CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Biblical Studies and InterpretationAncient Near East HistoryAncient Mediterranean Archaeology and History

The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua

Open access
Kennedy, Titus·2023·Religions
DOI 10.3390/rel14060796
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The ancient city of Jericho, located at the archaeological site of Tell es-Sultan west of the Jordan River and adjacent to the Ein es-Sultan spring on the edge of modern Jericho, has often been associated with the biblical city of Jericho and the story found in the book of Joshua. The identification of Jericho with Tell es-Sultan is not disputed, and numerous excavation teams have affirmed Tell es-Sultan as Jericho. While excavations have also uncovered the fiery destruction of a walled city at Jericho, the date of the fall of Bronze Age Jericho and the association of this destruction with the narrative in the book of Joshua have been a point of disagreement among archaeologists for more than a century. The first excavations at Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) occurred in 1868 under the direction of Charles Warren, followed by soundings conducted by FJ Bliss in 1894, the expeditions of the years 1907–1909 and 1911 by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger, the excavations of 1930–1936 directed by John Garstang, the 1952–1958 project of Kathleen Kenyon, brief excavations by Shimon Riklin in 1992, and the most recent excavations and restorations by the joint Italian–Palestinian team from 1997 to 2000 under Nicolo Marchetti and Lorenzo Nigro, followed by the 2009–2017 seasons directed by Jehad Yasin, Hamdan Taha, and Lorenzo Nigro. Although there is a significant deviation in views over the exact date of the destruction and abandonment, archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment. However, assessing all of the archaeological data from Jericho IVc, both new and old, including pottery wares, Egyptian scarabs, a cuneiform tablet, stratigraphic analysis, and radiocarbon samples, allows a more definitive historical reconstruction concerning the chronology of the destruction of Jericho and its connections to the biblical narratives.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper reassesses the destruction of Bronze Age Jericho IVc and argues that pottery, Egyptian scarabs, stratigraphy, and some radiocarbon evidence support a destruction around 1400 BC in a manner consistent with the book of Joshua. It rejects the prevailing 13th-century BC conquest date and Kenyon’s view that the final Bronze Age city fell only in the Middle Bronze Age.

Key findings

  • Excavations show the mudbrick wall atop the stone retaining wall collapsed outward around most of the city, forming a ramp-like pile, followed by a massive fire that destroyed residential houses, the palace, and the temple; burned storage jars full of barley were found rather than looted. The paper links this sequence—fallen walls, then intentional burning—to Joshua 6:20–24.
  • The paper dates the destruction to the end of Late Bronze IB, ca. 1400 BC, based on Late Bronze I pottery such as Cypriot Bichrome and Chocolate on White Ware (ca. 1500–1400 BC), royal scarabs ending with Amenhotep III, and a cuneiform tablet dated to the 15th century BC. It notes that no later Pharaoh is attested at Jericho after Amenhotep III.
  • Radiocarbon evidence is mixed: an initial British Museum date of 1410 BC ±40 was revised to 3300 ±110 BP; 18 Kenyon samples ranged from 3393 ±17 BP to 3312 ±14 BP, with an outlier of 3614 ±20 BP; Italian-Palestinian samples yielded 1347 BC ±85 and 1597 BC ±91. The paper concludes radiocarbon currently rules out a ca. 1230 BC destruction but does not resolve Middle Bronze III versus Late Bronze I.
  • Stratigraphy shows the Late Bronze IIA “Middle Building” (14th century BC, about 14.5 m by 12 m) was built over Jericho IVc after a short occupational hiatus, and the site was otherwise abandoned until Iron IIA, which the paper says matches the Joshua–Judges–Kings sequence.

Methods

  • The paper is a synthesis and reassessment of archaeological data from multiple Jericho excavations, including Warren, Bliss, Sellin and Watzinger, Garstang, Kenyon, and the Italian-Palestinian expeditions, focused on the final Bronze Age city Jericho IVc.
  • It analyzes ceramic typology, Egyptian royal scarabs, a cuneiform tablet, stratigraphic relationships, and radiocarbon dates, then compares the destruction evidence with the biblical narrative in Joshua.

Limitations

  • The paper states that radiocarbon dates from the Jericho IV destruction have been inconsistent and cannot yet support a particular date; some samples fit a Late Bronze IB destruction around 1400 BC, while others fit 1600–1500 BC. It also notes that the Jericho cuneiform tablet is in extremely poor condition with no plausible reading, and that Kenyon’s narrow trenches provided only a sampling of each period.
  • The paper acknowledges that discrepancies in occupation dates arise from differing 18th Dynasty chronologies, misplacement of LB I pottery into LB II, and claims that LB II evidence disappeared through erosion, dumping, or leveling.
  • Evident from the text: the argument depends heavily on correlation between archaeological remains and the biblical account, and it relies on older excavation reports and prior interpretations (especially Garstang, Kenyon, and Wood) rather than presenting new primary excavation data.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/rel14060796

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 114 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    BM-1790 from Jericho was revised to 3300 +/-110 BP because of an equipment calibration problem affecting many samples for the years 1980-1984.

    “BM-1790 from Jericho was revised to 3300 +/-110 BP (Bowman et al. 1990, p. 74).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bowman et al. 1990, p. 74 source

      Table 2a lists Jericho BM-1790 among dates for which revised results were issued, and the Identification of the Error section describes a counting-system problem. But the available text of Table 2a shows 3080 ± 40 as the original result and does not preserve a revised age of 3300 BP; the claimed revised value cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingnone given
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The cuneiform tablet found in the excavations of the Middle Building at Jericho was dated to the 15th century BC.

    “Although this tablet was found in excavations of the Middle Building, it was dated to the 15th century BC and may have been part of the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingcitation
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    The dipper juglet from Jericho has a form consistent with Late Bronze I at Lachish Fosse Temple 1.

    “The dipper juglet from Jericho (number 14), while occurring from Middle Bronze III to Late Bronze II, also appears to have a form consistent with Late Bronze I at the Lachish Fosse Temple 1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tufnell et al. 1940

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingnone given
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    The local wares excavated at Jericho were the most prolific of the pottery finds.

    “However, the local wares excavated at Jericho were the most prolific of the pottery finds.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    In 2000, the Italian-Palestinian expedition tested two samples excavated from a building that appeared to contain debris from the final destruction of the Bronze Age city that had washed down to the bottom of the mound.

    “In 2000, the Italian-Palestinian expedition tested two samples that were excavated from a building that appeared to contain debris from the final destruction of the Bronze Age city that had washed down to the bottom of the mound.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marchetti and Nigro 2000, pp. 206-7, 330, 332

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims. 47
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    Radiocarbon dates for Bronze Age sites in the Levant often conflict with chronological information derived from ceramics and inscriptions, and some samples can be from burned wooden beams cut from trees harvested over 100 years before their destruction.

    “it is a known issue that the radiocarbon dates for Bronze Age sites in the Levant often conflict with the chronological information derived from ceramics and inscriptions and that some samples can be from burned wooden beams cut from trees that were harvested over 100 years before their destruction”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mazar and Ramsey 2008, pp. 159-80 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Levy and Higham 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ben-Tor and Rubiato 1999, p. 36

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    Using OxCal with IntCal20 and no adjustments for geographical location, the Kenyon samples yield calibrated dates ranging from 1699-1623 calBC (70.3% probability, GrN-18368) to 1617-1531 calBC (95.4% probability, GrN-18539), with the outlier GrN-18538 at 2031-1899 calBC (95.4% probability).

    “Using OxCal with IntCal20 and no adjustments for geographical location, these samples would yield calibrated dates ranging from 1699 to 1623 calBC 70.3% probability (GrN-18368) to 1617-1531 calBC 95.4% probability (GrN-18539), with the outlier (GrN-18538) 2031-1899 calBC 95.4% probability”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bronk Ramsey 2009, pp.337-60 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    The water jar with painted stripes found at Jericho is unique to the Late Bronze Age and known from Late Bronze I strata at other sites.

    “The water jar with painted stripes (number 13) was unique to the Late Bronze Age, and the type found at Jericho is also known from Late Bronze I strata at Ashdod XVII”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dothan 1971

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yadin 1961

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yadin 1972

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    A few radiocarbon samples from Jericho fit a Late Bronze IB destruction of the city around 1400 BC, while others match more closely to a 1600-1500 BC destruction timeframe.

    “While a few radiocarbon samples from Jericho do fit a Late Bronze IB destruction of the city around 1400 BC, others match more closely to a 1600-1500 BC destruction timeframe.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 6. Conclusions

    Amenhotep III was the latest Pharaoh attested at Jericho and corresponds to the LBIb pottery.

    “Amemhotep III was the latest Pharaoh attested at Jericho and corresponds to the LBIb pottery.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The radiocarbon dates from the Jericho IV destruction have been inconsistent and have not yet been able to support a particular date for the fall of the city.

    “the radiocarbon dates from the Jericho IV destruction have been inconsistent and therefore have not yet been able to support a particular date for the fall of the city.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    After the abandonment of the Middle Building, the city of Jericho was not rebuilt until Iron Age II, including the reuse of the MB III-LB I cyclopean wall and the construction of the Hilani building.

    “After the abandonment of the Middle Building, the city of Jericho was not rebuilt until the Iron Age II, including the reuse of the MB III-LB I cyclopean wall and the construction of the Hilani building (Nigro 2020, pp. 204-6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nigro 2020, pp. 204-6

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    An analysis of 18 samples from the Kenyon excavations at Jericho yielded results ranging from 3393 +/-17 BP (GrN-18368) to 3312 +/-14 BP (GrN-18539), with an outlier of 3614 +/-20 (GrN-18538) that may have been from an older and reused wooden beam.

    “Another analysis of 18 samples from the Kenyon excavations at Jericho yielded results ranging from 3393 +/-17 BP (GrN-18368) to 3312 +/-14 BP (GrN-18539), with an outlier of 3614 +/-20 (GrN-18538) that may have been from an older and reused wooden beam”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bruins and van der Plicht 1995, pp. 213-20

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    This exotic ware characteristic of Late Bronze I was also found in the Sellin and Watzinger excavations and can be seen in the excavation report of 1913.

    “This exotic ware characteristic of Late Bronze I was also found in the Sellin and Watzinger excavations and can be seen in the excavation report of 1913”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sellin and Watzinger [1913] 1973

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The two most recent samples yielded calibrated dates of 1347 BC +/-85 and 1597 BC +/-91, which could accommodate either proposed approximate historical destruction date of around 1550 BC or 1400 BC if the calibration curves were accurate.

    “These two most recent samples yielded calibrated dates of 1347 BC +/-85 and 1597 BC +/-91, which could accommodate either proposed approximate historical destruction dates of around 1550 BC or 1400 BC if the calibration curves were accurate (Marchetti and Nigro 2000, pp. 206-7, 330, 332).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Marchetti and Nigro 2000, pp. 206-7, 330, 332

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Kenyon concluded that neither ca. 1230 BC nor ca. 1400 BC would be possible for the fall of Jericho, because the last Bronze Age city existed during the Middle Bronze Age in the 16th century BC, not in the Late Bronze Age.

    “the conclusions of Kenyon following her excavations at Jericho asserted that neither ca.1230 BC nor ca.1400 BC would be possible for the fall of Jericho, since allegedly the last Bronze Age city existed during the Middle Bronze Age in the 16th century BC, not anytime in the Late Bronze Age, and therefore the story contradicts archaeological findings at the site (Kenyon 1957, pp. 213-18, 257-58;196”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kenyon 1957

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kenyon 1967

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kenyon 1970

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Prior to attacking the city, the Israelites had observed Passover (March/April), and then the Israelite army had been instructed to loot only the metals from Jericho but to leave everything else in the city to be destroyed.

    “Prior to attacking the city, the Israelites had observed Passover (March/April), and then the Israelite army had been instructed to loot only the metals from Jericho but to leave everything else in the city to be destroyed (Joshua 5: 10, 6: 19-20).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Joshua 5:10

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joshua 6:19-20

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    After the fall of Jericho, there should have been no city at the site until the Iron Age II and only a residence during the Late Bronze II.

    “Therefore, after the fall of Jericho, there should have been no city at the site until the Iron Age II and only a residence during the Late Bronze II.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Abstract

    The date of the fall of Bronze Age Jericho and the association of this destruction with the narrative in the book of Joshua have been a point of disagreement among archaeologists for more than a century.

    “the date of the fall of Bronze Age Jericho and the association of this destruction with the narrative in the book of Joshua have been a point of disagreement among archaeologists for more than a century.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “Yet, the date of the fall of the Bronze Age city of Jericho and the association of this destruction with the narrative in the book of Joshua have been points of disagreement among archaeologists for more than a century.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Specific cities mentioned in the conquest narratives were occupied and fortifications were present in the 15th century BC, or Late Bronze I.

    “Subsequent archaeological excavations and surveys have demonstrated that specific cities mentioned in the conquest narratives were occupied and fortifications were even present in the 15th century BC, or Late Bronze I (Hansen 2000;Kennedy 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hansen 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kennedy 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Because battering rams would cause the walls to fall into the city at specific points of attack rather than outside and in front of the retaining wall all around nearly the entire city, this facet of the destruction has often been attributed to an earthquake.

    “Because battering rams would cause the walls to fall into the city at specific points of attack rather than outside and in front of the retaining wall all around nearly the entire city, this facet of the destruction has often been attributed to an earthquake, although other explanations may be possible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. The Middle Bronze Age Wall at Jericho

    The city wall was rebuilt in Middle Bronze III around 1600 BC and encompassed an area of about 17 acres.

    “This city wall was rebuilt in Middle Bronze III around 1600 BC and encompassed an area of about 17 acres, although part of the site was destroyed in modern times due to road construction, so calculations are only approximate (Nigro and Taha 2009, pp. 731-34;Marchetti et al. 1998, p. 141).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nigro and Taha 2009
    • cites Marchetti et al. 1998 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Abstract

    The identification of Jericho with Tell es-Sultan is not disputed and has been affirmed by numerous excavation teams.

    “The identification of Jericho with Tell es-Sultan is not disputed, and numerous excavation teams have affirmed Tell es-Sultan as Jericho.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · boosted
      “Numerous excavation teams and archaeological investigations have not only identified Tell es-Sultan with Jericho but additionally uncovered the fiery destruction of a walled city.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Stratigraphy indicates that a city may not have been rebuilt at Jericho subsequent to its destruction until the 9th century BC, except for a briefly used residential building by Eglon of Moab during the Judges period.

    “Additional information related to stratigraphy indicates that a city may not have been rebuilt at Jericho subsequent to its destruction until the 9th century BC, except for a briefly used residential building by Eglon of Moab during the Judges period (Joshua 6: 26; Judges 3: 12-30; 1 Kings 16: 34).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Joshua 6:26

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Judges 3:12-30

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites 1 Kings 16:34

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    These finds indicate an attack on Jericho soon after barley harvest time in March/April and by an army that was not concerned with looting the food supplies of the city, matching the timing and methodology of the invading Israelite army in the Joshua narrative.

    “These finds indicate an attack on Jericho soon after barley harvest time in March/April and by an army that was not concerned with looting the food supplies of the city, matching the timing and methodology of the invading Israelite army in the Joshua narrative (Joshua 2: 6, 3: 15, 5: 10; cf.Gezer Calendar; Exodus 9: 31-32; Ruth 1: 22; 2 Samuel 21: 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Joshua 2:6

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joshua 3:15

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joshua 5:10

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The biblical narrative in the book of Joshua provides a historically reliable account of the destruction of Jericho.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    Many other scholars have argued that the conquest of Jericho was a historical event that archaeological data supports.

    “However, many other scholars have argued that the conquest of Jericho was a historical event that archaeological data supports (e.g., Albright 1957, pp. 273-89;Bright 1981, pp. 129-43;Garstang [1931Garstang [ ] 1978;;Wood 1999, pp. 35-42;Younger 2009, pp. 237-41).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Albright 1957

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Bright 1981

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Garstang 1931 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    The fire destruction of Jericho IVc was found in numerous excavation areas at the site, and it was a severe and complete destruction, including blackened walls and floors, fallen bricks and timber, burnt debris, collapsed roofs, and burned remains around the MBIII wall.

    “The fire destruction of Jericho IVc was found in numerous excavation areas at the site, and it was a severe and complete destruction, including blackened walls and floors, fallen bricks and timber, burnt debris, collapsed roofs, and burned remains around the MBIII wall (Kenyon and Holland 1981, p. 370;Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 735).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kenyon and Holland 1981

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nigro and Taha 2009

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 1. Introduction

    It is almost universally acknowledged by archaeologists that there is no trace of the destruction of Jericho in the 13th century BC or an inhabited and walled city of Jericho at that time.

    “it is almost universally acknowledged by archaeologists that there is no trace of the destruction of Jericho in the 13th century BC or an inhabited and walled city of Jericho at that time (Finkelstein and Silberman 2002, p. 76;Wood 2005, pp. 475-89;2007, pp. 249-58;Hoffmeier 2007, pp. 225-47).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Finkelstein and Silberman 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wood 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hoffmeier 2007

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    The outward falling of the city walls, followed by a massive fire that engulfed Jericho and included the collapse of buildings, was proposed by excavators as possibly being the result of an earthquake rather than a battering ram or other siege equipment.

    “The outward falling of the city walls, which was followed by a massive fire that engulfed Jericho and included the collapse of buildings in the city, was proposed by excavators as possibly being the result of an earthquake rather than a battering ram or other siege equipment (Garstang 1948, pp. 118, 138-139, 159;Kenyon 1957, pp. 179, 262;Kenyon and Holland 1981, pp. 110, 370).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Garstang 1948

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kenyon 1957

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kenyon and Holland 1981

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Although Kenyon separated the falling of the walls and the following fire destruction into separate phases, the two events need not be separated by vast amounts of time, and there is no indication that the city was abandoned or lay dormant in between the collapse and the fire.

    “Although Kenyon separated the falling of the walls and the following fire destruction into separate phases, the two events need not be separated by vast amounts of time, and there is no indication that the city was abandoned or lay dormant in between the collapse and the fire.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Abstract

    Archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment.

    “archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on the manner in which the city met its end, including a widespread fire, collapsed mudbrick walls, burning of the stored grain, and abandonment.”
    • Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
      “archaeological analyses of Jericho generally agree on other specifics, such as the manner in which the city met its end.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    The falling or collapse of the wall was the first phase, while the destruction by fire was the second phase.

    “The falling or collapse of the wall was the first phase, while the destruction by fire was the second phase.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. The Middle Bronze Age Wall at Jericho

    A report about the 1952 excavations concluded that the latest surviving defenses are Middle Bronze Age and that this system had been preceded by two previous Middle Bronze Age walls.

    “A report about the 1952 excavations had come to similar conclusions, stating that the latest surviving defenses are Middle Bronze Age and that this system had been preceded by two previous Middle Bronze Age walls built prior (Tushingham 1952, pp. 8-10).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tushingham 1952 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    The book of Joshua records that not long after the spring harvest, the Israelites besieged Jericho, the walls fell, the army walked up into the city, a restriction was placed not to loot Jericho except for metals, and finally the city was burned.

    “The book of Joshua records that not long after the spring harvest, the Israelites besieged Jericho, the walls of the city fell, the army walked up into the city, a restriction had been placed to not loot Jericho except for metals, and finally the city was burned (Joshua 3: 15, 4: 19, 5: 10, 6: 1-24).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Joshua 3:15

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joshua 4:19

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Joshua 5:10

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 2. The Middle Bronze Age Wall at Jericho

    Both a stone retaining wall and a rampart of debris piled on the MB I and MB II fortifications were built in MB III, approximately 1650-1550 BC/1600-1500 BC.

    “Both a stone retaining wall and a rampart of debris piled on the MB I and MB II fortifications were built in MB III, or approximately 1650-1550 BC/1600-1500 BC (Marchetti et al. 1998, pp. 131, 138, 141;Marchetti 2003, pp. 311-12;Nigro and Taha 2009, p. 731;Nigro 2020, p. 201).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Marchetti et al. 1998 source
    • cites Marchetti 2003

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Nigro and Taha 2009

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    In addition to the ceramic and scarab data indicating destruction of Jericho in Late Bronze IB ca. 1400 BC, the abandonment and reoccupation of the site in the following periods suggests that the overall narrative about Jericho in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings spans Late Bronze IB to Iron IIA.

    “In addition to the ceramic and scarab data indicating destruction of Jericho in Late Bronze IB ca.1400 BC, the abandonment and reoccupation of the site in the following periods also suggests that the overall narrative about Jericho in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings spans Late Bronze IB to Iron IIA.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The biblical narratives in Joshua, Judges, and Kings are historically reliable enough to correlate with archaeological phases.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Campaigns were usually launched before the spring harvest, when the city under siege would have the lowest amount of resources, and sieges were usually quite long, such as the 3-year siege of Sharuhen and the 7-month siege of Megiddo.

    “Campaigns were usually launched before the spring harvest, when the city under siege would have the lowest amount of resources, and sieges were usually quite long, such as the 3-year siege of Sharuhen and the 7-month siege of Megiddo (Pritchard 1969, p. 246;Cline 2002, p. 21).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pritchard 1969

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Cline 2002

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The last phase of Jericho City IVc precedes Late Bronze IIA, but not for a long period of time.

    “This means that the last phase of Jericho City IVc precedes Late Bronze IIA, but not for a long period of time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Additional information

    The place where Eglon of Moab resided can be identified as Jericho by comparing Judges 3:13 with Deuteronomy 34:3 and 2 Chronicles 28:15, which both record that Jericho is the city of palm trees.

    “The place where Eglon of Moab resided can be identified as Jericho by comparing the information in Judges 3: 13 with that of Deuteronomy 34: 3 and 2 Chronicles 28: 15, which both record that Jericho is the city of palm trees.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The Middle Building tablet may have been part of wash material from the previous stratum, further indicating occupation at Jericho in Late Bronze I and the 15th century BC.

    “may have been part of the”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Additional information

    Kenyon's view that Jericho was destroyed around 1550 BC was based primarily on the expulsion of the Hyksos and the alleged lack of Cypriot pottery of the Late Bronze Age discovered in the Jericho excavations.

    “The view of Kenyon that Jericho was destroyed around 1550 BC was based primarily on the expulsion of the Hyksos and the alleged lack of Cypriot pottery of the Late Bronze Age discovered in the Jericho excavations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    Wood analyzed the local wares in detail and explained numerous parallels, refuting the idea that these local wares could all belong to Middle Bronze II or III.

    “Wood analyzed the local wares in detail and explained numerous parallels, refuting the idea that these local wares could all belong to Middle Bronze II or III”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bienkowski 1990

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Wood 1990a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The Middle Building was identified as a large residence or villa associated with Eglon of Moab in the 14th century BC, measuring about 14.5 m by 12 m and being the sole occupied area at the previously destroyed city.

    “This Middle Building was identified as a large residence or villa associated with Eglon of Moab in the 14th century BC, measuring about 14.5 m by 12 m and being the sole occupied area at the previously destroyed city”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Garstang 1948

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: The biblical narratives in Joshua, Judges, and Kings are historically reliable enough to correlate with archaeological phases.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    There is much dispute concerning the exact date when Jericho IVc was destroyed and if those events could connect to the fall of Jericho recorded in the book of Joshua.

    “Although there may be general agreement about the basic manner in which Jericho IVc was destroyed and perhaps even acknowledgement that the events and sequence appear consistent with the Joshua narrative, there is much dispute concerning the exact date when the city was destroyed and if those events could connect to the fall of Jericho recorded in the book of Joshua.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The scarab of Hatshepsut is a very unusual find, as Pharaoh-Queen Hatshepsut suffered damnatio memoriae after her reign, and her scarabs would not have been reproduced or circulated later.

    “In contrast, the scarab of Hatshepsut is a very unusual find, as Pharaoh-Queen Hatshepsut suffered damnatio memoriae after her reign in an attempt to wipe her name and image from history, and her scarabs would not have been reproduced or circulated later”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gardiner 1964

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6. Conclusions

    The mudbrick wall falling upon itself all around the city, an apparently intentional fire that consumed the entire city, the many unlooted storage jars of grain, and the timing of the attack soon after the spring harvest all agree with the specifics of the Joshua account regarding the methods of destruction.

    “The mudbrick wall falling upon itself all around the city, similar to an earthquake rather than a specific point of entry, an apparently intentional fire that consumed the entire city, the many storage jars of grain that were not looted, and the timing of the attack soon after the spring harvest all agree with the specifics of the Joshua account regarding the methods of destruction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The biblical account in the book of Joshua reliably describes the methods by which Jericho was destroyed, so that it can be compared with the archaeological evidence.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    The full grain jars indicate that the city was conquered while food stores were still abundant and the attacking army neglected to loot food from the city, which directly contradicts the typical military practice of the period.

    “Although this would explain why there was so much burned grain found in the city at the time of its destruction, it also directly contradicts the typical military practice of the period, as the full grain jars indicate that the city was conquered while food stores were still abundant and the attacking army neglected to loot food from the city.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    Ceramic remains are the most abundant material found from excavations in this region, and the chronology of pottery typology is widely used for establishing the date of excavated strata.

    “Ceramic remains are the most abundant material found from excavations in this region, and the chronology of pottery typology is widely used for establishing the date of excavated strata.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    Recent studies and discussion of 18th Dynasty chronology may have a slight bearing on the exact date of these connections, but would not change overall conclusions.

    “Recent studies and discussion of 18th Dynasty chronology may have a slight bearing on the exact date of these connections, but would not change overall conclusions”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Ramsey et al. 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Additional information

    There was an Early Bronze Age II earthquake at Jericho dated to around 2700 BC, and many significant earthquakes throughout history are known to have occurred in the Jericho region.

    “While there was also an Early Bronze Age II earthquake dated to around 2700 BC at Jericho which provides an example of such phenomenon, and many significant earthquakes throughout history are known to have occurred in the Jericho region, the events should not be conflated (Nigro 2020, p. 188).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nigro 2020, p. 188

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4. Pottery and the Date of Destruction

    The excavations under Kenyon surely found Late Bronze I pottery, which is consistent with the findings from other expeditions at Jericho.

    “The excavations under Kenyon surely found Late Bronze I pottery, which is consistent with the findings from other expeditions at Jericho.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    Besieging a city in the spring season prior to harvest would starve out the defenders and allow the attacking army to harvest and use the grain in the fields outside of the city for an additional food source.

    “Besieging a city in the spring season prior to harvest would not only starve out the defenders but also allow the attacking army to harvest and use the grain in the fields outside of the city for an additional food source (Lichtheim 1976, p. 34).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lichtheim 1976

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The scarabs of Amenhotep III were not reproduced after his reign nor held in high regard, so the idea that all of these scarabs were heirlooms or reproductions from centuries later is implausible.

    “The scarabs of Amenhotep III, a rather isolationist and insignificant Pharaoh, were also not reproduced after his reign nor held in high regard, so the idea that all of these scarabs were heirlooms or reproductions from centuries later is implausible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3. Destruction of Jericho IVc

    At Jericho IVc, the attack was initiated after harvest, the siege was brief, and the invaders simply burned the food supplies inside the city.

    “At Jericho IVc, the attack was initiated after harvest, the siege was brief, and the invaders simply burned the food supplies inside the city.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The two-sided seal of Thutmose III is a rare artifact and can be restricted to the years of his reign in the early to middle 15th century BC.

    “This seal, unlike the scarabs of Thutmose III, is a rare artifact and one that can be restricted to the years of his reign in the early to middle 15th century BC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Garstang 1948

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The ceramic data from Jericho indicates the occupation of city IV into Late Bronze I and, by extension, the destruction of this final city during Late Bronze I.

    “While the ceramic data from Jericho indicates the occupation of city IV into Late Bronze I and, by extension, the destruction of this final city during Late Bronze I”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The scarabs of Thutmose III may have been manufactured after his death or handed down as an heirloom.

    “The scarabs of Thutmose III, one of the most powerful and prestigious Pharaohs, are one of the few of Pharaohs whose scarabs may have been manufactured after his death or even handed down as an heirloom.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The presence of scarabs of Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III at Jericho, after which no more Pharaohs are attested at Jericho, indicates that the occupation of the site ceased during the reign of Amenhotep III and at the end of Late Bronze IB around 1400 BC.

    “The presence of scarabs of Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III at Jericho, after which no more Pharaohs are attested at Jericho, indicates that the occupation of the site ceased during the reign of Amenhotep III and at the end of Late Bronze IB around 1400 BC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Many scarabs of Amenhotep III have been found in stratified LB IB contexts from Canaan.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5. Scarabs, Stratigraphy, and Radiocarbon Tests

    The radiocarbon dates from Jericho at present appear to only rule out a ca. 1230 BC destruction hypothesis but have not been able to solve the dispute between a Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I destruction of the city.

    “Essentially, the radiocarbon dates from Jericho at present appear to only rule out a ca.1230 BC destruction hypothesis but have not been able to solve the dispute between a Middle Bronze III or Late Bronze I destruction of the city.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
54 of 54

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The biblical narrative in the book of Joshua provides a historically reliable account of the destruction of Jericho.

    “The book of Joshua records that not long after the spring harvest, the Israelites besieged Jericho, the walls of the city fell, the army walked up into the city, a restriction had been placed to not loot Jericho except for metals, and finally the city was burned (Joshua 3: 15, 4: 19, 5: 10, 6: 1-24).”
    “These finds indicate an attack on Jericho soon after barley harvest time in March/April and by an army that was not concerned with looting the food supplies of the city, matching the timing and methodology of the invading Israelite army in the Joshua narrative (Joshua 2: 6, 3: 15, 5: 10; cf.Gezer Calendar; Exodus 9: 31-32; Ruth 1: 22; 2 Samuel 21: 9).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many scarabs of Amenhotep III have been found in stratified LB IB contexts from Canaan.

    “However, many scarabs of Amenhotep III have been found in stratified LB IB contexts from Canaan.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The city of Jericho appears nowhere in Egyptian annals or topographic lists around the period of Thutmose III.

    “the city appears nowhere in Egyptian annals or topographic lists around this period”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The biblical narratives in Joshua, Judges, and Kings are historically reliable enough to correlate with archaeological phases.

    “the abandonment and reoccupation of the site in the following periods also suggests that the overall narrative about Jericho in the books of Joshua, Judges, and Kings spans Late Bronze IB to Iron IIA.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Jericho tablet found in the Middle Building was in extremely poor condition, with few signs visible, and no plausible reading for the text has yet been determined.

    “Unfortunately, the Jericho tablet found in the Middle Building was in extremely poor condition, with few signs visible, and no plausible reading for the text has yet been determined.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pottery, scarabs, cuneiform tablet, and radiocarbon samples from Jericho IV all derive from the same destruction event of the final walled Bronze Age city.

    “When all of the chronological data from Jericho IV is assessed and assembled, including specific pottery wares and forms of Late Bronze I, 18th Dynasty Egyptian scarabs concluding with Amenhotep III, a cuneiform tablet dated tentatively to the 15th century BC, and radiocarbon samples that would at least allow the possibility of a destruction around the Late Bronze IB period”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The biblical account in the book of Joshua reliably describes the methods by which Jericho was destroyed, so that it can be compared with the archaeological evidence.

    “all agree with the specifics of the Joshua account regarding the methods of destruction.”
7 of 7

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Amiran, Ruth (1970). Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, Rutgers Press.
  2. Rubiato, 1999, Excavating Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?, Biblical Archaeology Review, 25, 22
  3. Bienkowski, 1990, Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age, Biblical Archaeology Review, 16, 45
  4. Cline, Eric H. (2002). The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze Age to the Nuclear Age, University of Michigan Press.
  5. Garstang, 1934, Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fourth Report, University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 21, 99
  6. Hansen, David G. (2000). Evidence for Fortifications at Late Bronze I and II: A Locations in Palestine. [Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity College and Theological Seminary].
  7. Herzog, Ze’ev, Rapp, George, and Negbi, Ora (1989). Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Michal), Univ. of Minnesota Press. Publ. of Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology No. 8.
  8. Stern, 1975, Jericho, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 2, 550
  9. Loud, Gordon (1948). Megiddo 2: Seasons of 1935–39, Univ. of Chicago Press.
  10. Sukenik, 1942, Excavations in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, 1939-40: Tell Jerishe, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, 10, 198
  11. Thompson, Thomas (1987). The Origin Tradition of Ancient Israel, Bloomsbury.
  12. Tufnell, Olga, Inge, Charles H., and Harding, Lankester (1940). Lachish 2: The Fosse Temple, Oxford Univ. Press.
  13. Van Seters, John (2001). Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary, Academic Press.
  14. Watzinger, 1926, Zur Chronologie der Schichten von Jericho, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gessellschaft, 80, 131
  15. Wood, 1990a, Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts, Biblical Archaeology Review, 16, 45
  16. Wood, 1999, The Walls of Jericho, Bible and Spade, 12, 35
  17. Wood, 2007, The Biblical Date for the Exodus Is 1446 BC: A Response To James Hoffmeier, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50, 249
  18. Yadin, Yigael (1972). Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms, Oxford Univ. Press. Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970.
  19. Yadin, 1975, Yigael Yadin on “Hazor, the Head of All Those Kingdoms, Biblical Archaeology Review, 1, 1
  20. Yadin, 1982, Israel Comes to Canaan: Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?, Biblical Archaeology Review, 8, 16

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kennedy, T.
Affiliations
Biola University (US)
Corresponding author
Kennedy, Titus
Venue
Religions
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-06-15
Volume
14
Issue
6
Pages
796
ISSN
2077-1444 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/rel14060796
OpenAlex
W4380990243
Cited by
3
References
34
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
10.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Religions (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Near East History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Mediterranean Archaeology and History
Keywords
Jericho, Tell es-Sultan, Bronze Age, Book of Joshua, biblical archaeology, radiocarbon dating, stratigraphy, pottery, Egyptian scarabs, cuneiform tablets, abandonment, chronology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review