Why does Jericho’s archaeology not match the biblical account of its destruction by Joshua?

Historical and Archaeological Background

The city commonly identified as biblical Jericho is located at Tell es-Sultan in the Jordan Valley. Excavations by Charles Warren (1868), Ernest Sellin and Carl Watzinger (1907–1911), John Garstang (1930–1936), and Kathleen Kenyon (1952–1958) sought to ascertain Jericho’s stratification and destruction layers. These different archaeological teams reached divergent conclusions regarding the date of Jericho’s conquest and the city’s occupation history.

John Garstang’s original findings suggested a final destruction layer dated to around 1400 BC, aligning with the biblical timeframe of Joshua’s campaign (c. 1406 BC). Kathleen Kenyon’s subsequent study shifted the date significantly earlier, proposing that the city had been destroyed centuries before the traditional date of Israel’s conquest. This later led many to assume a contradiction between the archaeological record and the biblical account. More recent analyses (e.g., Bryant G. Wood’s studies) have re-examined pottery and stratigraphic details, suggesting that Jericho’s destruction date could in fact be consistent with Joshua’s era.

Biblical Account of Jericho’s Destruction

The Book of Joshua describes how Jericho’s walls collapsed following a divine directive and Israel’s obedience:

“Then the people shouted, and the trumpets sounded. When they heard the blast of the trumpet, the people gave a great shout, and the wall collapsed. So each man charged straight in, and they captured the city.” (Joshua 6:20)

The narrative places this event in the early stages of Israel’s settlement following the forty-year exodus from Egypt (cf. Numbers 14 and Joshua 4). Archaeologically, this corresponds to the Late Bronze Age (around the late fifteenth century BC), which many conservative timelines date near 1406 BC.

Kenyon’s Dating and the Pottery Chronology Dispute

A central reason for the perceived mismatch involves Kathleen Kenyon’s dating methods. She dated Jericho’s final destruction to approximately 1550 BC, partly based on her conclusion that a particular type of imported Cypriot pottery was missing from the site’s final destruction layer. Kenyon’s approach, while meticulous in excavation technique, hinged on pottery typologies that have since been re-evaluated.

Critics of Kenyon’s interpretation point out that (1) the absence of certain pottery types can be due to varied trading routes or local economic conditions; (2) Kenyon focused on a limited area of the tell, possibly missing evidence present elsewhere; (3) later re-analysis of other pottery forms from the site suggests a timeframe closer to the biblical date.

John Garstang’s Earlier Conclusions

John Garstang’s team, excavating in the 1930s, identified a distinct destruction layer they believed matched the biblical account. Garstang concluded that this event occurred around 1400 BC, consistent with Joshua’s conquest. He reported collapsed walls and layers of ash that pointed to a mass conflagration, aligning with the Book of Joshua, which says:

“They devoted the city to destruction and everything in it with the sword.” (Joshua 6:21a)

Although some aspects of Garstang’s methodologies were later criticized, his broad reconstruction still holds significance for those who argue that archaeology supports a Late Bronze Age destruction.

Re-Examination of the Evidence

1. Collapsing Walls and Burn Layers

Continuing research into the fallen city walls suggests that a violent destruction took place, marked by significant burning. Some excavations uncovered large amounts of stored grain, indicating that the siege likely ended swiftly and coincided with harvest season (cf. Joshua 2:6; 3:15; 5:10–12), aligning with the biblical narrative.

2. Short-Lived Rebuilding and City Status

Joshua 6:26 relays the curse pronounced against rebuilding Jericho. Later Scripture references (1 Kings 16:34) describe an attempt to rebuild under King Ahab, which aligns with a long gap in major occupation at the site after its destruction. Archaeological layers do show that the site remained mostly unoccupied for a while, matching the biblical reading that Jericho did not reemerge as a fortified city until much later.

3. Pottery Reassessment and Radiocarbon Dating

Studies like Bryant G. Wood’s have argued that Kenyon’s excavation data can be reinterpreted to date the site’s destruction to the late fifteenth century BC. Additionally, more recent radiocarbon analyses, though varied in their results, do not conclusively disprove a fifteenth-century BC destruction date for Jericho. Disagreements over specific layers and pottery types—rather than a total absence of supporting evidence—often drive the tension between the biblical timeline and traditional archaeological approaches.

Possible Reasons for the Perceived Mismatch

1. Limitations of Early Excavations

Early to mid–twentieth-century excavators worked without some of the modern tools, laboratory analyses, and refined dating methods currently available. Archaeological interpretation can shift considerably as new evidence or analytical methods emerge.

2. Assumptions in Pottery Typologies

Much of ancient Near Eastern dating relies on comparative studies of ceramics, which are subject to trade variations, site usage differences, and incomplete sample recovery. A missing pottery style may not necessarily disprove a specific timeframe; it may reflect the complexities of commerce or cultural practices at that moment in history.

3. Site Erosion and Repeated Destructions

Jericho’s tell was inhabited across millennia, experiencing multiple destruction layers. Erosion, both natural and human-caused, can obscure or remove evidence, making it challenging to piece together one definitive destruction event. Layer overlap may also lead to confusion when assigning specific data points to a particular era.

4. Interpretational Biases

Some researchers approach the biblical record with skepticism, influencing how artifacts or layers are dated. Others prioritize the biblical account and incorporate it as a historical source when examining data. These interpretative frameworks can lead to different readings of the same archaeological findings.

Coherence with the Biblical Narrative

Although there remains scholarly debate, several elements from Jericho’s stratigraphy—such as collapsed walls, signs of intense fire, abundant grain stores, and a period of subsequent disuse—mirror the biblical description in Joshua 6. The question of timing is the primary contested point, yet robust arguments have been advanced that the city’s destruction occurred in harmony with the biblical date (ca. 1400 BC). This overarching convergence underscores that any perceived mismatch often reflects interpretive disagreements rather than outright contradictions.

Conclusion

Jericho’s archaeology does not universally “fail” to match the biblical account; rather, interpretive and dating debates have led some to assert a conflict. The stratigraphic evidence, when carefully revisited, can be viewed as strongly consistent with the account in Joshua. Ongoing reevaluation of the destruction layer, pottery chronology, and radiocarbon data continues to reinforce the possibility that Joshua’s conquest took place as recorded:

“So the LORD was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.” (Joshua 6:27)

Archaeological investigations, while invaluable, are subject to revision and must be interpreted in light of their inherent limitations. The biblical narrative itself, supported by excavations that reveal a destroyed city, storerooms of grain, and collapsed fortifications, retains a coherent account of Jericho’s fall under Joshua’s leadership.