Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho)

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

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 of21.5 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. 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

... 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 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)

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.

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.]

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)

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)

... 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 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)

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 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)

... 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.]

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).

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)

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)

... 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 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)

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 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)

... 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.]

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).

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)

... 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 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)

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 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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

... 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 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)

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 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)

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).

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)

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).

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)

... 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 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)

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).

Sultan IVc Destruction - MB III - ~1650-1550 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)

... 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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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 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.

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).

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.

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 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.]

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).

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

Ambraseys (2009)

from Ambraseys (2009)

1400 BC Jericho

oIt 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.

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.

Kennedy (2023)

from Kennedy (2023)

Alfonsi et al. (2012)

Table 1 - Periods with Earthquake-Induced Damage

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 - ~1650-1550 BCE

Effect(s)	Location	Image(s)	Description
Collapsed Walls			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) "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)

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 - ~1650-1550 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			"" - Kenyon (1981:87-88) "" - Kenyon (1981:87-88)	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).

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.

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

Garstang

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

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

Bryant G. Wood

from wikipedia - click link to open page in a separate tab