CLAIM: Archaeologist John Garstang dated the destruction of Jericho to 1400 BC (in the 1930s), which would place the destruction of Jericho perfectly in line with the biblical account. However, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon dated it to 1550 BC (in 1952-1958). Kenyon’s reanalysis of the findings at Jericho has led the majority of scholars to disagree with Garstang’s original conclusions.

RESPONSE: A number of evidence can be raised for affirming the biblical view.

First, the pottery matches 1400. Garstang originally found scarabs of Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III, and Amenhotep III, which date from 1500 to 1400 BC (Late Bronze I period). In her analysis of Jericho, Kenyon never analyzed the pottery discovered by Garstang, which was crucial evidence regarding the date. Gleason Archer writes,

It is impossible to explain why no scarabs bearing the cartouche of any later Pharaoh was ever found at that level if indeed the destruction of City IV took place in the mid-thirteenth century… How could there have been no scarabs from the reign of any of the numerous Pharaohs between Amenhotep III and Rames II?^[1]

Of the 150,000 fragments of pottery discovered in this cemetery, only a single sherd has been found that is of the Mycenean type. Since Mycenean ware began to be imported into Palestine from 1400 and onward, it is difficult to explain why virtually none of it was found in the City IV cemetery unless that cemetery was abandoned around 1400 BC.^[2]

Bryant Wood –a specialist in Canaanite pottery in the late Bronze Age –has dated the destruction of Jericho to 1400 BC.^[3]

Second, part of the burn debris dates to 1400. Wood notes that “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.”^[4]

Third, there are many similarities to the biblical account. Wood points out many similarities between City IV and the biblical account of Jericho’s destruction:^[5]

1. The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15, 6:5, 20). Wood notes that even Kenyon observed this. He writes, “Kenyon herself determined that City IV had an impressive fortification system.”

2. The attack occurred just after harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 5:10). Wood notes that ancient cities were usually overtaken by starving them out. He recounts other Egyptian sieges, where cities would be starved for months on end. And yet, City IV was found with copious amounts of grain deposits inside. In ancient warfare, if a city was taken quickly, then they would certainly steal the grain, because it was a valuable commodity. Joshua’s attack of Jericho was quick, and they were told not to take any of the goods from the town (Josh. 6:17-18).

3. The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1). Again, the conquest of Jericho occurred too quickly for the inhabitants to escape with their food.

4. The siege was short (Joshua 6:15). Again, the remains of City IV demonstrate that this siege did not last long.

5. The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20). Wood writes, “The evidence comes from Kenyon’s own careful stratigraphic excavation and the detailed, final report that describes it.” Literally, the original Hebrews reads that the walls fell “beneath themselves” (Josh. 6:20).

6. The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17–18). Wood writes, “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.” Why would an ancient army leave massive amounts of grain behind in a city? This would be similar to leaving sacks of money behind in a bank robbery.

7. The city was burned (Joshua 6:24). Of course, the remains of City IV were also covered with burn layers.

In addition, the biblical account says that the Jews “went up into the city” (Josh. 6:20). The remains of this city reveal that the Jews would have needed to climb their way into the fortress. It was three times taller than wide. This smells of an eye-witness account. And, on the north wall, there is a section nine feet high and six feet wide that is still standing. Wood speculates that this could be the house of Rahab that was not destroyed when the walls cam down.