The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, O. 1986. The Walls of Jericho: An Alternative Interpretation. Current Anthropology 27, no. 2: 157-162. Published Version doi:10.1086/203413 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211567 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA sitionalevents in this area; these sectionsare based on Ken- REPORTS yon's fielddrawings and writtendescriptions (Kenyon 1981). The available 14C dates as reportedby Burleigh(1981, 1983) are shownin boththe table and the figure.The firstNeolithic The Walls of Jericho:An Alternative occupationswere labelled "Proto-Neolithic"by KenyQn,but the lithicanalysis of Crowfoot-Payne(1983) has demonstrated Interpretation' thatthe assemblage,mainly derived from a limitedexcavation in Square M, does not differfrom the restof the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (henceforthPPNA) assemblages. This industry by 0. BAR-YOSEF was renamed "Sultanian" and has since been found at two Institute of Archaeology,Hebrew University,Jerusalem in Schulden- 91905, Israel. 30 VI 85 additionalsites the JordanValley-Gilgal (Noy, rein, and Tchernov 1980) and Netiv Hagdud (Bar-Yosef, "The walls of Jericho"immediately remind us of the biblical Gopher,and Goring-Morris1980). storydescribing the conquest of this ancienttown by Joshua It is onlysubsequent to theearliest occupations that the free- and the invadingIsraelite army. Like the Homericepic about standingwall and towerwere built. The firstperimeter wall, the destructionof Troy, which motivatedH. Schliemannto 3.6 m high,was 1.8 m thickat its base and only 1.1 m at its conductone of the firstexcavations in the Near East, so the preservedtop. The tower,placed inside the perimeterof the tale of Jerichohas made the site attractiveto scholarsinter- settlement,was 8.2 m high(ca. 9 m in diameterat thebase and ested in revealing biblical remains beneath the dust. The 7 m at thetop) and builtof undressedstones. It had a staircase mound of Tell es-Sultanin the JordanValley has long been leading to the top with 22 steps built of dressed slabs. Its confidentlyequated withthe biblicalJericho, and the wish to preservedoutlet seems to be the originalone. No roomswere uncoverthe walls that collapsed at the blast of the Israelite foundinside the tower.The available 14C dates indicatethat trumpetshas led to a seriesof excavations at themound (fig. 1). the constructionoccurred between 8300 B.C. and 7800 B.C., The pioneerwas C. Warren,who dug a fewholes in 1873 but whichmay mean around 8000 B.C. as estimatedby Kenyon. thenabandoned the site and wenton to excavatein Jerusalem. Stages IV-V consistedof the buildingof an additionalwall The Germans E. Sellin and C. Watzingerdug a series of (or only the thickeningof the firstwall) and the diggingof a trenchesbetween 1907 and 1909, and theywere followedby ditch in frontof it, probably because the continuousrapid J. Garstang,1930-36, and K. Kenyon, 1952-58. alluviationwas endangeringthe existing structures. The tower While the town walls destroyedby Joshua'sarmy have not was an extremelyheavy structure (about 1,000tons) and prob- been found,a seriesof Early Bronze-and Middle Bronze-Age ably experienceddifferential subsidence of the underlying slip- walls and an impressiverampart have been uncoveredand perymarl. There is clear archaeologicalevidence that it had to studiedin detail. Beneath the biblicalJericho, first Garstang's be repairedat thisstage. and later the major excavationsof Kenyon uncoveredthick The ditch was filledrapidly, motivating the additionof a depositsof very early Pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation. A par- thirdwall, and at the same period the staircasewas blocked ticularlysurprising discovery made by Kenyon in the basal (Stages VI and VIA). Continuousaccumulations on bothsides layersof thisoccupation was the existenceof a massive stone consistingof naturalaggradation enriched with occupational perimeterwall. It is withthe interpretation of this wall and the debris on the westernface and occupationalremains on the towerassociated with it thatthis paper is concerned.The re- easternface caused thewalls to go out ofuse, leavingthe tower cent publicationof the finalarchaeological reports, a project stillsomewhat elevated above its surroundings.The 14Cread- forwhich T. A. Holland is to be congratulated,makes it possi- ings pointto a date of ca. 7400-7300 B.C. In thefinal stage of ble to reexamineKenyon's conclusions using her own detailed the PPNA periodthe perimeterwall was entirelyburied. observations(Kenyon 1981; Kenyonand Holland 1982, 1983). The lower courses of the PPNA perimeterwall were also The oldest remains at Jerichoare dated to the Natufian foundin the northerntrench (Trench II) and were somewhat culture,though not to its latestphase as recentlydefined (Bar- betterpreserved in the southerntrench (Trench III). In these Yosef 1981a, Valla 1984). Then, followinga gap of nearlya instancesthe wall was thinner,only 1.4 m and 1.6 m respec- millennium(ca. 9200-8350 B.C.), thesite was settledby one of tively.At thenorthern end ofthe settlement the perimeter wall theearly farming communities. The occupiedarea was a mod- was heavilydamaged by a floodingwadi which leftonly the eratelysloping plain formedby the retreatof the Late Pleis- lowercourse of stonesunder a wadi channelsome 15 m wide toceneLisan Lake (fig.1). The plain is coveredby brownsoils and about 1.5 m deep in itscentral thalweg. That thewadi was and gravelswashed in by Wadi Nuceima,Wadi el-Mafjar,and able to wash away a supposedlystone wall is somewhatunex- Wadi Qilt, formingthe arable land of the Jerichooasis. pected, given the presenceof softoccupation levels on either Table 1 summarizesthe main constructionand destruction side; perhapsit was a mud-brickconstruction on stonefounda- eventsin the area of Trench I and squares FI, DI, and DII, tions. In the southerntrench the truncationof the already wherethe walls, the tower,and adjacent buildingswere par- buried PPNA layers is interpretedas resultingfrom severe tiallyexposed. Figure 2 tentativelyreconstructs the main depo- floodingin Wadi el-Mafjar. Kenyonconcluded that the oval mound of Jerichowas en- circledby a defensivewall enclosingan area of 2.4 hectares (originallymiscalculated as 4.0). Her estimateof 3,000-4,000 ' ? 1986 by The Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropological Re- forthe site's populationis too high in view of the size of the search,all rightsreserved 0011-3204/86/2702-0005$1.00. The reexami- site, and the resultsof recent ethnoarchaeologicalresearch nationof some of the archaeological problems of Jericho stemmed from (Kramer 1982) point to an estimateof 400-900. Additional researchon Early Neolithicsites in the Lower JordanValley. Field- work was fundedby the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropolog- walls, also interpretedby Kenyonas "town walls," were un- ical Research (1980-81) and by the National Geographic Society coveredin the westerntrench and dated to the followingpe- (1983-84), to whomI am verygrateful for their support. I would like riod, the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B (ca. 7300-6000 B.C.). These to thankP. Goldbergand A. Gopherof the Instituteof Archaeology, were slantingwalls built of large undressedstones, retaining Hebrew University,for many useful discussions in the field;GI. Isaac the earlierlevels. Both the picturesof the walls and the draw- and J. Merkel of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University,and Z. ing ofthe trench-section clearly show that,as has been pointed Herzog of the Instituteof Archaeology,Tel Aviv University,for their helpfulcomments on an earlierdraft; and B. Isaac forthe drawings.I out by Mellaart (1975:59), thesewere retainingwalls. am, however,fully responsible for any shortcomingsof the present Kenyon'sinterpretations of her strikingdiscoveries may be version. summarizedas follows: Vol. 27 * No. 2 * April 1986 157 This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Sun, 11 May 2014 22:17:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 'I~~~~~~Q \) , .0 0 0 o.. JFF~ICHO` *.o . 00 O~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~0 kml . ....... *--~~~~~~~~~~~JERICHO FIG. 1. The topographicsituation of the tellof Jericho. Note the low ridge,immediately west of the tell,bordered by Wadi Nuceimain thenorth and Wadi el-Mafjarin the south. Topographyis shownin 10-rncontours. Today's springrises on the mid-easteredge of the tell. 1. The presenceof a thick,free-standing wall and a tower that period and the specific location of Jericho and the indicatea communaleffort to fortifythe settlement. (The effort geomorphicprocesses that may have influencedits history. requiredto build the perimeterwall was later calculated by The evolutionof prehistoricentities as representedin the Dorrell[1978] as about a week's worthfor 200 men; a recalcu- archaeologicalrecord has recentlybeen studiedin depthin the lationbased on a morerealistic estimate of 0.5 m3per man per various geographicunits of the Near East (Sinai, the Negev, day yieldsa figureof 10,400work days or about 104 workdays Edom, the Jordan Valley, the Damascus plateau, the El for 100 men). Kowm basin, and the Middle EuphratesValley). On the basis 2. As a walled site, Jerichodeserves to be called a "town" of such featuresas site size, lithic and faunal assemblages,