ReViews: Archaeology, Dogs and Gin
Dame Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up the Holy Land
excavations and surveys carried out in this tiny area is by far greater than in much larger lands (the number is more than a
thousand), and Kathleen Kenyon is surely one of the most important archaeologists to have dug here. She is undoubtedly,
except for British prehistorian Dorothy Garrod, the most important female archaeologist to have worked here.
scholar. Like her father, she also wanted to study the past—not through ancient books and manuscripts as he did, but
as an archaeologist. She began as an assistant in an excavation in Zimbabwe, in what was then Southern Rhodesia.
characterized her work thereafter and which became known by the name of her mentor and her own, the [Mortimer]
Wheeler-Kenyon method.
incredible energy enabled her to work on an unprecedented scale. Between 1930 and 1935 she divided her time between digs in
Palestine and England. Remember that airplane transportation had not yet developed. Flying by hydroplanes from Britain to
the Holy Land took three days.
operating between 1931 and 1934. The site had already been excavated by an American expedition in 1908–1910, which had
uncovered such important finds as the palace ivories and the famous Samaria ostraca. Kenyon’s contribution was
principally a finer distinction of the site’s stratigraphy.
coveted sites in Palestine because it might provide a solution to the problem of the conquest of the Promised Land by
Joshua. Already in 1867, the pioneer British archaeologist Charles Warren conducted the first dig of a Biblical tell here.
But he could not understand the tell that comprised the site and soon left. In 1890 W.M. Flinders Petrie, the father of
modern archaeology, also a Brit, solved the riddle of the tell. He demonstrated that it is an accumulation of one settlement
upon another. The task of the digger is to distinguish between the different layers or strata. The date of the various
strata is determined mostly by the potsherds embedded in it. As is well known, pottery is well preserved even after
thousands of years. It does not dissolve in water, and fire only improves it. Petrie’s observations that look so
elementary today were a stunning insight at the time.
(1931–1934), both achieving important results, but they were not able to solve the question of the conquest of Canaan
by Joshua. Kenyon started her work in Jericho in 1952 and intended to work there for two seasons. Based on her finds, she
prolonged her work; instead of two seasons, she lasted seven, to 1958. The expedition’s accomplishments were many, but
I will mention only two here. It became apparent that during the Late Bronze Age, the time at which Joshua’s conquest
was supposed to have taken place, Jericho was not settled at all. Jericho thus joins other cities mentioned in the Biblical
conquest story, like Ai and Arad west of the Jordan, and Hesbon to the east, for which no evidence of occupation or
destruction has been found in this period. Thus it is well-nigh the current consensus that the story of the conquest lacks
factual proof. The Israelites initially entered the land peacefully and settled unhindered in the uninhabited central
mountainous regions.
distinguishing two strata that had been occupied by people who had not yet learned to produce pottery (so-called prepottery
Neolithic) and two other strata (pottery Neolithic) inhabited by people who enjoyed the invention of pottery. These four
strata covered a period of some 3,000 years (c. 9500–6400 B.C.E.). Her discoveries, later confirmed by excavations at
other sites, are the foundation of what we know regarding a formative period that preceded and led to the historical
periods.
and why the remains of so many settlements produce an artificial mound more than 75 feet high.
skulls—realistic sculpture 10,000 years old—and some extremely well-preserved pieces of wooden
furniture—tables, beds, stools and even pieces of reed mats—that were recovered from Middle Bronze II
tombs.
her anticlimax. Despite great expenditure (seven seasons between 1961 and 1967), hundreds of laborers (sometimes
simultaneously excavating in half a dozen areas), the outcome was poor, sometimes even erroneous. The dig’s
shortcomings were mainly the result of two factors. Kenyon was not allowed to excavate in areas where, after 1967, Israeli
expeditions would dig. For example, Benjamin Mazar’s excavation south and southwest of the Temple Mount and Nahman
Avigad’s excavation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City achieved very important results. The second, perhaps more
critical, reason for her failure relates to the limitations of her method (the Wheeler-Kenyon method). This method relies on
a detailed examination of a limited area in depth rather than the horizontal exposure of vast areas. One is reminded of the
Indian fable about the three blind men who stumbled on a sleeping elephant. The first one fell on the tail and cried,
“Ropes.” The second fell on the legs and shouted, “Beams.” And the third hit the tusks; he was sure
he was touching swords.
Only digs with sufficient horizontal exposure areas can see that an elephant lies before them.
were actually standing on the palace of Herod the Great, as well as the palace of the Crusader rulers of Jerusalem.a
three loves—archaeology, dogs and gin. This book also discusses her other activities. She was quite successful late in
life as head of a girls college at Oxford.
her political views.b
sources. It is quite readable and avoids many of the pitfalls common in such monographs.
Footnotes
See Magen Broshi, “Digging Up Jerusalem—a Critique,” BAR 01:03.
See Hershel Shanks, “Kathleen Kenyon’s Anti-Zionist Politics—Does It Affect Her Work?” BAR 01:03; Hershel Shanks, “The Mistress of Stratigraphy Had Clay Feet,” BAR 29:03.