Toby Anderson
Jericho
Thu May 31, 2018 21:36
2600:8801:901:4610:6d73:a962:14c0:bcef

Summary of Jericho archeology

“Recent Discoveries that prove the Bible – digging up the truth” by Bryant G. Wood PHD, director of research Associates for Biblical Research, his specialty is Canaanite pottery from the late Bronze Age

---------------------------------
History of Excavations at Jericho
---------------------------------
• early 1900’s 1st dig
• 1907-9 German’s
• 1930’s John Garstang – dated it to 1400’s
• 1950’s Kathleen kenyan – dated to 1550’s
• 1992 Italian’s

----------------------
Description of Jericho
----------------------

• There were 2 walls separated by a sloped embankment which circles around the city. (more on this below)
• The North Wall was still standing. It was closest to the mountains and thus matches the description of the wall where Rahab helped the Israelite spies escape, and where the Israelites ultimatedly rescued Rahab.
• The Southeast slope was excavated by Garstang and Kenyan. they found, buried 1 meter thick ‘black’ destruction layer caused by fire. The cuts shows the walls were leaning likely due to an ‘earthquake’. Both Kenyan and Garstang discussed the earthquake evidence.
• Garstang found a palace that was likely of Eglon king of Moab (Judges 3:13), then called ‘the city of Palms). Kenyan found some bits and pieces of outbuildings.
• Garstang and Kenyan found large storage jars full of grains. The city was not looted as per God’s instructions. The full wheat jars indicate the harvest had just taken place indicating it was the spring/early summer which corresponds to the time Joshua and the Israelites conquered Jericho.

-------------------
The 2 Walls
-------------------

(1). a lower wall. older house with pottery, graveyard with pottery and signed Egyptian Scarabs.

The lower wall not only served as a defensive wall, but also a retaining wall as seen, in that it’s base was built upon the bedrock. The outside of this wall was steep/tall (12 to 15’?), while the other other side was sort of level with the dirt as it sloped to the top. The Italians trenched extensively on both sides of the lower (retaining wall), and discovered some structures/houses that had been partially destroyed to make room for the lower (retaining wall). These were obviously the oldest structures as they had pre-existed prior to the lower. These houses had pottery, in it which was the same style/markings as those that were found in a nearby graveyard (found by Garstang) .This pottery dates to the early late Bronze age. This is known as follows. Garstang found Egyptian Scarabs were also co-located with this graveyard pottery. These scarabs had the names of Pharaohs Hatshepsut (died 1458bc), Thutmosis III (died 1425bc), Amenhotep III (born 1411bc). Kenyan also found some pottery, but didn’t analyze it or date it. Instead, she searched in vain for some Cyprian pottery she hoped would be found to date the dig to 1550bc.

(2). an upper Wall --- had some red brick, much of which had rolled down the slope over the Lower Retaining wall (where it is still today) making a ramp (for the Israelites to ascend) from Ground level up to the retaining wall, up the embankment and to the base of the fallen upper wall.


    • Jericho dating with Pottery and ScarabsToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 16:16
      Hello all, The fall of Jericho is dated using 2 different means, namely: 1. the scarabs found in the tombs: 2. Late Bronze I pottery found: ---a. alongside the scarabs in the tomb ---b. inside the... more
      • Re: Jericho dating with Pottery and ScarabsAnonymous, Fri Jun 15 21:41
        //I disagree. Isn't much of Egyptian chronology determined from finds in the pharoah tombs which were somewhat distant from their respective cities?// Actually figuring which Egyptian city level... more
    • re: JerichoRich McQuillen, Sun Jun 3 23:43
      So the reason we are discussing Jericho... is that the archaeology says no city existed from 1550BC-1100BC... So there was no city for Joshua to conquer. If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then... more
      • re: JerichoToby Anderson, Mon Jun 4 23:17
        Hello Rich, You: "....archaeology says no city existed from 1550BC-1100BC" Only 1 archeologist says that, who ignored the Egyptian Scarabs containing 3 pharoahs who lived during the earlier part of... more
        • re: JerichoAnonymous, Tue Jun 12 00:40
          https://books.google.com/books?id=c_tDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=Garstang+middle+building+scarabs&source=bl&ots=F5x6Pfzd5-&sig=RUYOjjihQeYfoqYyAa3bacSZeVQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju__jfs83bAhWs64MKHbv... more
          • re: JerichoToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 15:51
            Hello Anonymous, After giving the link to a page in a book, you concluded. You wrote: "The scarabs come from an administrative palace built later. But there was no city there." That is NOT what your... more
            • re: JerichoAnonymous, Fri Jun 15 09:49
              Toby: My trivial mistake, already conceeded, changes nothing. The necropolis is a separate site from the city. A curse was put on rebuilding the city, but not on continued use of the necropolis. So... more
          • re: JerichoAnonymous, Tue Jun 12 15:50
            Pardon my error. The scarabs came from the Necropolis, which is not the city. //From the pottery and scarabs found at the necropolis, Garstang concluded that its use was continuous from the third... more
          • re: JerichoMarianne Luban, Tue Jun 12 11:43
            Anonymous wrote: "The scarabs come from an administrative palace built later. But there was no city there." I am of the opinion that "Anonymous" is nothing more than a trolling sock-puppet, who... more
        • re: JerichoRich McQuillen, Mon Jun 11 22:34
          "Why did you ignore the scarabs in your posting." -- Toby "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- me -- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute. I... more
          • re: minor date correctionRich McQuillen, Sun Jun 17 12:27
            "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- me I misread Amenhotep ii instead of 3. Amenhotep 2 would have ended in 1435BC. I have Amenhotep 3 ending around... more
          • JerichoToby Charles Anderson, Wed Jun 13 15:55
            "Why did you ignore the scarabs in your posting." -- Toby "If there are scarabs of pharoahs here, then the 1550BC date turns into 1435BC." -- Rich -- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute. I... more
          • re: JerichoMarianne Luban, Tue Jun 12 12:02
            Rich wrote: "-- We're in agreement, the scarabs are absolute." They are absolute in that they provide a terminus for scarabs among the burials--that terminus being the reign of Amenhotep III.... more
    • Jericho Carbon DatingToby Anderson, Fri Jun 1 19:08
      Greetings, In the Jericho section of Wiki's page on Dr Bryant Wood, it argues against Wood's dating based on Radio Carbon dating which it refers to 8 times. It however totally leaves out, IMO, Wood's ... more
      • Re: Jericho Carbon DatingAnonymous, Tue Jun 5 12:21
        Toby, Here's something you might consider as you evaluate the radiocarbon dates you cite: Manning et al, Fluctuating radiocarbon offsets observed in the southern Levant and implications for... more
  • Click here to receive daily updates