Home | About | Subscriptions | Contact us | Search
New this month | Back issues | Books | Other sites | Special Issue index
Back to Special Issue contents

THE INHABITANTS of Canaan had watched for nearly forty years the progress of the Hebrew people towards the land of Canaan with, it seems, an attitude of fear and trepidation.

The Scriptures record their thoughts as follows: “your terror is fallen upon us ... all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you ... our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man, because of you” (Josh. 2:9-11). These are Rahab’s words to the spies prior to the nation crossing the Jordan, a reflection of the effect on the people in Canaan of events during the Exodus and wilderness journey. Once Joshua led the people across the Jordan we read in Joshua 5:1: “when all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over ... their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel”.

Two years after the Exodus Numbers 1:46 records the size of the army of Israel as 603,550. If this is multiplied up to reach the number in the nation we see that somewhere between 1¼ and 2½ million people were involved. Even allowing for the deaths in the wilderness there is no doubt that a vast army stood at the Jordan that day; the advance guard of armed men that led the way across the Jordan numbered 40,000, taken from 2½ tribes: Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 4:12,13).

A new era was about to be ushered in for this “land flowing with milk and honey” (Ex. 3:8) in a dramatic and violent way. This land, described in the following terms by the ten spies, “the people be strong ... the cities are walled, and very great ... the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature” (Num. 13:28,32), was to be taken from the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, and given to God’s people.

It is well to remind ourselves when we look at this period in history of the reason why the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were to be destroyed and driven out. Speaking to Abraham the Lord had said concerning his seed: “in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (Gen. 15:16). In Deuteronomy 9,4,5 we read: “for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee. Not for thy righteousness, or the uprightness of thine heart ... but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out”.(Footnote 1) We shall look later in this article at how the archaeological discoveries confirm the great wickedness of the inhabitants of Canaan, fully justifying God’s judgements on them.

Now the people of Canaan and their civilisation, their culture, their cities and their pagan temples were to experience sword, fire, earthquake, hail and slavery as judgements (Map 1). Such cataclysmic events would inevitably leave their mark upon the land, and archaeology brings them to light for us to examine.

The problem for the believer, of course, is that many of the discoveries are interpreted and viewed from the standpoint of people who do not necessarily accept Scripture, or at best interpret it without allowance for inspiration or the miraculous.

Battle over chronology

In looking at the time of Joshua and the conquest of the land we want first of all to consider briefly this aspect of chronology and interpretation before going on to specific discoveries in relation to Jericho, Hazor and the culture of the Canaanites.

It may have taken Joshua only seven days to complete the destruction of Jericho and two days to capture Lachish, but the battle of the archaeologists over the interpretations and chronology of the Joshua and Judges periods have raged for over 120 years. Many exciting finds and unexpected discoveries have suffered from the assertions and counterassertions of the ‘experts’. For the lay person it can be disconcerting to see disagreements between qualified people. Much of the problem lies in chronology, trying to date the items excavated and the events revealed in the ruins accurately, and link them to Scripture. Often in the past (and still today, for that matter) discoveries which appear to fit descriptions of events or places in Scripture have had dates ascribed to them which place them out of the relevant Scriptural time period, or causes are ascribed to events (such as the destruction of a city) which have nothing to do with those related in Scripture.(Footnote 2)

The further back in history one goes the more varied become the opinions advanced. Dating is not an exact science. There are established historical divisions into which the finds of archaeologists are placed, and the excavations at Jericho are an example of this (Diag. 1). The complete list of periods is shown in Diagram 2. The lay person looking at this might think that these periods and dates are without error and cannot be adjusted, but we shall look shortly at the possibility that these dates could be adjusted.

Diagram 1. A section through Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) showing the various historical time periods: a. bedrock;

b. Pre-pottery Neolithic; c. Pottery Neolithic; d. Early Bronze; e. Middle Bronze;/ Late Bronze; g. Iron;

h. later deposits; j . road; k. spring.

A statement of Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a respected archaeologist, when discussing dating is very revealing: “The archaeological sequence in Palestine from 3000 B.C. can broadly be linked with the fixed chronology of Egypt, but only broadly, and any attempt to assign exact dates in years within these broad limits can be guesswork only”. Even when writing about Carbon-14 dating techniques she points out that “archaeologists are advised to continue to use the Carbon-14 dates with the recognition that there may be a divergence of several hundred years from the calendar dates ... There is, however, always a standard margin of deviation, usually of about 150 to 200 years either side of a central date”.(Footnote 3)

Sir Flinders Petrie in 1890 introduced the concept of ‘ceramic typology’, which was gradually refined into a sophisticated form of relating pottery types to the different historical periods. Stone crumbles, metal corrodes, wood decays and glass often disappears totally, but pottery survives, even in its broken form. By producing a chart allocating styles, forms and surface designs into the historical periods, excavations could be dated more accurately.

This does, however, have a number of dangers and difficulties, and discoveries can be misinterpreted, as they can when using coins and seals found on sites.(Footnote 4)

The safest form of dating on archaeological sites is when ancient writings are found which carry names of people and places, and describe events. An example of this in relation to the Joshua-Judges period is the Merneptah Stela from Egypt which gives us evidence that the Israelites were established in Canaan in the period around 1220 B.C.(Footnote 5) (Diag. 3). This particular find also illustrates the problem archaeologists have in interpreting such information, for Kathleen Kenyon, commenting on the stela, says: “Among the lists of conquered towns and people appears the name Israel in grammatical form, which suggests that the reference is to a people not yet settled’.(Footnote 6) This is followed by: “It is only on historical grounds, for instance the mention of the people Israel by Merneptah, that we know in fact that the Israelites were by now firmly established in the land in two groups divided by the Canaanite wedge ...”.(Footnote 7) Thus, in just eighteen pages, Israel changes from being “not yet settled” to being “firmly established”!

Diagram 3. The Merneptah Stela, dating from the period 1230-1208 B.C., in which Israel is named for the first time outside the Bible.

The flimsy foundations on which many of the authorities build their opinions can also be seen in the reasoning applied to decide the date at which the conquest under Joshua took place. Most of the respected experts in the field of archaeology place the conquest between 1230 and 1185 B.C. J. Garstang, in the 1930s, came forward with a date of 1440 B.C. (later revised to 1400) as a result of his excavations at Jericho; but when Kenyon examined his findings and carried out more work on the site in the 1950s this date was revised because some of Garstang’s earlier findings and analyses were thought to be incorrect. Even though there was close correlation between the Biblical narrative and the picture the excavations built up of what had happened at Jericho, archaeologists insisted then (and most still do) that the time was all wrong; that is, the destruction of the city took place in the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age (1900-1550 B.C.), and was probably carried out by the Egyptians fighting the Hyksos, who had been driven out of Egypt earlier. The Israelites did not arrive until some 300 to 400 years later, they said, that is, the late thirteenth century, but unfortunately nothing remains of the small town that Joshua attacked as it has eroded away!

Why do the experts attribute the destruction of Jericho to the Egyptians in the Middle Bronze Age? One early cause was the interpretation in 1906 of an Egyptian text which led to the belief that Pharaoh Amosis, founder of the eighteenth dynasty, had pursued the Hyksos out of Egypt into Palestine, subsequently destroying most of the large cities in Canaan.(Footnote 8) All this text actually said was that a campaign had taken place in Djahy, thought to be a term referring to central Syria or Canaan, or possibly Phoenicia; and there was another text that referred to the use of “oxen from Tenkhu’”, thought to be the Lebanese coast. On such tenuous connections was built a hypothetical invasion, and a circular argument, for now the remains of the destroyed cities in Canaan have become the main plank for the dating of 1550 as the end of the Middle Bronze Age and an Egyptian invasion. The Egyptians did pursue the Hyksos as far as the city of Sharuhen in the extreme south of Palestine, but it took them three years to capture it, and there is no evidence that they then went on into Canaan.

Although the reign of Amosis can be dated, other events have been put into his period by the archaeologists on the flimsiest evidence possible.

Redating the conquest

1 Kings 6:1 tells us that the fourth year of Solomon’s reign was 480 years after the Exodus. Solomon’s reign is thought to be 970- 930 B.C., and this would place the conquest at about 1450 B.C. Although the greater weight of ‘expert’ opinion for nearly 100 years has stubbornly stuck to a thirteenth-century date for the conquest, in spite of the anomalies such views create, the early eighties saw the publication of material from the Department of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University which put forward a refreshingly frank appraisal of existing views. The author, John Bimson, gives a comprehensive review of the evidence available, and shows that archaeological evidence supports very closely Biblical chronology and narrative.(Footnote 9) (Bimson’s suggested revised chronological tables are reproduced in Diagram 4).

The following are the arguments for the Exodus and conquest being dated in the fifteenth century, not the thirteenth:

1. Redating the Exodus and conquest to 1470-1430 B.C. respectively, and extending the Middle Bronze Age to 1430 B.C., are complementary propositions which make good sense of Biblical narrative and archaeological records.

2. There is no logical reason to attribute the destruction of cities at the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the Egyptians or Hyksos. Indeed, the normal action of the Egyptians was to maintain the cities of conquered people so that they could exact tribute.

3. We have Biblical narrative concerning the Israelite destruction of cities, but, according to the ‘experts7, there were no cities to destroy; on the other hand there is clear archaeological evidence for the fall of cities but no attackers to whom we can attribute their destruction, if the earlier dates generally proposed are correct.

4. Biblical narrative and archaeological evidence connect accurately in the instance of the eight cities of Jericho, Bethel, Hazor, Debir, Lachish, Hebron, Hormah and Dan, if a 1430 date is accepted, whereas only Debir fits a 1230 B.C. date.

5. In the case of Jericho the archaeological record gives us evidence of fire, and walls collapsing through earthquake activity; and in the case of Hazor, burning by fire, resurgence and subsequent collapse again in the thirteenth century (the destruction by Barak).

6. Judges 1 records that the Israelites did not dislodge all the Canaanites, and excavations at some cities (for example, Beth-shan, Gezer) show no break in occupation between the Middle Bronze Age (the conquest period) and the Late Bronze Age (the Judges period).

7. Similarly, the Bible shows a subsequent failure to displace Canaanites (Judg. 1:29,30) so that they even lived among the Israelites.

The archaeological record shows no substantial change in material culture, which would be the case if a nomadic nation came into an existing culture and integrated rather than displaced it.

Bimson says: “I have tried to show that the Conquest and the end of the MBA [Middle Bronze Age] cities can both be dated in such a way that they are seen to be the same event. Their identity is not normally recognised because, through a series of unfortunate scholarly ‘accidents’, the Exodus has been dated too late and the end of the MBA has been dated too early”.(Footnote 10)

We want to consider now actual archaeological finds at specific sites.

Jericho—destroyed as the Bible says

First identified in 1841 by Robinson and Smith, the site of Biblical Jericho (known today as Tell es-Sultan) was excavated initially by Captain Charles Warren. Unfortunately he was unable to recognise the various strata levels he uncovered for what they were. In 1907-11 an expedition under Watzinger and Sellin carried out further excavations and discovered sections of walls.

The most thorough early excavation, though, was that carried out by J. Garstang in 1930-6, and his findings caused him to date the Israelite destruction of the city at around 1400 B.C. Garstang uncovered a large section of a ‘double wall’. There was an outer bank all around the city, with a wall on top, the outer bank being earthed up in stages, each one covered in plaster. The height of this wall was approximately forty to fifty feet from the ground. Inside this first wall the ground sloped away for about twelve feet to the inner city wall. It would be on two such walls that Rahab’s house would have been situated.

In the 1950s Kathleen Kenyon undertook excavations on the site (1950-6), and as a result of her work many of Garstang’s conclusions were thought to be incorrect. Although remains were uncovered supposedly dating back to 7000-8000 B.C. (according to the archaeologists) which led to claims that Jericho is the oldest known city, it was claimed that nothing remained of the city at the period 1300 B.C., the time the experts insisted Joshua crossed the Jordan.

However, we can ignore the dating disagreements and concentrate on the discoveries on the site. The Biblical record tells us that “the wall fell down flat” and that “they burnt the city with fire” (Josh. 6:20,24). The record also tells us that Joshua pronounced a curse on the city concerning its rebuilding (v. 26). The archaeologist has given us remarkable evidence to confirm these events. The buildings at Jericho in this period suffered deliberate destruction by fire. A number of reports are very graphic in their description of the end of the city at this time in history: “The end ... was violent, as is shown by the burnt ruins of the final level ... ruined walls ... covered by a layer of burnt debris one metre thick ... shows clearly that the higher buildings [further up the wall] were burned”.(Footnote 11)

Kenyon writes: “The faces of these stumps [of walls] and floors of the wall are strongly scorched by fire. This destruction covers the excavated area 52 x 22 metres for this period ... [there is] washed debris coloured brown, black, red, by the burnt material it contains ... there is no doubt from the scorched surfaces of the walls and floors of the violence of the conflagration”.(Footnote 12) This large fortified city was therefore deliberately destroyed by fire. It is interesting to note in passing that all the fortifications were not built at the same time. The outer wall and banking had been added after the original inner wall, not just to add strength but to bring the water supply inside the city. Perhaps this work had taken place during the wilderness journey as its inhabitants prepared for the Israelites. Rahab’s words, quoted above, are a pointer to their attitude.

What of the walls falling down? Although the record says, “the wall fell down flat” (Josh. 6:20), we know also that Rahab’s house appears to have remained intact (w. 22,23). Excavations revealed that some areas of the city wall were in a well-preserved standing state and other parts were destroyed. This is in keeping with the Bible. Not every part of the wall fell flat, but sufficiently large sections for the soldiers to breach the defences. Why did they fall down? We know the trumpets blew, but it was obviously the power exercised by the angelic host. Archaeology shows that Jericho suffers from being on a volcanic rift, and earthquake zone. Garstang states that Jericho “is never wholly free from earthquake shocks”,(Footnote 13) a view also supported by Kenyon and others.

To attribute the destruction to an earthquake does not lessen its power or cast doubt upon its Divine origin.The Israelites had to carry out the instructions implicitly, and the earthquake had to take place at the specific time required to achieve the necessary results. Support for a large-scale earth tremor is found at the site of the tombs, proving that it was not just a case of the walls mysteriously falling down. Normally the remains in a tomb moulder away. However, certain tombs at Jericho were found in a remarkable state of preservation, which was attributed to natural gas containing methane and carbon dioxide entering and stopping bacterial decomposition and termite activity. This had happened because of “earth movements and resultant fissuring”;(Footnote 14) and some tombs had experienced heavy rock falls: “One can see in the walls of tomb shafts and chambers how the rock has been twisted and fractured”.(Footnote 15) This, along with fissures and large cracks in the walls of the city excavated to date, supports the narrative of the walls falling down.

These tombs give another link with the Biblical record. A number show that multiple burials had taken place, with the dead being in various age groups, so that in one tomb there were adults and children buried at the same time—an unusual occurrence. Having investigated this, Kenyon wrote: “It may be surmised that there was a serious epidemic which swept off whole families at a date so late in the life of the town that the tombs were never reopened for subsequent burials”.(Footnote 16) In Numbers 25:1-9 we have the account of the plague that destroyed 24,000 of the children of Israel in the plains of Moab, which were “by Jericho” (22:1). A plague (or epidemic as the archaeologist describes it) had occurred in that area.

So the spade has revealed that earthquake, fire and plague all played their part in the destruction of Jericho, confirming the Scriptures. It has also been shown that, following this major destruction, the site was mainly unoccupied (in accordance with Joshua’s curse) for a period of approximately fifty years; and then only temporary unwalled settlements existed there until it was rebuilt in the days of Ahab (1 Kgs. 16:34).

Hazor—the head of all those kingdoms

When we read the account of the destruction of the city of Hazor in Joshua 11:10-13 we quickly realise that this city had an importance that the others in the northern alliance did not have: “Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only” (v. 13). The authority and standing of the city and its ruler are expressed in the words, “for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms” (v. 10). The city had held a position of importance for centuries. Two archaeological discoveries support this. Firstly, among the 25,000 inscribed clay tablets (the royal archives) found at Mari on the Euphrates, dating back to 1800-1900 B.C., are numerous references in the diplomatic correspondence which show that Hazor was a city which had ambassadors from Babylon residing there, and that it was a major city in the Fertile Crescent area. It is also worth noting that Hazor appears in the documents a great number of times, the only city in Palestine to do so. Secondly, Egyptian material, the Egyptian Execration Texts, which date from around 1900 B.C., name Hazor and its King Gt’i as an enemy of Egypt. Hazor was on the major route south from Damascus and Sidon and the eastern end of the Fertile Crescent, guarding the way to the strategically important Megiddo Pass. That the site known as Tel el- Qedah was the site of ancient Hazor there is no doubt. The excavators found there a clay tablet which detailed a case of litigation conducted before the king, concerning property in the city, carrying in the cuneiform inscription the name of the city.

Once again it was Garstang in 1928 who started the serious excavations at Hazor, but it was the Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin who carried out extensive work between 1955 and 1958, and again in 1968, who brought to light the wealth of historical remains on the site. Altogether twenty-two different cities, periods of occupation, have been identified on the site in the period 3000 to 37 B.C. The book which published the findings of Yigael Yadin states in its description of the work: “the finds at Hazor brought to light a wealth of information about the Canaanite culture of the pre-Israelite era and proved repeatedly that the ‘historical’ books of the Bible (Joshua through Chronicles) provide an amazingly accurate historical record”.(Footnote 17)

Yadin employed a very large team: 220 labourers, 45 archaeologists, architects and photographers, along with draftsmen and pottery restorers. As with Jericho, there was disagreement over some of the dating, and Yadin does not give a satisfactory answer to the criticism that, if Joshua destroyed King Jabin and Hazor, how did Barak come to defeat Jabin and destroy Hazor in the period of the Judges? Yadin’s answer is to take the Joshua account as the “true historical nucleus” and the Judges account to be “a later editorial interpolation”. This is because he places Joshua in the late thirteenth century, and the evidence for a burnt, destroyed city exists at Hazor for this date. There is, though, evidence also at Hazor of a city which existed in the late fifteenth century being destroyed by fire: “Stratum 3 came to its end as a result of violent , conflagration, and a thick layer of ash separated it from the one that followed”; “... and [the end of the Middle Bronze Age Hazor] came as the result of a violent destruction” is the way Yadin describes the destruction.(Footnote 18) If Joshua and the conquest of the land are placed at about 1450 B.C. then the Bible account does not present any difficulties.

The total size of the site also supports the claim of the importance of Hazor. The site is in two parts: a large mound of approximately forty acres, with an even larger plateau area of about 200 acres. (This would make the city twenty times the size of Jerusalem at the time of David.) It is calculated that at the height of its power and influence Hazor could have had a population of around 50,000, which was enormous for a city in that time. Even a figure half of that would still be exceptional. It is unlikely that the population of Hazor stood at those levels when Joshua destroyed it, but all through the period 1700-1500 B.C. records in Egypt show it was still a city of importance. The area and size of population indicate the importance of this city, but so do its fortifications.

The city of Joshua’s time had amazing defences. Writing of these Yadin says: “[they] leave us overwhelmingly impressed by the phenomenal amount of hard work invested in protecting this 1 kilometre long, 700 metre wide lower city with 3A kilometres of earthen ramparts ... The existence of this immense and technically sophisticated defence line testifies that the people of Hazor—like those of other lower cities—were governed by a strong ruler who could organise them into building such stupendous fortifications”.(Footnote 19)

Diagram 5. Above: The niche of the thirteenth-century B.C. ‘Stelae Temple’ as found in Area C at Hazor.

Below: Hazor Temple Area H.

Archaeology shows that, following its destruction by Joshua, the temples and other buildings were abandoned, then rebuilt in a poor and temporary form, mainly in about fifteen acres on the mound area, before finally being destroyed by Barak in the thirteenth century. Regarding the name Jabin occurring in both Joshua and Judges, both Albright and Yadin show that it is perfectly feasible for Jabin to be a “royal dynastic name of the kings of Hazor”, so that it is quite possible that several kings carried the name Jabin. So in size, population and fortifications Hazor is seen as head over the kingdoms, but there is one more aspect of this headship which archaeology has revealed.

Overthrowing altars

We mentioned at the beginning of this article that archaeology confirms for us the great wickedness of the inhabitants of Canaan. It is at Hazor that the most striking evidence has come to light, revealing the corrupt and pagan religious practices of the day. The Lord through Moses had warned Israel of the dangers facing them when they reached the land because of the false religions, and stated how they should react to them: “after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances” (Lev. 18:3); “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods ... ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place” (Deut. 12:2,3).

When Yadin’s team got into their second and third seasons at Hazor they found no less than six temples to pagan gods in the lower area, and one on the mound (it is quite possible there are more yet to be revealed). At least three of these were contemporary, and fall into the Middle Bronze Age period of Joshua’s campaign. They had different layouts, and from the images recovered it is obvious that different deities were worshipped. The temple on the mound was a massive structure, and even the smallest one on the lower area had an inner sanctum (holy of holies) of approximately forty by twenty feet. Hazor was a centre of corrupt pagan religious practices, and as such had to be destroyed at the beginning of Israel’s occupation of the land.

There was great excitement among the excavating team when they came across the small sanctuary, in what was known as Area C, which had a semicircular niche with a high platform on which were a large number of stelae (upright stones or images). One of these was a statue of Baal, and another was identified by the carving of hands upraised as representing his female consort (Diag. 5). Of particular importance was the fact that the head of the statue had been chopped off, and both head and torso were lying on the floor.

Yadin states that “It must have been when Hazor was occupied by the Israelites that this chapel met its fate in fulfilment of the commandment (Deut. 12:2,3). At least we can say that the head of the statue was deliberately chopped off ... this find taught us ... first that the head was decapitated deliberately by a blow at the small of the neck with a sharp instrument”.(Footnote 20) Here is evidence of the soldiers under Joshua carrying out the instruction to break and hew down the graven images. Kenyon also confirms the identity of the deities as the moon god, the storm god Hadad, and female consorts such as Asherah and Anat.

Discoveries at ancient Canaanite cities such as Ugarit have given us texts which describe the religious practices of those who worshipped such gods. The Ras Shamra Tablet shows Baalism to be a religion of immorality, vice and sex, in which children were offered as human sacrifices. To the Canaanite, Baal was the god of nature (rain, sun, harvest and storm), as well as the god of war. They worshipped demons, used incense and prayer beads and paid homage to serpents. At Hazor the potter’s shop was found where the statues and stelae were made. Here face masks for the female deities were found clearly depicting snakes and moon symbols.

Immorality was an important aspect of the religion for its participants, and the carvings in the groves and temples depicted the most depraved scenes imaginable. Adultery, homosexuality and bestiality were all engaged in. Baalism was an utterly depraved religion, and it is little wonder that God commanded Israel utterly to destroy the nations and the altars, images and temples.

The pattern of the depravity of human nature is seen all too often in Scripture: in Noah’s days, at the time of Sodom and Gomorrah, and here in Canaan at the time of the conquest. The archaeologist has confirmed once again that the truth of God’s teachings stretches through time to all generations, that the heart of man “is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9). The lesson for us from the past is that Christ has warned us that such times will come again prior to his return. This time the destruction of such wickedness will be complete, and not left to human hands.

Let them live

As well as the two military campaigns—one in the central area when Jericho was destroyed and one in the north when Hazor was destroyed— there was the campaign in between in the south, sparked off by the activities of the Gibeonites. Joshua had three main campaigns, therefore, which covered virtually all of Canaan (Map 1). The Scriptures record how, from Hazor in the north to Debir in the south, Joshua established the power of the nation of Israel. It is interesting to note that, just as Hazor appears to have been the centre of the pagan religions, so Debir could have been the academic centre, for its name had been Kirjath-sepher, which means ‘City of books’. The centres of philosophy and religion for the nations of Canaan were removed so as to enable the children of Israel to settle in the land and worship the one true God.

The incident with the Gibeonites is interesting in that the excavations at the site have revealed that the city at the time of Joshua probably did not have an outer wall or fortifications, which would partly explain their motivation to make peace with the Israelites, and their urgent appeal for help when threatened by neighbouring cities. (However, there is an indication in the text that the main motivation was their belief in the God of Israel.(Footnote 21)) There are two statements in the Bible narrative which deserve particular attention.

Firstly: “these bottles of wine, which we filled ...” (Josh. 9:13); and secondly: “let them be hewers of wood and drawers of water” (9:21). Have we ever wondered why the Gibeonites took wine and not water in their bottles? Excavations have shown that around 1200 B.C. there was an enormous and flourishing wine industry at Gibeon, and it is safe to assume that it had been growing steadily over the years, and would have been in existence at the time of Joshua. Clay jar handles carrying the name ‘Gibeon’, and others with ‘Vineyard of Gibeon’, were found when excavating a water system.

Then followed discoveries of the actual storage jars and funnels, stoppers, rock-cut grape presses, fermenting tanks, settling basins and storage cellars. These cellars kept the wine at a constant temperature of 65°F (18°C) all the year round, which is what the local winery stores its wine at today. The jars held 9.75 gallons, and from the number of storage cellars discovered it is calculated that the Gibeonites could have had up to a maximum of 25,000 gallons in store.

The Bible also has several references linking Gibeon with water. There is the “pool of Gibeon” (2 Sam. 2:12-17) and “the great waters” of Gibeon (Jer. 41:12), as well as the one already referred to in Joshua 9:21. Yet no river or pool exists at Gibeon today. Archaeology answered this puzzle when two great waterworks were uncovered. One dates back to the time of the Judges. This is an enormous cylindrical pit measuring 37 feet across by 35 feet deep, with a spiral stair of forty steps cut out of the rocks (approximately 3,000 tons of rock were removed). At the bottom of this a further thirty-nine steps led down to a tunnel which led into a water room eighty feet below the city, where underground water seeped in from the natural water table. This system was later supplemented by a further very extensive waterwork tunnel leading underground from the city to an outside spring(Footnote 22) (Diag. 6). Being “drawers of water” was obviously not just a matter of filling pots at the well.

Diagram 6. The Pool of Gibeon—a great water-shaft sunk into the bedrock to reach the water table.

There arose another generation

The conquest of the land was completed during the lifetime of Joshua (11:23; 21:43-45), but they did not drive out all the inhabitants, as commanded by God, in his lifetime, nor in the immediate years following his death. It was not until the time of David that possession of the land also included control of its inhabitants.

The period of the Judges is one for which archaeology, whilst not producing major discoveries, has been able to confirm the Biblical record. Kathleen Kenyon’s statement that “the towns of Palestine thus suffered a severe setback at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Some took many years to revive after the disturbances”(Footnote 23) has been seen to be true for the major cities such as Jericho and Hazor as well as the cities and towns of Ai, Bethel, Hebron, Lachish, Debir and many others which we do not have the space to consider.

But there is also the evidence of those towns and cities which did not suffer destruction at the time of the conquest, such as Gibeon and others: “But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn” (Josh. 11:13). We know from the record in Judges 1:27-36 that Israel allowed the Canaanites to dwell among them, that they allowed the Canaanites to control cities, that they allowed themselves to be forced out of some areas, and that they were prepared to dwell among the Canaanites. They ultimately started to intermarry and to adopt the culture and religion of the Canaanitish nations.

Archaeology supports this. Again Kenyon comments: “At Bethshean there is within the area excavated no indication of the destructions which affected other sites”.(Footnote 24) This fully supports Judges 1:27, which describes Manasseh’s failure.

There is further support in an Egyptian stela of Seti I dated in the late fourteenth century which shows that Beth-shan was not under Israelite control and was receiving support from Egypt. A very revealing comment is the one by John Bimson: “The archaeological record shows the destruction of many major cities, but no substantial change in material culture”.(Footnote 25)

Whilst there was a slight deterioration where cities were destroyed because the Israelites were not experienced in urban life (and their settlements would reflect this), in the main they just took over the material culture of the nations, with, as we know, disastrous results. This adoption of the local culture is described in these words: “This must [have] been the case, [for] wherever within this period 1400 to 1200 B.C. one puts the arrival of the Israelites there is no complete break [of cultures] within the period”.(Footnote 26) They forgot the warnings recorded in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 concerning cities, houses, vineyards, wells and good things which they had not built, planted or made, which would cause them to forget their God.

Archaeology not only confirms the past, it carries also a clear lesson for the present to those who, as Jesus says, must decide where their treasure is; for that is where their heart will be also.

FOOTNOTES

1. There is an interesting link here with the words of Romans 11:25, “... until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in”, pointing to a set time in our generation when the iniquity of this generation reaches that point when God’s hand can no longer be stayed, as with the world before the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the land of Canaan.

2. Statements are made that earthquake, accidental fire, and general state of war between the city states and territorial states, could have been responsible for the destruction of towns and cities, and that, whilst the Israelites may have been involved, the possibility is that such conflagration levels “could have been caused by very different people who cannot be immediately identified from the written source” (M. Weippert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine, 1971, pp. 130- 1). Speaking of Hazor, it was said: “For one thing the city could well have been burned by someone else [other than the Israelites], for this was a turbulent period when cities were always being burned by rival neighbours or by Egyptian punitive expeditions. Others suggest that there was a general movement of many different groups into Palestine from the north and south, and that destruction of cities and cultures were not just carried out by Israelites” (G. E. Mandenhall, The Tenth Generation—Origins of Biblical Tradition, 1973).

3. Archaeology in the Holy Land, 1979, pp. 17,18.

4. Seals bearing names of rulers, and also coins, sometimes stay in families, being passed from generation to generation (just as family heirlooms pass on today), and so do not always give accurate dating of sites where they are found. Pottery does not always belong to the level it is found in when excavating. For example, at Samaria trenches dug in the third century B.C. for new city walls and towers went down through the eighth-century-B.C. strata. The excavated earth, and pottery remains, from the eighth century were then used as filling above the third-century work, and initially led archaeologists to date the walls and towers incorrectly.

5. The Merneptah Stela has 28 lines listing cities and peoples conquered by Pharaoh Merneptah, starting with those in the south and working up to the northernmost. Israel is last but one, indicating that they were by this time inhabiting the north of Canaan, even if only partially.

6. Op. cit., p. 207.

7. Ibid., p. 225.

8. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vols. I-III, J. H. Breasted, 1906.

9. Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Almond Press, 1981.

10. Ibid., p. 215.

11. Cities of the Biblical World—Jericho, J. R. Bartlett, Lutterworth Press, 1982, p. 93.

12. Op. cit., p. 181.

13. The Story of Jericho, J. and J. Β. Ε. Garstang, p. 135.

14. Preservation of Organic Materials in the Tombs at Jericho, S. Dorrell, London University Press, 1965, p. 706.

15. Digging Up Jericho, K. Kenyon, London University Press, 1957, p. 250.

16. Ibid., p. 175.

17. Hazor—The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, Yigael Yadin, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1975, Introduction.

18. Hazor—The Head of All Those Kingdoms, London University Press, 1972, pp. 31,124.

19. Hazor—The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible, op. cit., p. 135.

20. Ibid., pp. 43,44,46.

21. They said they came “because of the name of the LORD thy God” (Josh. 9:9). In Semitic usage a name is a verbalisation which represents one’s entire character. What the Gibeonites were really saying was: “We came because of who the LORD your God is”. Similarly they spoke of “how that the LORD thy God commanded His servant Moses” (v. 24). So in the case of both Rahab and the Gibeonites what they had heard was sufficient to convince them.

22. Biblical Archaeology, 1973, Keter Publishing, Jerusalem, pp. 135-8.

23. Op. cit., p. 189.

24. Ibid., p. 201.

25. Op. cit., pp. 221,223.

26. Kenyon, op. cit., p. 206.

Next Article in this Issue

Home | About | Subscriptions | Contact us | Search
New this month | Back issues | Books | Other sites | Special Issue index
Back to Special Issue contents