arrested when the town of 1400 B.C. was built on top of the wash, but this in turn was abandoned, and erosion has almost removed it. It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. The erosion which has destroyed much of the defences has already been described." - Kenyon (1957:259-265) "These Middle Bronze Age defences lasted from the eighteenth century to about the middle of the sixteenth century. They could have survived sufficiently to be repaired for use in the Late Bronze Age towns but since so much of the Middle Bronze Age defences have disappeared, it is absolutely certain that nothing at all of walls of the later town, to the period of which the entry into Palestine must belong, can survive. Archaeology will thus never be able to provide visual evidence of the walls that fell down in front of the attacking Israelites. Excavations have, however, produced enough evidence that there was a Late Bronze Age town and to give some slight evidence of the date at which it was destroyed. Over nearly the whole site the houses of the Middle Bronze Age, and anything later, had shared the fate of the defences and had disappeared due to erosion. One small area of the Middle Bronze Age town survived on the east side, adjacent to the spring. The houses had been destroyed by fire at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, in the first half of the sixteenth century BC. After, it is certain that there was then an abandonment during which erosion carried the burnt debris down the slope of the mound, to create a thick layer over the seventeenth–sixteenth century houses. Overlying this debris layer there survived at the east end of the excavated area the stone foundations of a single wall. This wall was so close to the modern surface that only about a square metre of the contemporary floor survived, with elsewhere the modern surface cutting down into it (40). The one juglet surviving on its surface, lying by a small clay oven, and a limited amount of Late Bronze Age pottery beneath the floor, suggests that the building is late fourteenth century in date. A Late Bronze Age occupation of the site is thus proved, but the excavations within the town provide little detail. The best evidence for dating the reoccupation of the site after a period of abandonment at the end of the Middle Bronze Age comes from the tombs excavated during the 1930–36 excavations. Professor Garstang was misled in the interpretation of the evidence from them by then current misdatings of sixteenth to fourteenth century pottery. He also failed to realise that in the process of burial in these rock-cut tombs, the latest burial is usually at a low level in front of the tomb, with the remains of earlier burials pushed back and mounded up to the rear (41). Absolute height of burials within the tomb chamber means nothing, and Professor Garstang was led to believe that later objects found on the same level as earlier ones were contemporary. A wholly false impression of continuity and early chronology was thus given. The finds in the tombs cleared in these excavations indicated that a very few of the Middle Bronze tombs were re-opened and some later burials were placed in them. Associated with the burials in this period of Late Bronze Age re-use there were Mycenaean vessels. Unfortunately no sufficiently diagnostic features survive to pin-point the period of these tombs. The acknowledged leading authority on the subject, Professor Furumark, considers that the finds cannot be more closely dated than within the period of LM III A and LM III B (1300–1230 BC). Mrs Hankey, however, would put the vessels concerned in LM III A2 (1375–1300). The attribution of the vessels within LM III is not sufficiently precise to provide close dating. The only thing that is important is that one can say on the basis of archaeological evidence that there was a break in continuity at the end of the Late Bronze Age reoccupation. It would be very difficult on the pottery evidence to put this as late as the end of the thirteenth century. The general evidence, both from the Mycenaean pottery and the other wares would allow for a date as late as 1300 BC but not later. After this occupation ceases until Iron Age II." - Kenyon (1978:33-40) "Middle Bronze Age - Phases H X. xxxix (Rebuilding of tower complex), xxxix a (Occupation levels and storage jar beside wall HCX) (plan pl. 332a) - The north wall HCG of phase xxxvi collapsed and has completely disappeared. Into the debris of its collapse and on top of wall HCC of phase xxxvii was built wall HCV, as seen in Sections VI and VII, and as described above, p. 357. The east wall HCK did not collapse completely, but a rebuilding HCW is seen in Section XVII, the associated levels of which could be traced round to show that it was contemporary with wall HCV. It should be noted that wall HCW was badly split by earthquake cracks, one of which has cut down its east face and that of HCK beneath it, severing the levels from the two walls, but the interpretation of their significance is clear. In the south section, wall HCW was considerably destroyed in the 1930–6 excavations, but its stump survives. The north wall HCF of phase xxxvi, however, continued in use, as can be seen by the correlation of Section VI and the south section" - Kenyon (1981:359-360) "The 'Palace' and the Middle Building (so called because it stood in apparent isolation between the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age levels) are the only major constructions excavated which could conceivably date to the Late Bronze Age. Little can be said with certainty about the 'Palace'. Kenyon thought that there was no published dating evidence, and suggested that it could even be Iron Age (in Avi-Yonah 1976, 563-4). Only the substantial foundations of it remained in situ and only a small part of it was excavated (fig.55; Garstang 1934, 105, 127 and pl.XV, Rooms 80 and S1). Garstang dated its origin to MBII, and one of his excavation notebooks mentions that it contained 'good MB material'. A drain (dl) ran through the foundations of the 'Palace' wall and seems to have been connected with Garstang's MB 'storerooms' (ibid.105-6 and pl.XV), suggesting at least an MB date for the 'Palace' foundations. However, the four sherds which Garstang illustrated from the 'Palace' all look LBA in date (ibid. pl.XXVIII:15-18). Garstang thought that the 'Palace' was reconstructed on old foundations, but this does not necessarily follow, nor is there any real evidence for it. There are many sites in the Near East where present-day life continues among the remains of ancient structures which nevertheless remain virtually untouched and unaltered. The remains of the Jericho 'Palace', if indeed it was MBA, were obviously still standing in the LBA. If the adjacent Middle Building was in use during the LBA (see below), then we would expect to find at least some L debris within the 'Palace' area. This does not necessarily infer systematic occupation or rebuilding. Unfortunately, there is too little excavated and recorded information from the 'Palace' to make any firm judgements. ... The Middle Building overlay a deep layer of black burnt debris, called by Garstang the 'Streak'. He identified this as the destruction layer of the Palace wall; it is certainly burnt material washed down the hill (Kenyon 1951, 120). Sketches in one of the excavation notebooks show the 'Streak' both underlying and overlying the Middle Building. There is also a note that the 'Streak' was cut by the foundations of the Middle Building (cf Garstang 1934, 105). The pottery which was found in association with the Middle Building was illustrated (selection in figs.52-3; Garstang 1934, pls.XXXI-XXXIX), and is clearly LBIIa/early LBIIb (see section 6.2 below). Nevertheless, because of the lack of stratification and stratified excavation, and also because of the disturbed nature of the deposit, a certain dating of this building has proved impossible. It is an interesting study in archaeological theory to follow Garstang's and Kenyon's changing ideas concerning the date of the Middle Building." - Bienkowski (1986:112-113) "A layer of burnt material corresponding to Garstang's ‘Streak’, Phase H XIII.liii, was found by Kenyon overlying a large part of the Middle Bronze Age buildings in Squares HII, III and VI. It was described as “a wash down the side of the mound of the gradual erosion of the top of the burnt buildings” and dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Kenyon 1981, 370). Both MB and LB pottery were found in Phase H XIII.liii (Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix, xlv, 460–64, 471 and figs.204–206). However, there are only six definite examples of LB pottery and three possible sherds (ibid.xlv, 463 and 471, and fig.206:1, 6–11, fig.211:3–4) amongst 302 pieces of MBA pottery (ibid.xlv). In 1951 Kenyon had concluded that the ‘Streak’ dated to the Late Bronze Age. Her Phase H XIII.liii, which corresponds to the ‘Streak’, does not appear to be a Late Bronze Age layer, although some LB pottery was found in it. On the contrary, the vast majority of the published pottery from that phase is Middle Bronze Age, which presumably explains why the phase was dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. It is significant that whereas Garstang recorded quite a lot of LB pottery from the ‘Streak’ (cf section 6.2), Kenyon found mostly MB pottery, and very little from the LBA. The presence of LB pottery in such vast quantities in Garstang's ‘Streak’, and to a much lesser extent in Kenyon's corresponding Phase H XIII.liii, can be accounted for by two possibilities: Disturbance during excavation. Disturbance during actual building of the foundations for the Middle Building. Garstang noted that the earlier German excavations had disturbed these strata, reaching in places below the Middle Building to the ‘Palace storerooms’, and so presumably through the ‘Streak’ (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 178). ... If the ‘Streak’ dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the only sensible way to account for the LB pottery found within the Middle Building is to date the construction and use of the building to the Late Bronze Age. This would resolve the problem of Kenyon's unexplained later preference for a Late Bronze Age date for the Middle Building, which seemed to be the result of her own excavations. This date is now accepted by other scholars (see Weippert and Weippert 1976, 141–5, and Bartlett 1982, 98)." - Bienkowski (1986:115-116) "Kenyon’s Phase liii (the ‘Streak’) is overlain by Phase liv, which she described simply as ‘new building’ (fig.57; Kenyon 1981, 371)" - Bienkowski (1986:116-117) "The ‘Streak’ has been shown to date probably to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The Middle Building, which overlies the ‘Streak’, was associated with LBIIa/early LBIIb pottery. Correlation with Kenyon’s excavations shows that the Middle Building is in the same stratigraphic position as an adjacent structure firmly dated to the second half of the Late Bronze Age, which was also associated with LBIIa pottery. There seems to be no alternative but to date the Middle Building to LBIIa/early LBIIb, c.14th/early 13th centuries B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:117-118) "Kenyon pointed out that the major part of the large MBA town had also eroded. Traces of this erosion have been found in the ‘Streak’, which is one metre thick in places, extending down the sides of the tell, especially on the east side (cf fig.57)." - Bienkowski (1986:120-122) "Very little remains of the MBA town, a large part of the top of the tell having suffered severe erosion. MBA levels have survived only in the centre of the east side, where there was a slope down to the source of the spring. Only a limited area of the late MBI/early MBII levels was excavated, associated with a succession of brick-built town walls. For the later MBII town a vague plan has been established. The buildings excavated by Garstang (his 'Palace storerooms') and Kenyon were small houses with rather irregular rooms, flanking two partly cobbled streets with well-built drains beneath, climbing the slope in steps. It is likely that in these houses the living rooms were on the first floor, and the storerooms and shops on the ground floor." - Bienkowski (1986:126-127) "The final MBII buildings at Jericho were destroyed violently by fire. The walls were covered by a thick layer of burnt debris washed down from higher up the slope during the subsequent period of abandonment and erosion (Garstang's 'Streak', cf Chapter 6.1). There is no material on the tell or in the tombs which can be dated between the early 16th and the late 15th centuries B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:127-128) "Kenyon suggested that disease of some sort was responsible for the simultaneous death of entire families in her 'multiple simultaneous tombs' shortly before the final destruction of the MBII town (1960b, 267). Bartlett has amplified this: The state of the tombs and the strange phenomenon noted above of the arrested decay of organic objects points to earthquake activity, and the tell shows traces of fire. Plague, earthquake and fire might of themselves have been major factors in bringing about the end of MB Jericho" (1982, 94). Given the contemporary destructions at Tell Beit Mirsim, Hazor, Shechem and elsewhere (Kenyon 1979, 177), however, an explanation which takes into account the wider situation in Palestine might be more plausible. A period of fighting and mutual destruction between the MB Palestinian towns, perhaps influenced by an influx of Asiatics from Egypt causing tension, population pressure and tribal rivalries, is as likely an explanation as any." - Bienkowski (1986:127-128) "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area." - Wood (1990a) "Garstang excavated a collapsed double city wall on the summit of the tell that he dated to the late-15th to early 14th-century B.C.E. (the Late Bronze Age). He also excavated a residential area on the southeast slope of the mound which he believed was part of the city fortified by the double wall. He designated this "City IV." It had been thoroughly destroyed in a violent conflagration. ... The double city wall Garstang associated with the Israelite invasion in about 1400 B.C.E. in fact dated to the Early Bronze Age some 1,000 years earlier. The destruction of Garstang’s City IV, which he had dated to about 1400 B.C.E., occurred, according to Kenyon, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, about 1550 B.C.E. ... There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in dating the double wall on top of the tell to the Early Bronze Age. In this she was right and Garstang wrong. But there is a serious question about her dating of the destruction of the residential area of the final Bronze Age city (Garstang’s City IV) to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.)." - Wood (1990a) "Kenyon made three cuts through the city’s ramparts – on the north, west and south. In all three cuts, she carried her excavation to the lower revetment wall; in the west cut, however, she went even beyond the revetment wall to the area outside the wall. What Kenyon found outside the revetment wall in the west cut was quite astounding. There, outside the revetment wall, she found bricks from the city wall above that had collapsed. I will let her describe it in her own words (you can follow this more easily while looking at the stratigraphic section): Above the fill associated with the kerb wall [marked "KE" at lower left], during which the final M[iddle] B[ronze] bank [or rampart] remained in use, was a series of tip lines against the [outer] face of the revetment [wall]. The first was a heavy fill of fallen red [mud]bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment [wall]. These [red bricks] probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank [emphasis supplied]. Over what she described as "the main collapse," she found a gravelly wash from later erosion.45 In less technical language, it appears that a wall made of red mudbricks existed either on top of the tell, as Kenyon postulates, or on the top of the revetment wall itself, or both, until the final destruction of City IV. The red mudbricks came tumbling down, falling over the outer revetment wall at the base of the tell. There the red mudbricks came to rest in a heap. Thus, in Kenyon’s opinion, the pile of bricks resting against the outer face of the revetment wall came from the collapsed city wall. " - Wood (1990a) "Remnants of the final phase of City IV were also found on the southeast slope, just above the spring, by both Garstang and Kenyon. What Garstang and Kenyon found here is most revealing. Garstang dug a large area, about 115 feet by 165 feet, which he called the "palace storeroom area"; Kenyon found remains from the final phase of City IV only in two excavation squares (H II and H III). The results reveal that City IV was massively destroyed in a violent conflagration51 that left a layer of destruction debris a yard or more thick across the entire excavation area. Again, we will let Kenyon describe the calamity: 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 the fire. The last observation in this quotation suggests that an earthquake preceded the conflagration. " - Wood (1990a) "Following the destruction of the Bronze Age city at Jericho, the site lay abandoned for a considerable period of time. During this period, material from the top of the tell washed down the slopes, forming a thick layer of erosional debris (Garstang's "streak," Kenyon's "wash"). Toward the end of the Late Bronze IIA period (second half of the 14th century B.C.E.), a large palace or residency (Garstang's Middle Building), with its associated outbuildings, was built into the erosional layer on the east side of the tell. The Middle Building was occupied only for a generation or so and then abandoned. After this abandonment, material again washed down from the higher elevations, covering the ruined building. When Garstang excavated the Middle Building, he found almost no pottery on the floors of the building itself, a fact duly noted by Bienkowski. For record-keeping purposes, however, Garstang labeled his finds according to the areas defined by the rooms of the Middle Building, with notations concerning the level, that is, whether from high in the debris (the upper erosional layer), on the floor of the building, beneath the foundations of the structure (the erosional layer below) or, in some cases, in the ruins of the Bronze Age city below. Thus, as Kenyon observed some time ago, most of the pottery excavated by Garstang in this area came from the erosional layers above or beneath the Middle Building, even though it was labeled with the room numbers of the Middle Building. Since there were no other Late Bronze II structures up slope of the Middle Building, even the material that covered the ruined building after its abandonment was from the earlier Bronze Age city. Since there was little in situ material in the structure, and since it was occupied only for a relatively short period of time, almost all of the pottery recovered from this area derives from the earlier Bronze Age city." - Wood (1990b) "It is generally believed that an earthquake occurred during the siege of Jericho (Tell el-Sultan) by the Israelites in c. 1400 BC. This event caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse, allowing Joshua to take possession of the place and burn it down. The Bible, the only literary source for this earthquake, does not attribute the collapse of the walls of Jericho to an earthquake, but rather to the besieging Israelites, who ‘by shouting and blowing their horns caused the walls to come tumbling down’ (Josh. vi. 20–21). If the timeline of the Bible is followed, then the invasion of the Israelites into Palestine is usually placed 440 years before the foundation of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon in 960 BC. Jericho, therefore, would have been destroyed about 1400 BC, but not necessarily by an earthquake. Alternatively, if the views of those scholars who have attempted to reconcile the description of events with Egyptian history are accepted, a date of 1260 BC is inferred. Another option would be to follow those who reject the historicity of Joshua in favour of belief in peaceful conquest and accept a date far later than 1400 BC (Lemonick 1990). Turning to the question of what archaeology can contribute to this impasse, the earliest excavation at Jericho, at the beginning of the last century, concluded that the city had already been abandoned before the invasion of the Israelites and that it had been destroyed, probably by earthquake, before 1400 BC (Selling and Watzinger 1913). A second series of excavations in the 1930s supported the biblical account of an earthquake in c. 1400 BC (Garstang 1948). A third series of excavations at Jericho in the 1950s, however, found no archaeological evidence to corroborate the biblical account of the fall of Jericho, dating the event back to a period well before 1400 BC (Kenyon 1957). The walls of Jericho were repaired or rebuilt no fewer than 16 times in its known history and, of the layers identified by Kenyon, not one could be singled out as providing special hints for destruction by the hand of Joshua rather than another conqueror, or by earthquake. In 1997 a limited excavation by Nigro and Marchetti on the fringes of Kenyon’s trenches, which was shrouded in political intrigues, found no evidence for destruction from the time of Joshua (Nigro and Marchetti 1998). Wood (1990), however, who examined the results of the excavations by Kenyon, Nigro and Marchetti, claimed that they had found the same evidence as that which in earlier excavations had fitted the Biblical story of the destruction of Jericho in c. 1400 BC. The conclusion is that the date or the period of the earthquake, if an earthquake did in fact occur at all, remains highly debatable, and archaeology does not help much to establish the invasion period with any degree of certainty. In Jericho and in other sites in the region the evidence points more towards deliberate human destruction. From the examination of the available data, taking into consideration the doubts regarding Kenyon’s dating raised by Wood, and those regarding Garstang’s raised by Kenyon, it is prudent, until archaeologists come up with a better unbiased evaluation, to accept tentatively Kenyon’s estimates. Until a better consensus is reached it is important to be aware that the time of the siege and destruction of Jericho by Joshua is very uncertain, being bracketed within a rather broad chronological range. It is natural for archaeologists to seek earthquake effects in strata belonging to the conventional period of the fall of Jericho in c. 1400 BC, which dating, as we have seen, is far from being certain. It was to be expected, with Jericho located in the Dead Sea fault zone, which is capable of producing destructive earthquakes, that there is no lack of archaeological evidence to show that during the Bronze Age the site of Jericho was damaged a number of times, probably by more than one earthquake of unknown location and magnitude. The problem here is that archaeological evidence for an earthquake is rarely unambiguous, and its dating is frequently based on, or influenced by, literary sources, which often, as in this case, provide examples of how their assumed accuracy, coupled with occasional inaccurate commentaries, may influence archaeologists’ interpretations and dating. This then develops into a circular process in which the uncertain date of an earthquake is transformed into a fact and used to confirm the dates of the proposed destruction strata." - Ambraseys (2009) "Although there is a significant deviation in views over the exact date of the destruction and abandonment, archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment." - Kennedy (2023:1) "Jericho is one of the many settlements in Canaan where a formidable fortification system was constructed during the Middle Bronze Age. During this period, the people of Jericho built a cyclopean wall around the city, which utilized a stone retaining wall and an upper wall of mudbrick. This city wall was rebuilt in Middle Bronze III around 1600 BC and encompassed an area of about 17 acres, although part of the site was destroyed in modern times due to road construction, so calculations are only approximate (Nigro and Taha 2009, pp. 731-34; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). According to the early German excavations, when less damage had been done to the site, the stone retaining wall was approximately 4 to 5 m high, and the upper mudbrick wall on top of the retaining wall was approximately 6 to 8 m high and 2 m thick (Sellin and Watzinger [1913] 1973, p. 58; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). Inside this was another wall, made of mudbrick, which, according to the Italian-Palestinian team, reached a height of 12.11 m above ground level outside of the fortifications (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 142). Both a stone retaining wall and a rampart of debris piled on the MB I and MB II fortifications were built in MB III, or approximately 1650-1550 BC/1600-1500 BC (Marchetti et al. 1998, pp. 131, 138, 141; Marchetti 2003, pp. 311-12; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 731; Nigro 2020, p. 201). Besides the ceramic typology indicating the date of the construction in Middle Bronze III, excavations have demonstrated that the Cyclopean Wall cuts through Tower A1, which was in use during Middle Bronze I and II (Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 734). A report about the 1952 excavations had come to similar conclusions, stating that the latest surviving defenses are Middle Bronze Age and that this system had been preceded by two previous Middle Bronze Age walls built prior (Tushingham 1952, pp. 8-10). Although these final city walls appear to have been constructed in Middle Bronze III, this does not mean that Jericho had no walls in the subsequent Late Bronze I period. Rather, as was the case at many other sites in Canaan, the massive fortifications could have remained in use into the Late Bronze Age or beyond." - Kennedy (2023:3) "According to archaeological excavations at Jericho, including the Kenyon and Italian-Palestinian excavations, the mudbrick wall on top of the stone retaining wall had collapsed and fallen in front of the retaining wall around most of the city and had essentially formed a pile of sloping bricks resembling a ramp (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 143; Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 110; Wood 1990b, pp. 54-56; 1999, p. 37). The outward falling of the city walls, which was followed by a massive fire that engulfed Jericho and included the collapse of buildings in the city, was proposed by excavators as possibly being the result of an earthquake rather than a battering ram or other siege equipment (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 138-139, 159; Kenyon 1957, pp. 179, 262; Kenyon and Holland 1981, pp. 110, 370)4. This "terrible destruction" of Jericho by fire has been posited by various excavators and other researchers as the result of a violent attack by either a foreign enemy or another city-state, without agreement regarding the identity of the attackers (Nigro 2016, p. 15; 2020, p. 201). The falling or collapse of the wall was the first phase, while the destruction by fire was the second phase. The collapse of the city wall, which was constructed in the Middle Bronze Age III, and other associated architecture in the final Bronze Age City IVc Jericho is dated on the basis of its construction period. The finds sealed by the destruction layer on top of collapsed architecture and subsequently constructed architecture such as the "Middle Building" mean the falling of this wall, building collapse, and the destruction of the city must have occurred within the periods of either Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I. Although Kenyon separated the falling of the walls and the following fire destruction into separate phases, the two events need not be separated by vast amounts of time, and there is no indication that the city was abandoned or lay dormant in between the collapse and the fire. ... Because battering rams would cause the walls to fall into the city at specific points of attack rather than outside and in front of the retaining wall all around nearly the entire city, this facet of the destruction has often been attributed to an earthquake, although other explanations may be possible. Indeed, rather than displaying the characteristics of a battering ram siege and forcing entry at a particular weak point or points of the city defenses, as would be expected from conventional warfare, an earthquake or another action with similar result might have caused wall sections to crumble both outside and inside the line of the stone retaining wall. However, perhaps more important than the specific cause of the collapse is that, according to archaeological observations, the walls of Jericho City IVc fell down the slope, resulting in the formation of a simple ramp up into the city. This phenomenon of a fallen mudbrick wall forming a pile that people could use to march over and past the walls and into the city accords with the description in the Joshua narrative about the wall falling upon itself and the army then walking up into Jericho (Joshua 6: 20). (See Figures 2 and 3 below). After the walls fell, the next archaeologically observable event in the sequence was the burning of the city. The fire destruction of Jericho IVc was found in numerous excavation areas at the site, and it was a severe and complete destruction, including blackened walls and floors, fallen bricks and timber, burnt debris, collapsed roofs, and burned remains around the MBIII wall (Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 370; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 735). The fire was so intense and so widespread, including residential houses, the palace and the temple, that it appeared to indicate a deliberate burning of Jericho rather than an accidental or localized fire restricted to a particular building or section of the city (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 136, 142). This is further supported by the long abandonment of the site, with the next architecture dating to Iron II except for the briefly occupied "Middle Building," indicating that significant death and destruction that occurred at Jericho. (Marchetti 2003, p. 317). This violent destruction brought an end to the stratum known as Jericho IVc." - Kennedy (2023:4-7)

Archaeoseismic Intensity Estimates

End of Sultan Ib Earthquake - PPNA - ~7500 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	different sections of the site Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Photograph and Image by Lorenzo Nigro, © University of Rome “La Sapienza” ROSAPAJ Nigro (2016)		Alfonsi (2012:646) noted that evidence of a major shaking effect was documented at the end of PPNA (i.e., at approximately 7,500 B.C.) at different sections of the site from earlier excavations. Alfonsi (2012:646) continued adding that a wide spread collapse of the encircling town wall was associated to a sudden major disaster directly attributed to an earthquake (Kenyon, 1957, 1981; Bar-Yosef, 1986)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

1st Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~7000 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Skeletons beneath collapse	Point 2 (Kenyon's Trench 1) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3b Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (b) Human skeleton found under a collapsed wall. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - DI, XVII A FI xxxi, DI xlii, DII xxx–xxxi Overlying the surface of stage XVII is a further bricky fill. Since this is succeed by new building in the whole excavated area, it presumably indicates a major stage of destruction and decay…;. In this part of DI and over the whole FI there was a bricky fill…; the filling represents a destruction and decay level…;it contained a remarkable number of bodies, at least thirty…the bodies were for the most part found simply in the mass of the fill, with no observable evidence of any graves…; the complete body lies on the plastered floor position prone as if in the position in which the individual collapse…;. The examination of skeletal remains, provide no evidence of wounds…;.A more probable explanation is that a large number of the inhabitants were killed as a result of an earthquake…;. - Kenyon (1981:77–78) Widespread devastation of original structures was observed in the west side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone A). Here, human skeletons were found underneath collapsed building walls (Fig. 2, points 1 and 2; Fig. 3b). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	VIII+
Surface fracturing	Point 4 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)		Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Square M, stage XI, phases lxiv–lxvia A substantial crack in section J—K…; may indicate that the rebuilding was necessary because of an earthquake. - Kenyon (1981:243) The occurrence of a pervasive fracture was also documented, and based on our reconstruction, its strike was northeast—southwest (point 4). - - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	?
Surface fracturing Major Collapse	Point 9 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3a Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (a) Black arrows point to fractures crossing the floor and the perimeter wall of Pre-Pottery Neolithic B houses. Original picture from Kenyon (1981). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Squares E’s stage XIII, phase liv This phase would seem to have followed a major collapse of the preceding building in the western range, resulting in the accumulation of a thick layer of debris, which was traced back within the house. The crack in the floor levels, which was clearly visible in the phase xlvii at courtyard level, could be traced in the stratification key to this level, and is probably associated to the collapse. It is tempting to regard it as an earthquake crack (fault), but Professor Zeuner did not consider this probable, as the base of the crack did not continue downwards.” - Kenyon (1981:298) The fracturing at point 9 (zone A) was interpreted as a shaking effect acting in the first half of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) Figure 3a is a top view of a set of open fractures crossing the floor and the walls of a courtyard of a house. The set is composed of at least three segments reaching a minimum visible extent of 3 m, with a mean direction of 085° and an opening of approximately 20 cm. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	? VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

2nd Sultan IIb Earthquake - PPNB - ~6000 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls Collapsed artifacts	Point 3 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone A between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3c Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (c) View from the top of a complete northward collapse of a wall, giving the illusion of a pavement. Original picture from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - FI, Stage XXIII–XXIV, FI xxxvii–xxxviii, DI xlvi-xlvii, DII xxxiv–xxxv The buildings of this stage were seriously damaged by an earthquake. The clearest evidence of this came from then north end of square FI. Here wall 102 collapsed outwards (northwards) in one piece, sheering off at the level of the central room to the south. - Kenyon (1981:87-88) The houses were completely dismembered in the collapse, and strengthening and rebuilding followed on the same plans. Figure 3c shows the complete collapse of a wall that fell in one piece northward (Fig. 2, point 3; Table 2). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	VIII+ VIII+?
Surface fracturing	Point 15 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3d Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (d) East view of the Garstang excavation. Visible in the foreground is a fracture crossing the floor and the adjacent wall affecting layer X, dated as the latest stage of Pre–Pottery Neolithic B. Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Garstang’s excavation level X–XIm To these common cause of decay there should be added the effects of earthquakes, visible traceable at certain of these levels where great fissures appear through walls and floors. These were, however, exceptional, and their trace are generally quite marked. - Garstang and Garstang (1948:58) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 46 The layers of PPNB appear intensively damaged also at the northeastern side of the Tell (Fig. 2, zone B). Also, here, coseismic open fractures are clearly documented (points 9, 15, and 8). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644) the fracture of point 15 partially crosses the layers of the latest PPNB period, marked with Roman number X (Fig. 4), and it is sealed by the undisturbed portion of the same layer and successive layer IX (beginning of PPA, i.e., well after 6,000 B.C.). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:645) Figure 3d shows one of the major fractures at the Neolithic Tell. The marked fractures displace artifacts of different materials and shapes (walls and floors) and maintain a constant direction (040°), suggesting a tectonic origin, for at least 5 m (the original plans are in the Archives of the Garstang Museum of Archaeology, University of Liverpool, UK). The upper termination of the fractures in the wall, according to the archaeoseismic stratigraphic section in Figure 4, is within layer X, that is, the upper terminus of the PPNB period. - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644)	?
Skeletons (indicating collapsed walls) Surface Fracturing	Point 16 Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan Zone B between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 2 Map of coseismic effects at Tell es-Sultan (Entire Tell) between 7,500 and 6,000 B.C. (Pre–Pottery Neolithic B). The locations of the effects are marked by numbers (descriptions as in Table 2). Original plan of the Tell modified from Kenyon (1981) Alfonsi et al. (2012) Figure 4 Archaeoseismic stratigraphic sections modified from Garstang and Garstang (1948) and Kenyon (1981). Dashed squares in Garstang’s section are the approximate projections of Kenyon’s excavations both from zone A (logs in the inset) and zone B. The time— space relations between the layers and the observed coseismic effects (point numbers as in Figure 2 and Table 2) are illustrated. Horizons of the seismic shaking events recognized within the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B period are marked by stars. Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Figure 3f Photos illustrating some of the effects caused by seismic shaking at Tell es-Sultan (numbered as in Figure 2 and Table 2). (f) Black arrows point to a fracture crossing a pavement and a skeleton. An apparent displacement of skull versus body is observable. The white circle inscribes the possible correspondence between the cervical and neck bones (black dots). Original picture from Garstang and Garstang (1948). Alfonsi et al. (2012)	Archaeological Stage, Location, and Phase - Great Garstang’s level XI In the other case a man’s head was found that have been completely severed from his body, as may be seen in our photograph on Plate IXb; but as the excavation continued we noticed a continuous fissure across the floor of the room and running up the walls, telling of an earthquake which by a remarkable coincidence has subsequently produced this curious illusion of decapitation - Garstang and Garstang (1948:62) *Alfonsi et al. (2012) list the page as 51 Another interesting feature concerning the studied earthquakes is shown in Figure 3f, where both a profound fracture and human remains are found. Garstang and Garstang (1948) noted that the head of the skeleton to the right is severed from the body, giving the illusion of decapitation. However, in fact, the cause for the head displacement was a fracture. The excavation further downward revealed a continuous few-centimeter open fracture across the floor, indicating an earthquake that gave this illusion. Nur and Burgess (2008) suggested a right lateral offset between the ribs and skull position of the skeleton. We measured a relative lateral movement of a few centimeters. Based on different marker points, such as the cervical bone versus the spinal column (Fig. 3f, circled part), the offset could be also interpreted as left lateral. A small step is apparent on the right side of the photo, suggesting minor vertical offset with east side down. Placing the two images and then the fractures of Figure 3d and 3f within the log of Figure 4, we noted two parallel fractures about 3 m apart. The main fracture affects the lower part of layer X, belonging to the younger stage of the PPNB period. The deformation observed within layer X extends for about 30 m along the section, affecting floors, house walls, and human remains (Fig. 4). - Alfonsi et al. (2012:644-645)	VIII+ ?

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Sultan IIIa1 Earthquake - EB IA - ~3400-3200 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	Trench III (Site N) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Plate 267 Trench III Plans: XV. lviii. Errata: In hatching key, Plate xl Re-used should be Phase l Re-used an Phase liv Re-Used should be Phase lv Re-Used. XV.lix. Erraturm: In hatching key, horizontal lines of phase lix should be broken lines XVI.lx, lxi. Earratum: In caaption, PHASE XVI.xli should be PHASES XVI.lx and lxi. XVI.lxii. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	Plate 273 Trench III. West Section. Errata: Metre numbers 0-12 S. at bottom N. end of trench incorrectly numbered 22-12. Lettering of Wall NEN, betweeen 1.60 m. and 2.20 m. S., 11.70 m. H., omitted. Phase lxxvi-lxxviia, between c. 1.50 m. and 3.50 m. S., 15 m. and 16.30 m. H., incorrectly numbered lxxvi-lxxiia. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Plate 274 Trench III. Sections and Key. East Section Section III Section IV Section V. Erratum: Wall NCE should be NCP. Section VI Section VII (N.B. Hatching used to deliniate walls on Sections III-VII and X (Pl. 275(c)) is independent of scheme used on 'Key to Hatching of Sections') Key to Positi0n of Sections Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	"XVI. Phases lxi—lxii (Major destruction), lxi—lxii a (Erosion line of subsequent collapses), lxi—lxii b (Silt levels) - The destruction at the end of phase bd was a major one, for it involved all three terrace walls and all the interior structures except NDS, the west end of NDR and NDQ. It may be presumed to have been caused by the collapse of a wall further south, probably the town wall, for the line of erosion dips down steeply south of NDT, an erosion line followed in subsequent collapses. At the north end of the trench silt levels accumulated over NCT and NCS-NDE to a height of about 11.30 m. H." - Kenyon (1981:204) "XVI. Phases lxii-lxiii - The destruction at the end of phase lxii was a severe one, which resulted in the collapse of all the structures in the southern half of the trench. It was accompanied by heavy burning, and fallen burnt timbers were especially noticeable in the area south of NDY (east section 9.25 m. to 13 m. S., c. 10.50 m.– 10.80 m. H.). The collapse of wall NDQ into the area between it and NDR showed that this area had remained open, down to the original floor level until this period. The tilting of NDQ suggests that the collapse may have been due to an earthquake, and the disappearance of the higher levels that must have existed between NDR and NDS together with the upper part of these walls suggests that once more a wall further south must have collapsed. The whole complex NDQ, NDR, NDS, and silo NEC were buried in debris and disappeared." - Kenyon (1981:204–205) "XVII. Phases lxix—lxx (Fill over silo NEH—NEJ), lxix—lxx a (Collapse of wall NEN) - Following this period of occupation, there was apparently. some collapse, especially marked in a fill of burnt debris into the continuing sag over silo NEH–NEJ, seen in the west section at 9.95 m. – 11.10 m. S., 11.50 m.–11.87 m. H. It is possible that to the same stage belongs the collapse of wall NEN in a tumble of bricks, seen in the east section at 3.75 m. - 4.75 m. S., c. 11.62 m. H., and in the west section at 3.25 m.–4.37 m. S., c. 11.75 m. H., which is suggestive of an earthquake." - Kenyon (1981:207) "From Kenyon’s estimates there are three layers in Jericho that show some good evidence of earthquake damage, namely during the periods of 8500–7000 BC (stratum PPNB), 3400–3100 BC (stratum EBA I) and 2300–1950 BC (stratum EBA IIIB), none of which, however, can be associated with Joshua and the fall of Jericho." - Ambraseys (2009)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Sultan IIIb2 Earthquake - EB IIB - ~2850-~2700 BCE

Intensity Estimate from Nigro (2014)

Nigro (2014:72) estimated an intesity of IX-XI (9-11) based on the "Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg intensity scale."

Intensity Estimate from Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE) chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	Wall B of Town Wall 1 in Areas FI, DI, and DII adjacent to and due east of Trench I Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Plate 79b Plate 79b Tower built against Town Wall A (p. 97) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Plate 80a Plate 80a Foundations of tower and face of Town Wall B (p. 97) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Pl. 236 Plate 236 Square FI. Section A-B Erratum: Hatching of diagonally dotted lines incorrect for phase FI.xliii between c. 0.75 m. and 2 m. W., 11.40 m. and 12 m. H. and betweeen c. 6.30 m. and 7.50 m. W., 10.70 m. and 11.20 m. H. Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Pl. 240 Plate 240 Tr.I, FI, DI. Sections: Fl. Section W-A'. Erratum: Phase hatched xlix, betweeen 10.25 m. and 11.80 m. N., 11.80 m. and 12 m. H., should be phase xlixa and is incorrectly hatches Dl. Section X-Y Fl. Section QQ-RR. Erratum: Phase FI.xxvi should be FI.xxva FI, Tr.I. Section V-W, W'-Z. Errata: Phase FI.xxvi, between 3.90 m. and 4.90 m. W., 8.50 m. H., should be FI.xxva. Wall numbered 205 should be 208 and Wall 208 should be 205 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2)	"In Trench I, on the west side of the tell, the Bronze Age fortifications were identified by Kenyon in squares FI-DI. The oldest structure that can be interpreted as a defensive boundary of the original village from the Early Bronze Age and which effectively marks its transformation into a city was called "Wall A." ... Wall A was replaced (and partially incorporated) by Wall B, which was in turn destroyed by a violent earthquake (both structures constitute, in Kenyon's reconstruction, "Town Wall I")." - Nigro (2006c:358-360) "Against the face of wall A was a semi-circular tower, of which little more than the stone footings survive (pl. 79b). It is not bonded into wall A, and is likely to be structurally secondary since on section W'—Z it looks as though the foot of wall A had been slightly eroded before the tower was built, and the bricks of the tower were drab and not white. It is in fact not certain whether the tower belongs to wall A or to the rebuild, wall B, on the same line, in phase xxxix. As pl. 80a shows, the foundations of the tower are somewhat lower than those of wall B. This need not be significant. In the collapse of the tower are mingled drab bricks from the tower and the distinctive white bricks of wall A. But since the southern part of wall A certainly continued in use with the repair to the north, wall B, this would allow of the tower being destroyed only when wall B was destroyed. There is no conclusive evidence as to whether the tower was an addition to wall A continuing in use with wall B, or was added only to wall B. There is relatively clear evidence that the tower, like wall A+B, was abolished at least by the time of the earthquake at the end of phase xxxix. The fallen bricks in section W'— Z do not show the toppled-forward face of the wall so suggestive of an earthquake that is seen in section I (pl. 236) (also visible in pl. 80a), but the surface covering due tumble is the same in each section. In section I, the foundation trench of wall C cutting through the tumble is visible. In section W'—Z, pl. 240, wall C is founded on wall A at the level of the surface." - Kenyon (1981:97) "The collapse of wall B is a good example of earthquake action. In the north section it can be seen how the face of the wall collapsed down the slope as a whole, leaving the core and the eastern face standing. The collapsed bricks are also seen in pl. 80a. The brickwork of the eastern face survives to a height of a metre, and though at that point the collapse of wall C has removed all evidence, it is unlikely that B ever survived higher, since only 0.25 m. of width was left at that point, which would have been quite unstable." - Kenyon (1981:97-98) "The earthquake damage was made good by wall C, cut into the debris of collapse and filling, and filling in the raw edge of wall B." - Kenyon (1981:98) "The excavations have revealed several instances of a collapse which strongly suggests an earthquake, for example that shown in the section of Trench I, where the face of the wall has collapsed outward in a tip of intact bricks." - Kenyon (1957:176) "Based on the available documentation (Table 2), two main defensive circuits can be identified. The first, already consisting of the double wall and evidently planned and built as a single unit, arose at the beginning of the Early Bronze Age III on the rubble of the previous walls of Sultan IIIb, which collapsed, as mentioned, as a result of an earthquake." - Nigro (2006c:372-373)	VIII+
Collapsed Walls	Town Wall 1 in Site A Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Plate 343a Plate 343a Site A, South Section Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981 Part 2) Fig. 38 (equivalent to 200a) Figure 38 Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. At the base, beside the survey pole, the stone foundations and, spreading to the right, the face of the brick wall collapsed onto the contemporary surface. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1978) Fig. 38 Figure 38 Example of a town wall of the Early Bronze Age destroyed by an earthquake. JW: Ordered fall of mud-bricks from the face of the town wall is shaded red while the disordered wall of mud-bricks from the core of the wall is shaded pink. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1978) Plate 200b Plate 200b Site A. At base, by foot of survey pole, stone foundations of lowest wall reached, with the collapse of the brick superstructure to right (pp. 372 ff/) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981) Fig. 16 Figure 16 Dune-yellowish mudbricks tumble down from the EB II city wall at Kenyon’s Site A (after Kenyon 1981, pl. 200b). click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2014) Plate 100a Plate 100a Stone foundation of phase Tr.II.xlviii house OBM (p.146) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon et al. (1981)	"Further north, still on the west side of the tell, in the trench known as "Site A," Town Wall I was exposed for a short stretch down to the foundations, and its collapse was again confirmed due to an earthquake" - Nigro (2006c:358-360) "The lowest levels reached belonged to the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. Above was clear evidence of a wall, A.TW. 1, destroyed by earthquake. Over the debris of this collapse was constructed A.TW. 2" - Kenyon (1981:372) "The in situ evidence of wall A.TW. 1 is minimal. Section pl. 343 and pl. 100a, however, give vivid evidence of the collapse of a wall from its foundations. In pl. 100a on the left at the base of the trench is visible a single course of stone foundations. ... On to this plaster level the face of the wall fell in such a way that the bricks are vertical. The surviving remains show that a height of 1 m. of the face of the wall fell forward in one piece, before there had been in this area any building up of levels, and this feature extended to the west beyond the excavated area. Above the fallen face is the evidence of the collapse of the core of the wall, at first of broken fragments and bricks, then, above that, of complete bricks higgledy-piggledy. The top of this level is seen on pl. 200b. This destruction phase is certainly to be interpreted as an earthquake collapse, with a first sharp collapse, followed by more gradual crumbling. The evidence closely resembles that in Trench I, where wall B provides similar evidence, though there the collapse of the face was not right to the foundations. It could be that the destruction on both sites belongs to the same earthquake, but this cannot be certain over a distance of nearly 70 m. in a wall so frequently destroyed." - Kenyon (1981:372-373) "The clearest example was in Site A at the north-west corner of the tell. There the face of the wall can be seen fallen outwards from the stone foundations and to be lying with the bricks vertical on the contemporary surface (Pl. 37A equivalent to Fig. 38). Above is a confused tumble of bricks, which presumably represents the more gradual crumbling of the core of the wall. Above again, on the resulting layer of debris, is built the succeeding wall." - Kenyon (1957:176)	VIII+
Collapsed Walls	Trenches I, II, and II in addition to Square M, site A, and houses on the northern plateau Figure 6 Plan of EB II (3000–2700 B.C.E) city of Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Fig. 3 Plan of Early Bronze Age Town Walls Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)		".... a terrible earthquake struck, a common event along the Jericho Fault, brought to a sudden end the earliest EB II city. The city-wall, and the majority of buildings, ruinously collapsed⁵⁶, letting this event to be classified between degrees IX-XI of the Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg intensity scale." - Nigro (2014:72) "Kenyon 1957, 175-176, pl. 37a; 1981, 373, pls. 200, 343a; Nigro 2006a, 359-361, 372-373; 2009a, 182; 2010, 326-327. Evidence of such a tremendous earthquake, and related widespread destruction, was detected by Kenyon all over the site, namely in Trench I (Stage XXXV.xli; Kenyon 1981, 97-98), Trench II (Stage XVIII.lxii; Kenyon 1981, 161), Trench III (Stage XVII.lxxi; Kenyon 1981, 207-209), Square M (Stage XXI.ci; Kenyon 1981, 261), Site A (Stage B.Fii-Fi; Kenyon 1981, 373), and in the houses on the northern plateau (Squares EIII-IV, Phase C; Kenyon 1981, 335-336; Nigro 2010, 86). The same dramatic event also occurred at the nearby cAi/et-Tell (Callaway 1993, 42), at Tell el-Mutesellim (Finkelstein - Ussishkin - Peersmann 2006, 49-50), and at Khirbet Kerak (Greenberg et al. 2006, 247), Pella/Tell el-Husn (Bourke 2000, 233-235), Tell Abu Kharaz (Fischer 2008, 31, 34, 71, 181, 383-385) and Tell es-Sacidiyeh (Tubb 1998, 42-43) in the Jordan Valley, up to Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (Douglas 2007, 27-28) and Khirbet al-Batrawy (Nigro 2009c, 437; Sala in the volume, 175) in Transjordan." - Nigro (2014:72 n. 56)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Sultan IIIc1 Destruction - EB IIIA - ~2500 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	Fortification Walls Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016) Figure 8 Reconstructive plan of the EB III city at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016)	Fig. 18 Figure 18 EB IIIA Inner Gate L.1800, filled up with collapsed mudbricks and burnt beams, from north-east. click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2014)	"Also the EB IIIA (Sultan IIIc1) city occurred an abrupt and violent destruction towards the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. In Area B and B-West, at the southern side of the city, the EB IIIA double line of fortifications was dramatically set on fire. The EB IIIA South Gate was burnt, and its ceilings, supported by tamarisk beams, collapsed (fig. 18). This destructive event was possibly due to an enemy attack, as it heavily involved the city fortifications all around the city-walls perimeter, while it is not apparently attested to in other areas inside the city. ... The second half of the 3rd millennium BC was, in facts, characterized in Palestine by increasing infighting between urban centres and/or semi-nomadic tribes, and violent destructions became common events." - Nigro (2014:75)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Sultan IV a2 Earthquake - MB IB - towards the end of the 18th century BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Debris (due to Collapsed Walls)	Square AqIV13 Figure 2 Tell es-Sultan with the areas excavated by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition (1997-2000) and the Austro-German and British Expeditions. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro and Taha (2006) Figure 2 Map of Tell es-Sultan/ancient Jericho with excavated areas. Click on image to open in a new tab Nigro (2016)		"In Square AqIV13, samples of ashes and charcoals were taken from destruction layer F.1688, a up to 0.6 m thick stratum accumulated over courtyard floors L.1680 + L.16605 west of Tower A1 (fig. 2). This layer, including rubble heaps, resulted from a major destructive event, which took place towards the end of the 18th century BC (around the mid of the Egyptian 13th Dynasty) and might be attributed to a violent earthquake" - Nigro and Taha (2013:2-3)	VIII+

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Sultan IVc Destruction - MB III or LB I - ~1650-1400 BCE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls Fire Burning of Stored Grain Abandonment	Figure 3 Plan of Jericho Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig. 1 Composite sketch plan of excavations 1907–1958 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a) Figure 1 Composite map of the ancient city of Jericho based on multiple excavations click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Fig. 4 Plan of Middle Bronze Age town rampart and revetment Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1981 v.3a)	Pl. 62A Plate 62A Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them. click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Pl. 62A annotated Plate 62A Buildings of Middle Bronze age Jericho, destroyed by fire. In background the wash of burnt material which overlay them. Burnt material shaded pink (by JW) click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957) Fig.4 Figure 4 Stratigraphic section of the final Bronze Age destruction layer at Jericho from a Kenyon excavated square on the eastern side of the city, showing collapsed building materials, pottery, charcoal, and ash. click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Signs of destruction from the final phase of City IV betray the calamity that befell Jericho. "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area. This debris is visible in the west balk behind the meter stick in the photo above (a balk is a side of an excavation square left standing to preserve a record of the square’s strata). The destruction debris has been removed elsewhere to expose the remains of the destroyed city. At the top of the north balk, upper right corner in the above photo, is an erosion layer consisting of material washed down from further up the slope. Within the destruction debris of the north balk, we can see the remains of a late-14th- century B.C.E. structure. At upper left is a cobbled, stepped street (seen in close-up below left). The line of stones that extends from the center left edge of the larger photo to the center bottom is a drain that passed under the street preserved at upper left. The drain was originally covered with stones, but the channel of the drain is exposed here in the upper part. The street led from the summit of the city’s southeast slope to the spring on the east side of the city, which today fills the modern reservoir seen at right in the plan "City IV" above. click on image to open in a new tab Wood (1990a) Same as image above except destruction layer is shaded red and erosion layer is shaded pink (by JW) click on image to open in a new tab modified from Wood (1990a) Signs of destruction from the final phase of City IV betray the calamity that befell Jericho. "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area. This debris is visible in the west balk behind the meter stick in the photo above (a balk is a side of an excavation square left standing to preserve a record of the square’s strata). The destruction debris has been removed elsewhere to expose the remains of the destroyed city. At the top of the north balk, upper right corner in the above photo, is an erosion layer consisting of material washed down from further up the slope. Within the destruction debris of the north balk, we can see the remains of a late-14th- century B.C.E. structure. At upper left is a cobbled, stepped street (seen in close-up below left). The line of stones that extends from the center left edge of the larger photo to the center bottom is a drain that passed under the street preserved at upper left. The drain was originally covered with stones, but the channel of the drain is exposed here in the upper part. The street led from the summit of the city’s southeast slope to the spring on the east side of the city, which today fills the modern reservoir seen at right in the plan "City IV" above. click on image to open in a new tab Wood (1990a) Figure 2 Cross section of Trench I showing the Jericho outer city wall built in Middle Bronze III. The pile of fallen mudbricks in the form of a ramp in front of the stone retaining wall originally comprised a mudbrick wall atop the stone retaining wall. click on image to open in a new tab Kennedy (2023) Figure 4 Section of Trench 1 Click on image to open in a new tab Kenyon (1957)	Descriptions "The destruction of Middle Bronze Age Jericho has already been described. Over the leaning and distorted tops of the walls, and the debris within the rooms, is a most striking stratum (Pl. 62 A). It is about a metre thick, and consists of streaks of black, brown, white and pinkish ash. It is in fact the wash down the slope of burnt buildings farther up the mound. This wash is the evidence of a period in which the elements were given free play with Jericho. Winter rains in the Jordan Valley are violent while they last, and summer heat tends to reduce all surfaces to crumbly dust, easily washed away by the next rains. On the west side of the hill we found layer after layer of the resultant silt, which with the aid of superimposed layers we could date between the Middle Bronze Age and the Iron Age, between the Iron Age and the Roman period, and from the Roman period down to modern times. When the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age town took place by burning, the crest on the west was crowned by the great bank of the contemporary defences, so the wash of the levels of the last town of this period is only found on the eastern slope, but they, equally with those on the west slope, indicate a period of abandonment and an appreciable lapse of time. ... We have already seen that over most of the summit of the tell even the houses of the certainly populous Middle Bronze Age town have vanished, and only levels of the Early Bronze Age remain. We have also seen how the process of erosion was washing away the Middle Bronze Age houses on the east slope, during an interval of perhaps 180 years. This process was arrested when the town of 1400 B.C. was built on top of the wash, but this in turn was abandoned, and erosion has almost removed it. It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains. The erosion which has destroyed much of the defences has already been described." - Kenyon (1957:259-265) "These Middle Bronze Age defences lasted from the eighteenth century to about the middle of the sixteenth century. They could have survived sufficiently to be repaired for use in the Late Bronze Age towns but since so much of the Middle Bronze Age defences have disappeared, it is absolutely certain that nothing at all of walls of the later town, to the period of which the entry into Palestine must belong, can survive. Archaeology will thus never be able to provide visual evidence of the walls that fell down in front of the attacking Israelites. Excavations have, however, produced enough evidence that there was a Late Bronze Age town and to give some slight evidence of the date at which it was destroyed. Over nearly the whole site the houses of the Middle Bronze Age, and anything later, had shared the fate of the defences and had disappeared due to erosion. One small area of the Middle Bronze Age town survived on the east side, adjacent to the spring. The houses had been destroyed by fire at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, in the first half of the sixteenth century BC. After, it is certain that there was then an abandonment during which erosion carried the burnt debris down the slope of the mound, to create a thick layer over the seventeenth–sixteenth century houses. Overlying this debris layer there survived at the east end of the excavated area the stone foundations of a single wall. This wall was so close to the modern surface that only about a square metre of the contemporary floor survived, with elsewhere the modern surface cutting down into it (40). The one juglet surviving on its surface, lying by a small clay oven, and a limited amount of Late Bronze Age pottery beneath the floor, suggests that the building is late fourteenth century in date. A Late Bronze Age occupation of the site is thus proved, but the excavations within the town provide little detail. The best evidence for dating the reoccupation of the site after a period of abandonment at the end of the Middle Bronze Age comes from the tombs excavated during the 1930–36 excavations. Professor Garstang was misled in the interpretation of the evidence from them by then current misdatings of sixteenth to fourteenth century pottery. He also failed to realise that in the process of burial in these rock-cut tombs, the latest burial is usually at a low level in front of the tomb, with the remains of earlier burials pushed back and mounded up to the rear (41). Absolute height of burials within the tomb chamber means nothing, and Professor Garstang was led to believe that later objects found on the same level as earlier ones were contemporary. A wholly false impression of continuity and early chronology was thus given. The finds in the tombs cleared in these excavations indicated that a very few of the Middle Bronze tombs were re-opened and some later burials were placed in them. Associated with the burials in this period of Late Bronze Age re-use there were Mycenaean vessels. Unfortunately no sufficiently diagnostic features survive to pin-point the period of these tombs. The acknowledged leading authority on the subject, Professor Furumark, considers that the finds cannot be more closely dated than within the period of LM III A and LM III B (1300–1230 BC). Mrs Hankey, however, would put the vessels concerned in LM III A2 (1375–1300). The attribution of the vessels within LM III is not sufficiently precise to provide close dating. The only thing that is important is that one can say on the basis of archaeological evidence that there was a break in continuity at the end of the Late Bronze Age reoccupation. It would be very difficult on the pottery evidence to put this as late as the end of the thirteenth century. The general evidence, both from the Mycenaean pottery and the other wares would allow for a date as late as 1300 BC but not later. After this occupation ceases until Iron Age II." - Kenyon (1978:33-40) "Middle Bronze Age - Phases H X. xxxix (Rebuilding of tower complex), xxxix a (Occupation levels and storage jar beside wall HCX) (plan pl. 332a) - The north wall HCG of phase xxxvi collapsed and has completely disappeared. Into the debris of its collapse and on top of wall HCC of phase xxxvii was built wall HCV, as seen in Sections VI and VII, and as described above, p. 357. The east wall HCK did not collapse completely, but a rebuilding HCW is seen in Section XVII, the associated levels of which could be traced round to show that it was contemporary with wall HCV. It should be noted that wall HCW was badly split by earthquake cracks, one of which has cut down its east face and that of HCK beneath it, severing the levels from the two walls, but the interpretation of their significance is clear. In the south section, wall HCW was considerably destroyed in the 1930–6 excavations, but its stump survives. The north wall HCF of phase xxxvi, however, continued in use, as can be seen by the correlation of Section VI and the south section" - Kenyon (1981:359-360) "The 'Palace' and the Middle Building (so called because it stood in apparent isolation between the Middle Bronze Age and Iron Age levels) are the only major constructions excavated which could conceivably date to the Late Bronze Age. Little can be said with certainty about the 'Palace'. Kenyon thought that there was no published dating evidence, and suggested that it could even be Iron Age (in Avi-Yonah 1976, 563-4). Only the substantial foundations of it remained in situ and only a small part of it was excavated (fig.55; Garstang 1934, 105, 127 and pl.XV, Rooms 80 and S1). Garstang dated its origin to MBII, and one of his excavation notebooks mentions that it contained 'good MB material'. A drain (dl) ran through the foundations of the 'Palace' wall and seems to have been connected with Garstang's MB 'storerooms' (ibid.105-6 and pl.XV), suggesting at least an MB date for the 'Palace' foundations. However, the four sherds which Garstang illustrated from the 'Palace' all look LBA in date (ibid. pl.XXVIII:15-18). Garstang thought that the 'Palace' was reconstructed on old foundations, but this does not necessarily follow, nor is there any real evidence for it. There are many sites in the Near East where present-day life continues among the remains of ancient structures which nevertheless remain virtually untouched and unaltered. The remains of the Jericho 'Palace', if indeed it was MBA, were obviously still standing in the LBA. If the adjacent Middle Building was in use during the LBA (see below), then we would expect to find at least some L debris within the 'Palace' area. This does not necessarily infer systematic occupation or rebuilding. Unfortunately, there is too little excavated and recorded information from the 'Palace' to make any firm judgements. ... The Middle Building overlay a deep layer of black burnt debris, called by Garstang the 'Streak'. He identified this as the destruction layer of the Palace wall; it is certainly burnt material washed down the hill (Kenyon 1951, 120). Sketches in one of the excavation notebooks show the 'Streak' both underlying and overlying the Middle Building. There is also a note that the 'Streak' was cut by the foundations of the Middle Building (cf Garstang 1934, 105). The pottery which was found in association with the Middle Building was illustrated (selection in figs.52-3; Garstang 1934, pls.XXXI-XXXIX), and is clearly LBIIa/early LBIIb (see section 6.2 below). Nevertheless, because of the lack of stratification and stratified excavation, and also because of the disturbed nature of the deposit, a certain dating of this building has proved impossible. It is an interesting study in archaeological theory to follow Garstang's and Kenyon's changing ideas concerning the date of the Middle Building." - Bienkowski (1986:112-113) "A layer of burnt material corresponding to Garstang's ‘Streak’, Phase H XIII.liii, was found by Kenyon overlying a large part of the Middle Bronze Age buildings in Squares HII, III and VI. It was described as “a wash down the side of the mound of the gradual erosion of the top of the burnt buildings” and dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages (Kenyon 1981, 370). Both MB and LB pottery were found in Phase H XIII.liii (Kenyon and Holland 1983, xxxix, xlv, 460–64, 471 and figs.204–206). However, there are only six definite examples of LB pottery and three possible sherds (ibid.xlv, 463 and 471, and fig.206:1, 6–11, fig.211:3–4) amongst 302 pieces of MBA pottery (ibid.xlv). In 1951 Kenyon had concluded that the ‘Streak’ dated to the Late Bronze Age. Her Phase H XIII.liii, which corresponds to the ‘Streak’, does not appear to be a Late Bronze Age layer, although some LB pottery was found in it. On the contrary, the vast majority of the published pottery from that phase is Middle Bronze Age, which presumably explains why the phase was dated to between the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. It is significant that whereas Garstang recorded quite a lot of LB pottery from the ‘Streak’ (cf section 6.2), Kenyon found mostly MB pottery, and very little from the LBA. The presence of LB pottery in such vast quantities in Garstang's ‘Streak’, and to a much lesser extent in Kenyon's corresponding Phase H XIII.liii, can be accounted for by two possibilities: Disturbance during excavation. Disturbance during actual building of the foundations for the Middle Building. Garstang noted that the earlier German excavations had disturbed these strata, reaching in places below the Middle Building to the ‘Palace storerooms’, and so presumably through the ‘Streak’ (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 178). ... If the ‘Streak’ dates to the end of the Middle Bronze Age, the only sensible way to account for the LB pottery found within the Middle Building is to date the construction and use of the building to the Late Bronze Age. This would resolve the problem of Kenyon's unexplained later preference for a Late Bronze Age date for the Middle Building, which seemed to be the result of her own excavations. This date is now accepted by other scholars (see Weippert and Weippert 1976, 141–5, and Bartlett 1982, 98)." - Bienkowski (1986:115-116) "Kenyon’s Phase liii (the ‘Streak’) is overlain by Phase liv, which she described simply as ‘new building’ (fig.57; Kenyon 1981, 371)" - Bienkowski (1986:116-117) "The ‘Streak’ has been shown to date probably to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The Middle Building, which overlies the ‘Streak’, was associated with LBIIa/early LBIIb pottery. Correlation with Kenyon’s excavations shows that the Middle Building is in the same stratigraphic position as an adjacent structure firmly dated to the second half of the Late Bronze Age, which was also associated with LBIIa pottery. There seems to be no alternative but to date the Middle Building to LBIIa/early LBIIb, c.14th/early 13th centuries B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:117-118) "Kenyon pointed out that the major part of the large MBA town had also eroded. Traces of this erosion have been found in the ‘Streak’, which is one metre thick in places, extending down the sides of the tell, especially on the east side (cf fig.57)." - Bienkowski (1986:120-122) "Very little remains of the MBA town, a large part of the top of the tell having suffered severe erosion. MBA levels have survived only in the centre of the east side, where there was a slope down to the source of the spring. Only a limited area of the late MBI/early MBII levels was excavated, associated with a succession of brick-built town walls. For the later MBII town a vague plan has been established. The buildings excavated by Garstang (his 'Palace storerooms') and Kenyon were small houses with rather irregular rooms, flanking two partly cobbled streets with well-built drains beneath, climbing the slope in steps. It is likely that in these houses the living rooms were on the first floor, and the storerooms and shops on the ground floor." - Bienkowski (1986:126-127) "The final MBII buildings at Jericho were destroyed violently by fire. The walls were covered by a thick layer of burnt debris washed down from higher up the slope during the subsequent period of abandonment and erosion (Garstang's 'Streak', cf Chapter 6.1). There is no material on the tell or in the tombs which can be dated between the early 16th and the late 15th centuries B.C." - Bienkowski (1986:127-128) "Kenyon suggested that disease of some sort was responsible for the simultaneous death of entire families in her 'multiple simultaneous tombs' shortly before the final destruction of the MBII town (1960b, 267). Bartlett has amplified this: The state of the tombs and the strange phenomenon noted above of the arrested decay of organic objects points to earthquake activity, and the tell shows traces of fire. Plague, earthquake and fire might of themselves have been major factors in bringing about the end of MB Jericho" (1982, 94). Given the contemporary destructions at Tell Beit Mirsim, Hazor, Shechem and elsewhere (Kenyon 1979, 177), however, an explanation which takes into account the wider situation in Palestine might be more plausible. A period of fighting and mutual destruction between the MB Palestinian towns, perhaps influenced by an influx of Asiatics from Egypt causing tension, population pressure and tribal rivalries, is as likely an explanation as any." - Bienkowski (1986:127-128) "The destruction was complete," wrote Kathleen Kenyon, the area’s excavator. She discovered a debris layer a yard or more thick across her entire excavation area." - Wood (1990a) "Garstang excavated a collapsed double city wall on the summit of the tell that he dated to the late-15th to early 14th-century B.C.E. (the Late Bronze Age). He also excavated a residential area on the southeast slope of the mound which he believed was part of the city fortified by the double wall. He designated this "City IV." It had been thoroughly destroyed in a violent conflagration. ... The double city wall Garstang associated with the Israelite invasion in about 1400 B.C.E. in fact dated to the Early Bronze Age some 1,000 years earlier. The destruction of Garstang’s City IV, which he had dated to about 1400 B.C.E., occurred, according to Kenyon, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, about 1550 B.C.E. ... There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in dating the double wall on top of the tell to the Early Bronze Age. In this she was right and Garstang wrong. But there is a serious question about her dating of the destruction of the residential area of the final Bronze Age city (Garstang’s City IV) to the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.E.)." - Wood (1990a) "Kenyon made three cuts through the city’s ramparts – on the north, west and south. In all three cuts, she carried her excavation to the lower revetment wall; in the west cut, however, she went even beyond the revetment wall to the area outside the wall. What Kenyon found outside the revetment wall in the west cut was quite astounding. There, outside the revetment wall, she found bricks from the city wall above that had collapsed. I will let her describe it in her own words (you can follow this more easily while looking at the stratigraphic section): Above the fill associated with the kerb wall [marked "KE" at lower left], during which the final M[iddle] B[ronze] bank [or rampart] remained in use, was a series of tip lines against the [outer] face of the revetment [wall]. The first was a heavy fill of fallen red [mud]bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment [wall]. These [red bricks] probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank [emphasis supplied]. Over what she described as "the main collapse," she found a gravelly wash from later erosion.45 In less technical language, it appears that a wall made of red mudbricks existed either on top of the tell, as Kenyon postulates, or on the top of the revetment wall itself, or both, until the final destruction of City IV. The red mudbricks came tumbling down, falling over the outer revetment wall at the base of the tell. There the red mudbricks came to rest in a heap. Thus, in Kenyon’s opinion, the pile of bricks resting against the outer face of the revetment wall came from the collapsed city wall. " - Wood (1990a) "Remnants of the final phase of City IV were also found on the southeast slope, just above the spring, by both Garstang and Kenyon. What Garstang and Kenyon found here is most revealing. Garstang dug a large area, about 115 feet by 165 feet, which he called the "palace storeroom area"; Kenyon found remains from the final phase of City IV only in two excavation squares (H II and H III). The results reveal that City IV was massively destroyed in a violent conflagration51 that left a layer of destruction debris a yard or more thick across the entire excavation area. Again, we will let Kenyon describe the calamity: 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 the fire. The last observation in this quotation suggests that an earthquake preceded the conflagration. " - Wood (1990a) "Following the destruction of the Bronze Age city at Jericho, the site lay abandoned for a considerable period of time. During this period, material from the top of the tell washed down the slopes, forming a thick layer of erosional debris (Garstang's "streak," Kenyon's "wash"). Toward the end of the Late Bronze IIA period (second half of the 14th century B.C.E.), a large palace or residency (Garstang's Middle Building), with its associated outbuildings, was built into the erosional layer on the east side of the tell. The Middle Building was occupied only for a generation or so and then abandoned. After this abandonment, material again washed down from the higher elevations, covering the ruined building. When Garstang excavated the Middle Building, he found almost no pottery on the floors of the building itself, a fact duly noted by Bienkowski. For record-keeping purposes, however, Garstang labeled his finds according to the areas defined by the rooms of the Middle Building, with notations concerning the level, that is, whether from high in the debris (the upper erosional layer), on the floor of the building, beneath the foundations of the structure (the erosional layer below) or, in some cases, in the ruins of the Bronze Age city below. Thus, as Kenyon observed some time ago, most of the pottery excavated by Garstang in this area came from the erosional layers above or beneath the Middle Building, even though it was labeled with the room numbers of the Middle Building. Since there were no other Late Bronze II structures up slope of the Middle Building, even the material that covered the ruined building after its abandonment was from the earlier Bronze Age city. Since there was little in situ material in the structure, and since it was occupied only for a relatively short period of time, almost all of the pottery recovered from this area derives from the earlier Bronze Age city." - Wood (1990b) "It is generally believed that an earthquake occurred during the siege of Jericho (Tell el-Sultan) by the Israelites in c. 1400 BC. This event caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse, allowing Joshua to take possession of the place and burn it down. The Bible, the only literary source for this earthquake, does not attribute the collapse of the walls of Jericho to an earthquake, but rather to the besieging Israelites, who ‘by shouting and blowing their horns caused the walls to come tumbling down’ (Josh. vi. 20–21). If the timeline of the Bible is followed, then the invasion of the Israelites into Palestine is usually placed 440 years before the foundation of the Temple in Jerusalem by Solomon in 960 BC. Jericho, therefore, would have been destroyed about 1400 BC, but not necessarily by an earthquake. Alternatively, if the views of those scholars who have attempted to reconcile the description of events with Egyptian history are accepted, a date of 1260 BC is inferred. Another option would be to follow those who reject the historicity of Joshua in favour of belief in peaceful conquest and accept a date far later than 1400 BC (Lemonick 1990). Turning to the question of what archaeology can contribute to this impasse, the earliest excavation at Jericho, at the beginning of the last century, concluded that the city had already been abandoned before the invasion of the Israelites and that it had been destroyed, probably by earthquake, before 1400 BC (Selling and Watzinger 1913). A second series of excavations in the 1930s supported the biblical account of an earthquake in c. 1400 BC (Garstang 1948). A third series of excavations at Jericho in the 1950s, however, found no archaeological evidence to corroborate the biblical account of the fall of Jericho, dating the event back to a period well before 1400 BC (Kenyon 1957). The walls of Jericho were repaired or rebuilt no fewer than 16 times in its known history and, of the layers identified by Kenyon, not one could be singled out as providing special hints for destruction by the hand of Joshua rather than another conqueror, or by earthquake. In 1997 a limited excavation by Nigro and Marchetti on the fringes of Kenyon’s trenches, which was shrouded in political intrigues, found no evidence for destruction from the time of Joshua (Nigro and Marchetti 1998). Wood (1990), however, who examined the results of the excavations by Kenyon, Nigro and Marchetti, claimed that they had found the same evidence as that which in earlier excavations had fitted the Biblical story of the destruction of Jericho in c. 1400 BC. The conclusion is that the date or the period of the earthquake, if an earthquake did in fact occur at all, remains highly debatable, and archaeology does not help much to establish the invasion period with any degree of certainty. In Jericho and in other sites in the region the evidence points more towards deliberate human destruction. From the examination of the available data, taking into consideration the doubts regarding Kenyon’s dating raised by Wood, and those regarding Garstang’s raised by Kenyon, it is prudent, until archaeologists come up with a better unbiased evaluation, to accept tentatively Kenyon’s estimates. Until a better consensus is reached it is important to be aware that the time of the siege and destruction of Jericho by Joshua is very uncertain, being bracketed within a rather broad chronological range. It is natural for archaeologists to seek earthquake effects in strata belonging to the conventional period of the fall of Jericho in c. 1400 BC, which dating, as we have seen, is far from being certain. It was to be expected, with Jericho located in the Dead Sea fault zone, which is capable of producing destructive earthquakes, that there is no lack of archaeological evidence to show that during the Bronze Age the site of Jericho was damaged a number of times, probably by more than one earthquake of unknown location and magnitude. The problem here is that archaeological evidence for an earthquake is rarely unambiguous, and its dating is frequently based on, or influenced by, literary sources, which often, as in this case, provide examples of how their assumed accuracy, coupled with occasional inaccurate commentaries, may influence archaeologists’ interpretations and dating. This then develops into a circular process in which the uncertain date of an earthquake is transformed into a fact and used to confirm the dates of the proposed destruction strata." - Ambraseys (2009) "Although there is a significant deviation in views over the exact date of the destruction and abandonment, archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment." - Kennedy (2023:1) "Jericho is one of the many settlements in Canaan where a formidable fortification system was constructed during the Middle Bronze Age. During this period, the people of Jericho built a cyclopean wall around the city, which utilized a stone retaining wall and an upper wall of mudbrick. This city wall was rebuilt in Middle Bronze III around 1600 BC and encompassed an area of about 17 acres, although part of the site was destroyed in modern times due to road construction, so calculations are only approximate (Nigro and Taha 2009, pp. 731-34; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). According to the early German excavations, when less damage had been done to the site, the stone retaining wall was approximately 4 to 5 m high, and the upper mudbrick wall on top of the retaining wall was approximately 6 to 8 m high and 2 m thick (Sellin and Watzinger [1913] 1973, p. 58; Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141). Inside this was another wall, made of mudbrick, which, according to the Italian-Palestinian team, reached a height of 12.11 m above ground level outside of the fortifications (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 142). Both a stone retaining wall and a rampart of debris piled on the MB I and MB II fortifications were built in MB III, or approximately 1650-1550 BC/1600-1500 BC (Marchetti et al. 1998, pp. 131, 138, 141; Marchetti 2003, pp. 311-12; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 731; Nigro 2020, p. 201). Besides the ceramic typology indicating the date of the construction in Middle Bronze III, excavations have demonstrated that the Cyclopean Wall cuts through Tower A1, which was in use during Middle Bronze I and II (Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 734). A report about the 1952 excavations had come to similar conclusions, stating that the latest surviving defenses are Middle Bronze Age and that this system had been preceded by two previous Middle Bronze Age walls built prior (Tushingham 1952, pp. 8-10). Although these final city walls appear to have been constructed in Middle Bronze III, this does not mean that Jericho had no walls in the subsequent Late Bronze I period. Rather, as was the case at many other sites in Canaan, the massive fortifications could have remained in use into the Late Bronze Age or beyond." - Kennedy (2023:3) "According to archaeological excavations at Jericho, including the Kenyon and Italian-Palestinian excavations, the mudbrick wall on top of the stone retaining wall had collapsed and fallen in front of the retaining wall around most of the city and had essentially formed a pile of sloping bricks resembling a ramp (Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 143; Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 110; Wood 1990b, pp. 54-56; 1999, p. 37). The outward falling of the city walls, which was followed by a massive fire that engulfed Jericho and included the collapse of buildings in the city, was proposed by excavators as possibly being the result of an earthquake rather than a battering ram or other siege equipment (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 138-139, 159; Kenyon 1957, pp. 179, 262; Kenyon and Holland 1981, pp. 110, 370)4. This "terrible destruction" of Jericho by fire has been posited by various excavators and other researchers as the result of a violent attack by either a foreign enemy or another city-state, without agreement regarding the identity of the attackers (Nigro 2016, p. 15; 2020, p. 201). The falling or collapse of the wall was the first phase, while the destruction by fire was the second phase. The collapse of the city wall, which was constructed in the Middle Bronze Age III, and other associated architecture in the final Bronze Age City IVc Jericho is dated on the basis of its construction period. The finds sealed by the destruction layer on top of collapsed architecture and subsequently constructed architecture such as the "Middle Building" mean the falling of this wall, building collapse, and the destruction of the city must have occurred within the periods of either Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I. Although Kenyon separated the falling of the walls and the following fire destruction into separate phases, the two events need not be separated by vast amounts of time, and there is no indication that the city was abandoned or lay dormant in between the collapse and the fire. ... Because battering rams would cause the walls to fall into the city at specific points of attack rather than outside and in front of the retaining wall all around nearly the entire city, this facet of the destruction has often been attributed to an earthquake, although other explanations may be possible. Indeed, rather than displaying the characteristics of a battering ram siege and forcing entry at a particular weak point or points of the city defenses, as would be expected from conventional warfare, an earthquake or another action with similar result might have caused wall sections to crumble both outside and inside the line of the stone retaining wall. However, perhaps more important than the specific cause of the collapse is that, according to archaeological observations, the walls of Jericho City IVc fell down the slope, resulting in the formation of a simple ramp up into the city. This phenomenon of a fallen mudbrick wall forming a pile that people could use to march over and past the walls and into the city accords with the description in the Joshua narrative about the wall falling upon itself and the army then walking up into Jericho (Joshua 6: 20). (See Figures 2 and 3 below). After the walls fell, the next archaeologically observable event in the sequence was the burning of the city. The fire destruction of Jericho IVc was found in numerous excavation areas at the site, and it was a severe and complete destruction, including blackened walls and floors, fallen bricks and timber, burnt debris, collapsed roofs, and burned remains around the MBIII wall (Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 370; Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 735). The fire was so intense and so widespread, including residential houses, the palace and the temple, that it appeared to indicate a deliberate burning of Jericho rather than an accidental or localized fire restricted to a particular building or section of the city (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 136, 142). This is further supported by the long abandonment of the site, with the next architecture dating to Iron II except for the briefly occupied "Middle Building," indicating that significant death and destruction that occurred at Jericho. (Marchetti 2003, p. 317). This violent destruction brought an end to the stratum known as Jericho IVc." - Kennedy (2023:4-7)	VIII+ ? ? ?

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Notes and Further Reading

References

Articles and Books

Alfonsi, L., et al. (2012). Archaeoseismic Evidence of Two Neolithic (7,500–6,000 B.C.) Earthquakes at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho, Dead Sea Fault. Seismological Research Letters, 83(4), 639-648.

Ambraseys, N. (2009). Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East: a multidisciplinary study of seismicity up to 1900 . Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Ben-Menahem, A. (1991). "Four Thousand Years of Seismicity along the Dead Sea rift." Journal of Geophysical Research 96((no. B12), 20): 195-120, 216.

Bienkowski, P. (1986) Jericho in the Late Bronze Age

Bienkowski, P. (1990). “Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age.” Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): 45–49, 68–69.

Kennedy, T. (2023). The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua . Religions, 14(6), 796 – open access

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1954). Excavations at Jericho. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 84(1/2), 103–110. – at JSTOR

Kenyon, K. M. (1978). The Bible and Recent Archaeology, British Museum Publications Ltd., London.

Nigro, L. (2009). Renewed Excavations and Restorations at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho. Fifth Season – March–April 2009.

Nigro, L., & Taha, H. (2013). The ninth season (2013) of archaeological activities at Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MoTA-DACH.

Nigro, Lorenzo (2014). The Archaeology of Collapse and Resilience: Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho as a Case Study . In L. Nigro (Ed.), Overcoming Catastrophes: Essays on Disastrous Agents Characterization and Resilience Strategies in Pre-Classical Southern Levant (pp. 55–85). Rome: La Sapienza Studies on the Archaeology of Palestine & Transjordan, Vol. 11.

Nigro, L. (2016). Tell es-Sultan 2015: A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. Near Eastern Archaeology, 79(1).

Nigro, Lorenzo (2023). The Diverse Urbanism of the Levant: Models and Achievements. The Case of Tell es-Sultan/Ancient Jericho in the Early Bronze Age II. In M. Frangipane (Ed.), The ‘City’ Across Time: Emergence, Developments, and Social, Economic, Political, Cultural and Health Impact (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 354), 179–205. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.

Nigro, Lorenzo, & Yasine, Jehad (2024). Interim Report on the Excavations at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (2019–2023): The Bronze and Iron Age Cities. Vicino Oriente, 29, 47–96.

Smith, John M.P. (1908) The Excavations at Jericho , The Biblical Wolrd, Mar. 1908, Vol. 31, No. 3 (March 1908), pp. 227-228 – at JSTOR

Wilkinson, John, with Joyce Hill & W. F. Ryan (1988). Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Wood, B. G. (1990a). “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence.” Biblical Archaeology Review 16 (2): 44–58. Wood, B. G. (1990b). “Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts.” Biblical Archaeology Review 16 (5): 45–69.

Excavation Reports

Sellin and Watzinger

Sellin, Ernst and Watzinger, Carl. (1913) Jericho : die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen (Jericho: The results of the excavations), J. C. Heinrich, Leipzig in German

Garstang

Garstang, John (1930-1931) Jericho Reports , Institute of Archaeology.

Garstang, John (1932-1933) Jericho Reports , Institute of Archaeology.

Garstang, John (1933). "Jericho: City and Necropolis." Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 19 (1932), 3–22, 35–54; 20 (1933), 3–42; 21 (1934), 99–136; 22 (1935), 143–168; 23 (1936), 67–76.

Garstang, John, & J. B. E. Garstang (1948). The Story of Jericho. 2nd ed. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1957). Digging Up Jericho. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1960). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 1: The Tombs Excavated in 1952–54. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1965). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955–58. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Part 1: Text. Edited by Thomas A. Holland. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1981). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. Part 2: Plates. Edited by Thomas A. Holland. London.

Kenyon, Kathleen M., & Holland, Thomas A. (1982). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

Kenyon, Kathleen M., & Holland, Thomas A. (1983). Excavations at Jericho, Vol. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. – can be borrowed with a free archive.org account

La Sapienza Italian-Palestinian

Major Reports

Nigro, L. (ed.) (2006). ROSAPAT 01: Tell es-Sultan/ Gerico (in Italian).

Nigro, L., & Taha, H. (eds.) (2006). ROSAPAT 02: Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Context of the Jordan Valley.

Nigro, L. (ed.) (2007). ROSAPAT 04: Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I. Social dynamics and cultural interactions. Proceedings of the International Workshop held in Rome on March 6th, 2007 by Rome “La Sapienza” University.

Nigro, L. (ed.) (2010). ROSAPAT 05: Tell es-Sultan/ Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The rise of an early Palestinian city. A synthesis of the results of four archaeological expeditions.

Open Access Publications of “La Sapienza” Expedition to Jericho

Open Access Publications of “La Sapienza” Expedition to Palestine & Jordan.

Website Publication Page

parsed, reformatted, duplicates removed, and reordered from La Sapienza Website

Websites

John Garstang’s Excavations at Jericho at garstangmuseum.wordpress.com

Researching Jericho by Bryant G. Wood PhD at Associates for Biblical Research - apologist site - differing chronology

Bibliography from Stern et. al. (1993 v.2)

Early Periods

Main publications

E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho, Leipzig 1913

J. Garstang, The Story of Jericho, rev. ed., London 1948.

Other studies

Conder-Kitchener, SWP 3, 224-226

J. Garstang, AAA 19 (1932), 3-22, 35-54

20 (1933), 3-42

21 (1934), 99-136

22(1935), 143-168

23 (1936), 67-76

I. Ben-Dor,ibid., 77-90

G. M. Fitzgerald, ibid., 91-100

E. B. Banning and B. F. Byrd, Pali!orient 15/1 (1989), 154-160

0. Bar-Yosef, ibid., 57-63.

Kenyon Excavation Reports

Main publications

K. M. Kenyon, Excavations at Jericho 1, The Tombs Excavated in 1952-1954, London 1960

ibid. 2: The Tombs Excavated in 1955-1958, London 1965

ibid. 3: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell(text and pls.), London 1981

id. and T. A. Holland, ibid. 4: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds, London 1982

id., ibid. 5: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, London 1983

K. M. Kenyon, Digging up Jericho, London 1957

H. J. Franken, In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum (North Holland Ceramic Studies in Archaeology 1), Amsterdam 1974

P. Bienkowski, Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, Warminster 1986.

Other studies

K. M. Kenyon, PEQ 83 (1951), 101-138

84 (1952), 62-82

85 (1953), 81-96

86 (1954), 45 63

87 (1955), 108-117

88 (1956), 67-82

92 (1960), 88-113

id., Jericho 1-3 (Review), Bibliotheca Orienta/is 41 (1984), 486-489

id., Jericho 4-5 (Reviews), ZDPV 83 (1967), 88-89.- RIAL 19 (1982), 205-206.-23 (Review Supplement 1986-1987), 38-42.-Antiquity 57 (1983), 222-223.-61 (1987), 341-343.-Biblica 64 (1983), 573-574.- IEJ 33 (1983), 144-146.-Syria 60 (1983), 189-190.-63 (1986), 161-163

id., Archaeology 20 (1967), 268-275

id., Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land, New York 1967, 19-28

id., Archaeology and Old Testament Study (ed. D. W. Thomas), Oxford 1967, 264 275

id., ADAJ 16 (1971), 5-30

F. E. Zeuner, PEQ 86 (1954), 64-68

87 (1955), 70-86, 119-128

90 (1958), 52-55

I. W. Cornwall, ibid. 88 (1956), 110-124

P. C. Hammond, RASOR 147 (1957), 37-39

id., PEQ 89 (1957), 68-69

M. Wheeler, Walls of Jericho, London 1958

D. Kirkbride, PEQ 92 (1960), 114 119

R. L. Cleveland, RASOR 163 (1961), 30-36

K. Branigan, PEQ 99 (1967), 99-100

M. Hopf, The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals (eds. P. Ucko and G. Dimbleby), London 1969, 355-359

J. Kaplan, JNES 28 (1969), 197-199

R. North, Proc., 5th World Congress of Jewish Studies. 1969, Jerusalem 1971, 35-49

id., SHAJ 1 (1982), 59-66

J. Clutton-Brock, Levant 3 (1971), 41-55

id. (and H.-P. Verpmann), Journal of Archaeological Science 1 (1974), 261-274

id., Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 45 (1979), 135-157

J.D. Frierman, IEJ2l (1971), 212-216

E. B. Smick, Orient and Occident (C. H. Gordon Fest.), Kevelaer 1973, 177-180

E. Strouhal, Palt!orient 1 (1973), 231-247

N. Avigad, Archaeology (Israel Pocket Library), Jerusalem 1974, 113-121

H. J. Franken, (Reviews), PEQ 109 (1977), 58.-Antiquity 54 (1980), 62-63

D.P. Williams, "An Examination of Middle Bronze Age II Typology and Sequence Dating in Palestine, with Particular Reference to the Tombs of Jericho and Fara (South)" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of London 1975)

H. M. Weippert, ZDPV 92 (1976), 105-148

J. A. Callaway, Sunday School Lesson Illustrator 3 (1977), 24-32

P. Dorell, Archaeology in the Levant (K. M. Kenyon Fest.), Warminster 1978, 11-18

F. Godfrey, Holy LandReview4(l978), 35-47

J. Bury, Kadath43 (1981), 21-29

J. A. Soggin, EI16 (1982), 215*-217*

J. Zias, RASOR 246 (1982), 55-58

J. R. Bartlett, Jericho (Cities of the Biblical World), Guildford 1982

id., ibid. (Reviews), Antiquity 57 (1983), 160-162. BA 47 (1984), 60-62. - BAR 10/6 (1984), 9

R. G. Boling, BA 46 (1983), 115-116

American Archaeology in the Mideast, 125-128

E. Pennels, BA 46 (1983), 57-61

T. Shay, TA 10 (1983), 26-37

id., BASOR273 (1989), 85-86

G. R. H. Wright, MDOG 115 (1983), 9-14

id.,Journal of Prehistoric Religion 2 (1988) 51-56

D. B. Merkes, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 23 (1984), 5-34

0. Bar-Yosef, Current Anthropology 27 (1986), 157-162

P. Bienkowski (Reviews), PEQ 119 (1987), 72. - AJA 92 (1988), 444-445.-RIAL 25 (1988), 99-102. -JNES47 (1988), 189-190.-VT38 (1988),490-492. Bibliotheca Orienta/is 48 (1991), 649-651

id., Levant 21 (1989), 169-179

id., BAR 16/5 (1990), 45-46

K. Prag, RASOR 264 (1986), 61-72

G. Palumbo, ibid. 267 (1987), 43-59

R. Chapman, BAlAS 6 (1986 1987), 29-33

Y. Garfinkel, Pali!orient 13/1 (1987), 69-76

M. Broshi, BAlAS 7 (1987-1988), 3-7

B. F. Byrd and E. B. Banning, Paleorient 14/1 (1988), 65-72

T. Noy, The Israel Museum Journa/7 (1988), 109 112

Weippert 1988 (Ortsregister)

D. Gheva and M. Louhivouri, BAlAS 8 (1988-1989), 49-63

D. Ussishkin, ibid., 85-90

id., RASOR 276 (1989), 29-53

E. Braun, PEQ 121 (1989), 1-43

P. T. Crocker, Buried History 26 (1990), 100-104

27 (1991), 5-11

M. Roaf, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, New York 1990, 32-35

L. E. Stager, EI21 (1990), 83*-88*

B. G. Wood, BAR 16/2 (1990), 44-58

16/5 (1990) 45-49

MdB 69 (1991), 3-28

P. R. S. Moorey, A Century of Biblical Archaeology, Cambridge 1991, 94-99

R. Sparks, Mediterranean Archaeology 4 (1991), 45-54.

Bibliography from Meyers et. al. (1997)

Bar-Yosef, Ofer. "The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation." Current Anthropology 27 (1986): 157-162 .

Bienkowski, Piotr. Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster, 19S6. The most comprehensive treatment to date of the Late Bronze Age at Jericho, based on the excavated material of both Garstang and Kenyon.

Bienkowski, Piotr. "Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age." Biblical Archaeology Review 16.5 (1990): 45-46, 69. Recent archaeological treatments of Jericho and tlie "Joshua problem."

Finkelstein, Israel. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem, 1988. Recent treatment of different theories concerning the evidence for the Israelite settlement in Canaan,

Franken, Hendrichs J. In Search of the Jericho Potters: Ceramics from the Iron Age and from the Neolithicum. Amsterdam, 1974. The best technical study of the manufacture of Iron Age Israelite pottery.

Garstang, John. "Jericho: City and Necropolis." Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19 (1932): 3-22, 35-54; 20 (1933): 3-42; 21 (1934): 99-136; 22 (1935): 143-168 ; 23 (1936): 67-76. Final scientific reports on the Garstang expedition to Jericho.

Garstang, John, and J. B, E. Garstang. The Story of Jericho. 2d ed. London, 1948. The best general discussion of Garstang's excavations; well illustrated.

Holland, Thomas A. "Jericho." In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, pp. 723-737, 739-740. New York, 1992. The author's previous and most up-to-date general discussion of the archaeological finds from the Kenyon expedition, with fuller bibliography.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Digging Up Jericho. London, 1957. The most comprehensive general discussion of the archaeology and history of Jericho relating primarily to the author's excavations; well illustrated.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 1, The Tombs Excavated in 1952-54. London, i960. Final excavation report.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 2, The Tombs Excavated in 1955-58. London, 1965. Final excavation report.

Kenyon, Kathleen M . Excavations at Jericho, vol. 3, The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. 2 vols. Edited by Thomas A, Holland. London, 1981. Final excavation report with detailed plans, sections, and photographs of the occupation phases, as well as specialist reports on radiocarbon dates and the human skeletal remains.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at. Jericho, vol. 4, The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London, 1982. Final excavation report, which includes drawings of the key pottery forms from each period and specialist reports on various objects.

Kenyon, Kathleen M. , and Thomas A. Holland. Excavations at Jericho, vol. 5, The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London, 1983. Final excavation report, which includes drawings of pottery forms from each phase of occupation and specialist reports on various objects, studies of plant, charcoal, and animal remains, and additional radiocarbon dates for Jericho.

Warren, Charles. "Note on the Mounds at Jericho." Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1 (1869): 209-210.

Weippert, Helga, and Manfred Weippert. "Jericho in der Eisenzeit." Zeitschrift des Deulschen Paldstina-Vereins 92 (1976): 105-148 .

Weippert, Manfred. The Settlement, of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of the Recent Scholarly Debate. London, 1971 . Standard reference work for assessing the Israelite "peaceful invasion" theory of Canaan.

Wood, Bryant G. "Dating Jericho's Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts." Biblical Archaeology Review 16.5 (1990): 45, 47-49, 68-69. Must be used cautiously with regard to Bienkowski's 1990 rebuttal.

Bibliographic Guide to Jericho

from Nigro (2016)

More than a century of excavations have resulted in a significant number of publications. Excavation reporst were published by the Austro-German Expedition (E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, Leipzig 1913), the first British Expedition (Garstang actually published a series of article in the journal Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, and a popular book: J. Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho, London 1948). K. M. Kenyon produced a series of monumental reports published by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem: Excavations at Jericho, vol. I (London 1960) and II (1965) dedi cated to the necropolis, vol. III, with stratigraphy and architecture [edited by Th. Holland] (1981), while pottery and finds and their typological assessment followed in the postume volumes vol. IV (1982) and V (1983) edited by Holland. A synthesis of her view is presented in the book Digging Up Jericho (1957), while other detailed information was made available in a series of articles mainly in the journal Palestine Exploration Quarterly.

The Italian-Palestinian Expedition has published five volumes on Jericho in the series Quaderni di Gerico and ROSAPAT (avail able online at the website: www.lasapienzatojericho.it): vol. 1 – on the Proto-Urban village; vol. 2 – proceedings of a conference dedicated to the site rehabilitation and tourist valorization; vol. 4 – comparing Jericho and Byblos in the 4th millennium b.c.e.; 5 - matching all available data on the earliest city of the Early Bronze II and describing the rise of the “oldest city of the world;” vol. 7 – a catalogue of 103 archaeological sites in the Jericho Oasis, with bibliographic references for each of them. Interim reports have been published in the journals: Scienze dell’Antichità and Vicino Oriente which are also available online. A comprehensive book was edited by H. Taha and A. Qleibo (Jericho, a Living History. Ten Thousand Years of Civilization, Jerusalem: Studio Alpha 2010).

A useful archaeological synthesis with a thorough presentation of the Biblical material can be found in John Bartlett’s Jericho of 1982, published at Guilford by Lutterworth Press.

Wikipedia pages

Jericho

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Tower of Jericho

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Tell es-Sultan

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

'Ein es-Sultan (Elisha's Well)

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Joshua 3

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Joshua 6

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

John Garstang

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Kathleen Kenyon

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab

Bryant G. Wood

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab