The Walls of Jericho: Archaeology and the Bible

Tell es-Sultan at the center of debate

Tell es-Sultan, the site of ancient Jericho, sits in the Jordan Valley near the modern city of Jericho, just north of the Dead Sea. At approximately 258 meters below sea level, it is among the lowest cities on earth. The tell (artificial mound created by successive layers of occupation) is one of the most excavated sites in the ancient world, and it sits at the center of one of archaeology's most enduring debates: does the physical evidence confirm, contradict, or simply not speak to the biblical account of Jericho's conquest under Joshua?

Garstang's finds and Kenyon's reexamination

John Garstang's Excavations (1930-36): The British archaeologist John Garstang conducted excavations at Jericho in the early 1930s and reached conclusions that seemed to confirm the biblical account. He identified a double wall system (City IV) that had fallen outward - consistent with Joshua 6:20's description of walls falling 'flat' (or 'beneath themselves' in some translations). He dated this destruction to approximately 1400 BCE, roughly fitting biblical chronology for the conquest if the Exodus occurred in the 15th century BCE. Garstang found evidence of burning, and storage jars still containing grain - indicating an abrupt, unexpected destruction that matched the Jericho narrative's detail that the city's food supplies were not plundered (Josh 6:24). He published these findings with considerable confidence in Joshua-Judges (1931).

Kathleen Kenyon's Reexamination (1952-58): British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon conducted more rigorous stratigraphic excavations at Jericho in the 1950s and reached very different conclusions. Using pottery typology to date the destruction layers, she determined that Garstang's City IV - the layer with the fallen walls - dated not to the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE) but to the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1550 BCE), approximately 150 years before the biblical date for the conquest. More critically, Kenyon found virtually no evidence of Late Bronze Age occupation at Jericho at all - no pottery, no buildings, no destruction layer contemporary with the 13th-century conquest date (favored by many scholars who date the Exodus to Ramesses II's reign). Her conclusion: if Joshua's army attacked Jericho in the 13th century BCE, there was no city there to conquer. She published her findings in Digging Up Jericho (1957) and Archaeology in the Holy Land (1960).

Wood's reanalysis and ongoing scholarly divide

Bryant Wood's Response (1990): American archaeologist Bryant Wood published a comprehensive reanalysis of Kenyon's pottery conclusions in Biblical Archaeology Review (1990), arguing that Kenyon had systematically misdated the pottery. Wood identified ceramic parallels to Kenyon's City IV destruction layer that were consistent with a Late Bronze Age date - specifically the early 14th century BCE, compatible with a 15th-century BCE Exodus and conquest. Wood also pointed out that Kenyon's trenches left most of the tell unexcavated, meaning the absence of Late Bronze Age material in her trenches did not prove absence across the site. He further noted that Garstang's grain jars (indicating an unexpected destruction in the harvest season) were consistent with Joshua 3:15 (the Jordan crossing was at flood stage - spring, near harvest time).

Current Consensus and Ongoing Debate: The scholarly consensus remains divided along the lines of the Exodus date debate. Scholars who favor a 13th-century BCE Exodus (Ramesses II/Merneptah period) must concede that Kenyon's findings present a serious problem: there appears to be no Late Bronze Age city at Jericho to destroy. Scholars who favor a 15th-century BCE Exodus (the 1 Kings 6:1 chronological indicator of 480 years between Exodus and Temple foundation) find Wood's reanalysis of Kenyon's pottery plausible and point to the fallen walls, burned grain, and spring-season destruction as corroborating details. Both sides agree that more excavation is needed; the tell's current status as a partially protected site makes comprehensive re-excavation unlikely.

Ritual procession and Rahab's architectural detail

The Ritual Procession: Joshua 6's narrative is remarkable for its ritual detail. For six days, armed men march around the city once, led by seven priests carrying ram's horn trumpets (shofarot) before the Ark of the Covenant. On the seventh day, they march seven times, the priests sound a long trumpet blast, and the people shout - and the walls collapse. Scholars have interpreted this ritual variously: as literal history, as theological idealization of a military operation (routing tactics), or as a narrative that developed from an ancient victory tradition. The trumpet blast and shout (teruah) are characteristic elements of holy war theology - the divine warrior responding to ritual summons. The seven-day pattern (six of preparation, one of climax) mirrors sabbatical structure throughout Israelite ritual.

Rahab's House: One narrative detail has been tested archaeologically: Rahab hung a scarlet cord from her window 'on the city wall, and she lived in the outer part of the wall' (Josh 2:15, 18). This describes a 'casemate' or built-into-wall house type in which residents lived within the wall's thickness - a construction type known from the Late Bronze and Iron Age. The fallen walls in Garstang's excavation showed sections intact on the north side, consistent with the narrative's preservation of one section. This level of architectural specificity suggests the narrative preserves authentic topographic memory even if the dating questions remain unresolved.

Theological reading of the conquest narrative

Theological Reading: The primary function of the Jericho narrative in Joshua is not military history but theological proclamation: God gives the land, God fights the battle, human effort (marching, shouting) is symbolic rather than effective, and the divine warrior cannot be manipulated (the battle unfolds on God's seven-day timetable, not military necessity). The narrative's purpose is to establish the pattern for the entire conquest: this is Yahweh's war, not Israel's campaign. Modern readers need not choose between theological and historical reading - the text can bear both simultaneously.

Scholarly Sources: Kathleen Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (1957), remains essential. Bryant Wood, 'Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,' Biblical Archaeology Review 16:2 (1990), is the primary reassessment. For balanced surveys, see Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (1990), pp. 331-334, and K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), pp. 186-188. John Garstang, Joshua-Judges (1931), presents the original excavation conclusions.

• ISBE: Jericho
• ABD: Jericho
• Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho (1957)
• Wood, Biblical Archaeology Review 16:2 (1990)
• Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (1990)