Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Steve .Thompson AT avondale.edu.au" <steve.thompson AT avondale.edu.au>]

Regarding Jericho, Bryant G Woods re-examined Kenyon's pottery from City IV 
and in a series of papers/articles between 1985 and 1990 concluded that she 
was wrong and Garstang right--pottery indicates occupation during Late 
Bronze Age I.  Apparently Israelie archeologists Y. Yadin and A Mazar 
believed the occupation of Jericho extended into the Late Bronze Age, 
according to some notes I collected.  Sorry, but no references for these 
latter two.

Steven Thompson, Dean
Theology Faculty, Avondale College
Internet:  steve.thompson AT avondale.edu.au
CompuServe:  102555,1513
Voice +61 2 4980 2225
Fax +61 2 4980 2118


On Wednesday, 20 January 1999 8:47, Ian Hutchesson [SMTP:mc2499 AT mclink.it] 
wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> This series of posts is a little light on content, isn't it?
>
> >Ian wrote:
> >
> >"Jericho was destroyed in the first half of the sixteenth century BCE,
> >totally abandoned for over a century, then there was a small
> >settlement on the site from 1400-1325 then nothing until the eleventh
> >century."
>
> Peter asked:
>
> >Maybe my memory is faulty, but I thought I remember a claim that
> >Jericho was uninhabited from the 16th to the 11th century. Have we
> >seen a shift of position?
>
> I was sticking to Kenyon in the above paragraph, which is the most
> favourable scenario for the literalist reading. Ahlstrom renders it more
> directly: "the fact that such cities as Ai, Gibeon, and Jericho in
> Cisjordan and Heshbon in Transjordan did not exist in the thirteenth
> century BCE makes the conquest model unacceptable." (Hist. of Anc. Pal, 
p343)
>
> >Suppose for the moment that we accept the above. Why was the
> >settlement abandoned in 1325? (How accurate is that date anyway?)
>
> Kenyon was trying to explain how there were a few traces of disturbance 
in
> some of the tombs, which caused Garstang to misinterpret the data. (A
> settlement indicates a human presence, not a town.)
>
> It seems that there was a minimal presence on the site for some of the
> period indicated above.
>
> >Could that have been because of the Israelite conquest? Also, how
> >small was the settlement? Were the inhabitants living within the
> >remaining (but perhaps rickety!) walls of the previous settlement, or
>
> The walls were the MB walls.
>
> >did they build their own walls? The real conservatives might not like
> >the following theory any more than I expect Ian will, but how about it
> >anyway: perhaps what the Israelites really conquered was an abandoned
> >city in whose ruins a few semi-nomads were living, whose walls were so
> >shaky that a trumpet blast was enough to bring them down!
>
> Wishful...
>
> Or, perhaps, amusing.
>
>
> Ian
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: 
steve.thompson AT avondale.edu.au
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
$subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.
>