Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age

045

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: 1. 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.

2. 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

3. 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.