What archaeological evidence supports the existence of Jericho as mentioned in Joshua 18:21? Biblical Setting of Jericho “Now the towns of the tribe of Benjamin according to their clans were: Jericho, Beth-hoglah, Emek-keziz …” (Joshua 18:21). The passage presupposes that Jericho existed as a recognizable, assignable city immediately after Israel’s conquest. Therefore, any archaeological evidence must demonstrate (1) an inhabited, fortified site in the late 15th century BC, (2) a sudden destruction by fire, and (3) a subsequent occupational gap long enough for Joshua to place it under the curse of 6:26. Geographical Identification: Tell es-Sultan All major explorers—from Charles Warren (1868) and Ernst Sellin (1907 – 1909) through John Garstang (1930–1936), Kathleen Kenyon (1952–1958), and the current Italian-Palestinian Expedition—agree that the mound 2 km NW of the Dead Sea oasis spring, called Tell es-Sultan, is biblical Jericho. The tell’s four–hectare summit, strategic spring (ʿEin es-Sultan), and proximity to the Jordan fords match Joshua 2:1 and 3:16. Fortification Architecture Matching Joshua 6 1. A 12–15 ft revetment wall of stone (Middle Bronze II) encircled the tell’s lower slope. 2. Atop it stood a mud-brick wall c. 6 ft thick. 3. Kenyon’s Trench I exposed bricks from that upper wall piled outward at the revetment’s base—exactly the outward collapse necessary to form a makeshift ramp (“the wall fell down flat,” Joshua 6:20). 4. These bricks overlay a late Bronze I domestic quarter abutting the fortification—confirming Rahab-style housing “on the wall” (Joshua 2:15). Burn Layer and Short Siege Indicators Garstang labelled the destruction “City IV.” Kenyon’s Phase 3 showed: • A meter-thick char layer covering the entire mound. • Collapsed, reddened mud-brick. • Jars full of carbonized grain—over six bushels in one room—demonstrating: - harvest-season attack (Joshua 3:15 says the Jordan was in flood, i.e., spring barley harvest); - siege of only days (grain not consumed); - complete burn-off per Joshua 6:24 “they burned the city with fire.” Pottery, Scarabs, and Radiocarbon Consistency with 1400 BC • Diagnostic Cypriot bichrome ware, late Bronze white-slip bowls, and Judean store-jars fit LB I (c. 1480–1400 BC). • Six Egyptian scarabs from City IV run from Hatshepsut to Amenhotep III (1503–1386 BC). The youngest fixes a terminus post quem no later than c. 1386. • Charred grain radiocarbon tested by Bruins & van der Plicht (1996) calibrated to 1410 ± 40 BC, in line with an Exodus c. 1446 and conquest c. 1406 BC. Occupation Gap Consistent with the Biblical Curse Kenyon noted “no substantial urban center” for roughly five centuries following the burn layer—precisely what Joshua 6:26 predicts: “Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city.” When it is re-occupied (Iron IB, 11th century BC), it appears as an unwalled hamlet, matching 1 Kings 16:34’s later rebuilding. Historical Excavations Corroborating the Conquest Date • Sellin & Watzinger (1907) first correlated the burn layer with Israel. • Garstang (1930s) dated City IV to c. 1400 BC; he wrote, “In a word, in all material details, and in date, the fall of Jericho took place as described in the Biblical narrative.” • Kenyon (1950s) redated the city’s fall to c. 1550 BC largely on the absence of certain late Bronze II imported wares; however, her own pottery dump contained LB IIC sherds she had not recognized. • Bryant G. Wood (1990, 1999) re-examined her published pottery and demonstrated its LB I provenance, overturning the earlier skepticism and re-aligning the destruction with 1400 BC. Supplementary Lines of Evidence • The 6th-century AD Madaba Map labels the mound “Iericho,” showing the locale remained identifiable across millennia. • Fourth-century historian Eusebius places “Jericho, the city of Joshua” at the same oasis. • Modern geotechnical studies (2009, Italian-Palestinian Expedition) confirm the ancient spring still yields 1,000+ m³/day—adequate for the pre-destruction population density implied in Joshua 6. Answering Common Skeptical Objections Objection: “Kenyon disproved the biblical chronology.” Reply: Her own stratigraphy shows she reached bedrock only in Trench I; elsewhere her “gap” is an erosion gully. Revised pottery readings, scarab series, and C-14 place the destruction within the biblical window. Objection: “No trumpet-induced earthquake is provable.” Reply: Scripture attributes the collapse to divine action (Joshua 6:2, 16). Archaeology need only confirm sudden wall failure—which the outward brick tumble does. Objection: “Radiocarbon contradicts a young earth.” Reply: Calibrations are model-dependent; the key point is relative dating within the Bronze Age. The Jericho samples correlate precisely with the biblical Exodus-Conquest framework anchored to 1 Kings 6:1’s 480 years—fully compatible with a Ussher chronology (Creation 4004 BC, Conquest 1406 BC). Implications for Joshua 18:21 By the time inheritances were allotted, the mound still bore visible ruins but no occupants, making Jericho available for Benjamin without warfare. The seamless fit between text and trowel reinforces Scripture’s reliability and Yahweh’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. Conclusion Tell es-Sultan yields a fortified city, violently destroyed by fire c. 1400 BC, its walls collapsed outward, its siege brief, its grain untouched, and its site largely abandoned for centuries—all in precise agreement with the narrative arc from Joshua 2 through Joshua 18. The stones of Jericho cry out, and their testimony harmonizes flawlessly with the written Word of God. |
    |