“LARGE CITIES THAT HAVE WALLS UP TO THE SKY”: CANAANITE FORTIFICATIONS IN THE LATE BRONZE I PERIOD

David G. Hansen

One of the most vociferously attacked historical accounts in the Bible is the Old Testament description of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan as recorded in the book of Joshua. According to many critics, the archaeological evidence supports neither the Biblical version nor date of the Conquest events. In a recent analysis of the status of archaeology in contemporary Israel, the Israeli archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog asserted:

Jericho and its Walls as drawn by ABR staff Artist Gene Fackler based on archaeological evidence. Houses were found between the upper and lower city walls, as was apparently the case with Rahab’s house (Jos 2:15). The lower mud brick wall was built on top of a stone retaining wall which held in place a massive earthen embankment which surrounded the tell or mound on which the city was built. Although the mud brick walls collapsed when the Israelites attacked Jericho, the retaining wall remained intact and can be seen at the site yet today.

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel (Watzman 2000).

Two well-known and respected investigators, I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman, have published a book that presents a new version of the origin or ancient Israel (2001). Based on their analysis of archaeological research, they conclude the Old Testament stories are,

creative expressions of a powerful religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age. Although these stories may have been based on certain historical kernels, they primarily reflect the ideology of the worldview of the writers (23).

The New York Times recently printed a favorable review of a newly published Torah and accompanying commentary, Etz Hayim (Massing 2002). The reviewer, approvingly notes that the Torah now explains that Abraham probably never existed, nor did Moses. He further notes that,

the entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying cry for a fledgling nation (15).

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 79

Massing goes on to explain that these propositions are the “product of findings by archaeologists digging is Israel and its environs over the last 25 years” (2002, 15). He concludes his review of the new Torah by stating that archaeologists support the views found in the new book and those views have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis.

Even some Christian evangelical scholars have conceded that the Biblical account of the Conquest is less than accurate. As a result, they are reinterpreting events so that they come into agreement with the supposed “assured” results of archaeological research. One notable example of this is an article authored by Daniel C. Browning Jr. (Ph.D. in Biblical Backgrounds and Archaeology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), in the conservative theological journal, Southwestern Journal of Theology (Browning 1998). Browning’s article, “The Hill Country is Not Enough For Us: Recent Archaeology and the Book of Joshua,” was reviewed by Dr. Bryant Wood (1999a:1) who quoted the following from Browning’s article:

In order to defend—in a credible way—a military invasion [of Canaan], the conservative interpreter must be willing to concede that the book of Joshua is a glorified account of relatively small military encounters with an occasional victory. The interpreter must further accept the possibility of etiological elements and editorial expansion of the story and the likelihood that some elements which composed Israel had their origin with the land itself.

Dr. Wood rhetorically asks, “is the problem with Scripture, or is it with scholars’ interpretations of archaeological science?” The present article is intended to examine a basic question which underlies archaeologists’ examination of Old Testament accounts: that is, were Canaanite cities fortified during the Late Bronze Age IA/B period, the time of the Conquest (the book of Joshua)? You may find it incredible to believe, but the consensus of opinion among those archaeologists who work in the Holy Land is that Canaan did not have fortified cities at the time of the Conquest as reported in the Bible.

Background

The Date of the Conquest

Why are many archaeologists coming to the conclusion that the Biblical stories are not historically accurate? An understanding of archaeological during is necessary in order to investigate that question. Archaeological research operates within the framework of historical timelines. The period of the patriarchs, Exodus and Conquest occurred during a time referred to as the Bronze Age. Most archaeologists believe that the entire Bronze Age covered about two millennia, ca. 31000–1200 BC. The Bronze Age is sometimes referred to as the “Canaanite” Period; but, for purposes of this article, it will be designated as the Bronze Age. To aid in their investigations, archaeologists have further divided the Bronze Age into three sub periods: Early (EB), Middle (MB) and Late (LB). The Conquest narratives, if true, occurred in a time commonly known by most Near Eastern archaeologists as the late Bronze Age (LB). Table I shows the dates for the generally accepted Bronze Age sub periods. This article’s focus will be on the years 1480–1295 BC in Table I, LB IA/B and IIA, which is the time of the Exodus and Conquest according to the Bible.

ABR staff member Gary Byers is dwarfed by Jericho’s Late Bronze revetment wall. Standing to a height of 15 ft, the wall was excavated in the late 1990s by a joint Italian-Palestinian team. It held in place a huge earthen rampart that surrounded the mound upon which Jericho was built. The Israelites marched in front of this wall for seven days and then the mud brick city wall collapsed. Remnants of the base of the lower mud brick wall have been found still in place on top of the stone retaining wall, and piles of fallen mud bricks have been found where Gary Byers is standing and at other locations at the base of the stone retaining wall.

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 80

Table I: Commonly Accepted Dates for Palestinian Archaeological Periods

(Adapted from P.J. Ray [1997:6])

Date (all are BC)

Archaeological Period

3250–2900

Early Bronze Age I (EB I)

2900–2650

Early Bronze Age II (EB II)

2650–2250

Early Bronze Age III (EB III)

2300–1950

Early Bronze Age IV or Middle Bronze Age I

1950–1720

Middle Bronze Age IIA (MB IIA)

1720–1600

Middle Bronze Age IIB (MB IIB)

1600–1480

Middle Bronze Age IIC (MB IIC)

1480–1440

Late Bronze Age IA (LB IA)

1400–1390

Late Bronze Age IB (LB IB)

1390–1295

Late Bronze Age II A (LB IIA)

1295–1175

Late Bronze Age II B (LB IIB)

1175–587

Iron Age

As stated in the introduction to this article, the past 100 years has witnessed the writing of a sizable body of scholarship that argues the Old Testament Conquest accounts are, for the most part, an “editorial expansion” of the original stories or, even worse, outright fabrications. A corollary to this theory is another proposition that archaeological evidence to substantiate a 15th century BC Conquest, the date derived from a literal reading of the Bible, is absent. As a result, many Bible commentaries and books that address the Conquest report that Conquest events, if they occurred at all, were in the 13th or the 12th century BC. Those who accepted a 13th century BC Exodus correlate the name of a city, Rameses (Ex 1:11), to a Pharaoh of the 13th century BC with a similar name.

Two examples will illustrate how some Christian scholars are departing from the Biblical 15th century BC date for the Exodus and Conquest. In the first instance, Browning concluded his article with the statement,

nearly all participants in this discussion now place the emergence [not Conquest!] of Israel—represented by the hill country villages—in the late 13th or early 12th century B.C.E. (1998:26).

Browning’s statement about the date (not to mention the means) blatantly contradicts the Bible. The second example has the evangelical journal Christianity Today approvingly placing the Exodus and Conquest in the 13th century BC. In a 1998 cover story, “Did the Exodus Never Happen?” the writer accepts on the views of James Hoffmeier to asserting that the Exodus occurred in the 13th century BC (Miller 1998). Hoffmeier is an Egyptologist who formerly taught at Wheaton College and is now at Trinity International University. Hoffmeier summarized the prevalent view of academicians regarding the date of the Exodus in his book Israel in Egypt: The Evidence of the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition:

if there is a prevailing view among historians, biblical scholars, and archaeologists, an exodus in the Ramesside era (1279-1213 B.C.) is still favored (1997:126).

But, the Bible places the Exodus and Conquest in the 15th century BC, a time known as the “early” date in some literature as opposed to the “late,” or 13th/12th century BC, date. The Biblical date of the 15th century BC is grounded on at least two texts. 1 Kings 6:1 is the most direct statement in the Bible about the date of the Exodus. It places the event 480 years before Solomon’s fourth regnal year, a time that can be dated with some certainty to 967/6 BC. Knowing this, the date of the Exodus can be mathematically determined as ca. 1447/6 BC (967/6 + 480 = 1447/6). If the Israelite military invasion into the land of Canaan began 40 years after they left Egypt, the date would be ca. 1407/6 BC (1447/6–40 = 1407/6). Thus, the entry into Canaan and the Conquest were in the late 15th century BC, squarely in the first part of the Late Bronze Age, as the LB IB archaeological period.

The second Scripture from which a date for the Conquest can be determined is Judges 11:26. This verse records a historical detail recounted by Jephthah during his negotiations with the king of Ammon (Jgs 11). The Old Testament records that the Israelites occupied Transjordanian territory just prior to their crossing of the Jordan River (Dt 2:26ff.). Later, in Judges 11:26, the Transjordanian Ammonite king laid claim to the Israelite land east of the Jordan River. His argument was that the land had been forcibly, and therefore illegally, taken by the Israelites during the Conquest 300 years earlier. Judge Jephthah’s rebuttal was that Israel had lived in the land for the past “three hundred years, [so] why did you [the king] not recover them [the lands] within that time?” (Jgs 11:26b NASB). Bible historians who accept that Jephthah was an actual person believe he lived around 1100 BC (for example, Malamat 1976:76–77), Adding 300 years to the time of Jephthah (300 + 1000) results in a date for the Conquest of ca. 1400 BC—well into the Late Bronze Age and in general agreement with the date extrapolated from the literal reading of 1 Kings 6:1.

Thus, scholars who believe the Exodus took place in the time of a Pharaoh named Ramesses must subscribe to the “late,” 13th century, non-Biblical date. For scholars who hold to the Biblical date of the 15th century, another Pharaoh must have been the leader in Egypt.

LB I Fortified Cities

The previous introduction was necessary to point out that whether scholars hold to the “late” or “early” date, either date is in the Late Bronze Age. However, those who dismiss the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest accounts point to a major problem with a Conquest occurring in the Late Bronze Age. They argue that there is no archaeological evidence for Canaanite fortified cities in the Late Bronze Age, in spite of the fact that the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua describe Canaanite cities as fortified and walled (e.g., Nm 13:28; Dt 1:28, 3:5, 28:52; Jos 2:15, 6:5, 6:20, 7:5, 8:29, etc.).

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 81

The English word “city” masks how Old Testament Hebrew Intended to differentiate between permanent walled cities and unfortified and unwalled settlements (Frick 1977, Schultz 1980, Birdsall 1997, Wood 1999b: 23; Hansen 2000a: 36–42). For example, in Numbers 13:19 Moses gave specific instructions to the 12 Israelites who had been selected to explore Canaan prior to the Conquest. The NASB translation of this verse makes it clear that Moses wanted strategic intelligence as to which of the settlements were walled cities and which were unprotected town. In addition, Moses clearly wanted to know which of the cities were fortified. The implication of these verses is that in addition to walled cites, Moses wanted the men to determine what other type of fortifications the Israelites might encounter. He used an adjective meaning “fortified,” in conjunction with the word for “city,” to convey that meaning. For practically all of the Old Testament, the Hebrew term for “fortified,” when used in conjunction with the Hebrew term for “city,” designated the largest and most important sites—that is, walled cities that were “fortified” (Oswalt 1980).

When the 12 scouts returned, they verified that Canaan had walled and fortified locations. The “cities are fortified and very large” (Nm 13:28). On several later occasions Moses reiterated that the Israelites would find fortified cities in the land they were to occupy. For example, in Deuteronomy 1:28 Moses reminded the people of the report given by the 12 explorers. He repeated that, “the cities are large and fortified to heaven” (NASB). Later, as the Israelites prepared to invade Canaan, Moses warned them, “You are crossing over the Jordan today to go in and dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, great cities fortified to heaven” (Dt 9:1, NASB). Moses also recalled that the places they had occupied east of the Jordan had been cities “fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides a great many unwalled towns” (Dt 3:3–5, NASB).

The Problem

In spite of clear statements in the Bible that Canaanite cities at the time of Joshua were walled and fortified, most archaeologists believe the excavated evidence has revealed few, or no, Canaanite fortified cities during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1480–1175 BC). If this interpretation of the archaeological record were correct, it would means that, regardless of whether one holds to the 12th/13th (“late”) or 15th century (“early”) BC Conquest scenarios, Canaanite cities at that time were, for the most part, unfortified and the Biblical descriptions are wrong. If this is what archaeologists believe, it is easy to understand why some scholars conclude that the Biblical accounts of the Conquest are flawed. For example, the respected archaeologist, Amihai Mazar, has bluntly stated what many believe and teach:

one of the most amazing features of the Late Bronze Age is the almost total lack of fortifications. At most sites excavated, none have been found, although at some sites the mighty Middle Bronze defenses may have continued in use during the Late Bronze period (1990:243, emphasis added).

Eugene H. Merrill, professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary (left), and two of his students excavating within the 15th century BC fortress at Khirbet el-Maqatir, believed to the Ai of Joshua 7–8.

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 82

Inner fact of the west wall of the Late Bronze I fortress at Khirbet el-Maqatir. Below the meter stick and to the left is the core of the wall. To the right is a cobblestone buttress or terrace foundation. The 3 acre LB I fortress at Khirbet el-Maqatir was surrounded by enormous walls some 4 m (13 ft) thick.

Curiously, LB Egyptian reliefs do show Canaanite cities with crenellated and fortified walls. Rivka Gonen suggested the pictures were simply, “artistic conventions rather than true representations,” since the “archaeological evidence shows that few towns were encircled by walls” in the Late Bronze Age (1992:246, emphasis added). Here is an instance of a highly regarded archaeologist dismissing the factuality of archaeological artifacts because of a dubious theory that purports “archaeological evidence shows that few towns were encircled by walls.” Nadav Na’aman slightly modified Gonan’s view and, more in keeping with Mazar, declared that, “in the Late Bronze Age, cities were either unfortified, or the fortification was no more than a renovation of the Middle Bronze defense system” (1994:233, emphasis added). Paul and Dever introduced a chapter on “Fortifications” in their textbook Biblical Archaeology by asserting that the “Late Bronze [Age] appears to be a period of highly developed cultural life with uninteresting remains of fortifications or none at all” (1974:84, emphasis added).

The alleged absence of archaeological evidence for fortifications at Canaanite Late Bronze I sites clearly contradicts the Bible. However, the acceptance of this belief has caused scholars and students, who might otherwise be disposed to accept the Biblical description of an Israelite military invasion of Canaan, to question the historicity of the entire Exodus and Conquest episode. ABR staff member Gary Byers has summarized where this has led:

Unfortunately, as the majority opinion of modern scholarship, this perspective regularly finds its way into the textbooks used by many conservative Christian colleges and seminaries…[and] many sincere Bible students, desiring to be intellectually honest with the historical and archaeological evidence, find themselves beginning to question the authenticity of all these stories. While not rejecting the accounts themselves, they unfortunately pass along their doubts about the Biblical stories to the students and congregations (1999:2).

For some who, for ideological reasons, do not accept the historicity of the Bible, it is understandable that the seeming inability of archaeologists to establish evidence for the existence of fortified Canaanite cities at the time of the Conquest can be construed as proof that the Bible stories never occurred. For many Christians who want to believe the Bible and the history it represents, report that there is no archaeological evidence for fortified cities in Canaan at the time of the Conquest has caused them to question the historicity of the early books of the Old Testament. If nothing else, the theory that there is little archaeological evidence for walls and fortifications in Canaanite cities has complicated attempts by conservative scholars to harmonize the Biblical account and the archaeological record.

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 83

Investigation of Late Bronze I Locations in Palestine

Research Methodology

To provide a factual basis for testing the archaeological record to see if fortified Canaanite cities really did exist at the time of the Conquest, I examined the published Palestinian archeological evidence for the Late Bronze Age IA/B (ca. 1480–1390 BC; Hansen 2000a; Hansen 2000b). I did so to determine what Late Bronze Age I (LB I) defensive architecture, if any, had actually been found at Palestinian sites with evidence of LB I occupation, To limit the scope of the study, geographic parameters were selected that were similar to those in Numbers 13. In Numbers 13:21–22 and 29, the 12 Israelite men scouted the land for 40 days from Zin in the south, to Rehob in the north (a location near the source of the Jordan River, see Mitchell 1997:1006). The territory they investigated encompassed the Negev, hill country, Hebron and Jebus regions. The east and west limits of their survey were the Mediterranean coast and the banks of the Jordan.

A total of 51 archaeological sites within the geographical parameters of Numbers 13 met the criteria of having archaeological evidence of LB I occupation. After identifying the sites, a thorough review of the literature for each was conducted.

Summary of the Research

Table II summarizes the results of the research. To provide a geographic dimension to the analysts, each site is subjectively placed in one of six geographic “zones.” Based on the research, the sites are classified as fortified, not fortified, or uncertain and, if appropriate, the table provides a general indication of what type of fortification was found. The uncertain designation was used when architectural remnants of fortifications or walls that could possibly be interpreted as LB I were present at a site but the stratigraphic evidence was unclear and the wails or fortifications could, just as well, have been from a different archaeological period.

The research revealed that 27 of the 51 excavated sites (53%) had architectural evidence for fortifications and/or walls in the Late Bronze Age period. Some of the fortifications were impressive; others were modest and represented only small fortresses or walled residences for Egyptian governors. Some of the smaller fortresses, as well as the Egyptian sites whose walls were an interconnection of homes, were built on high mounds or hills. These high mounds would have given a traveler, like the Israelite spies who came upon them in the course of their reconnaissance of Canaan (Nm 13), the impression that they were places “fortified to heaven” (Dt 9:1).

The Data and the Biblical Description of Canaan in LB I

Fortified (27). As reported above, 27 of the 51 sites (53%) were found to have been “fortified” in LB I.

Not Fortified (24). Of the 24 other (“not fortified”) locations, 9 deserve explanation.

Not Fortified—(Cultic (3). Four “not fortified” locations (Tel Kitan. Tel Mevorakh, Shiloh) had evidence of being cultic centers in the LB I period. Shiloh, for example, agrees with the Biblical portrayal of it as a religious site (Jos 18:1, 8–10; 19:51; etc.). Although archaeologists found an impressive Middle Bronze Age defensive wall at Shiloh, the site was not defended by that wall in LB. This, too, agrees with the Biblical description of Shiloh as a “camp” (Jos 18:9, NASB, NIV), rather than a walled location or “city.”

Not Fortified—Rural Villages (3). Another three “not fortified” sites (Tel Ein Zippori, Khirbet Nisya, and Tell el-Wawiyat) were unwalled LB rural villages, completely in accord with the Biblical description of Canaanite cities having a “great many unwalled towns” (Dt 3:5, NASB).

Not Fortified—Egyptian Cities (3). Three other “not fortified” sites presented an unusual problem. These three, Beth-Shean, Lachish, and Jokneam, are described as “cities” in Joshua. Each was under Egyptian control and each had unusual characteristics that could have made it appear to be a walled city “fortified to heaven” to an outsider. Tell Beth-Shean is on an unusually high mound and the LB I level has produced no evidence of walls or fortifications (Mullins 1999). Beth-Shean’s citizens relied on the sheer height of the mound and its steep slope to dissuade attackers. In addition, it has been found that the outer walls of buildings on the crest may have presented the appearance of a defensive wall. Lachish, also on a high hill, was a cultic worship center during LB I. David Ussishkin (1993:899; 1997:318) believes that the LB I buildings on the summit were joined to form a continuous belt of walls which served as a line of fortifications. This arrangement, coupled with the tell’s height, would have presented a menacing appearance to potential aggressors, or to the Israelite spies. The third location, Jokneam, has no evidence of exterior walls, but did have LBI structures on the high steep slopes of the mound, similar to those of Beth- Shean and Lachish. Tell Jokneam’s height, coupled with the walls of buildings built into the sides of the crest, could have appeared as a formidable obstacle to a potential aggressor. Thus these three sites have similar physical settings which could have resembled “cities [that were] fortified and very large” (Nm 13:28).

Uncertain (6). Six sites had evidence of fortifications that could have been dated to the Late Bronze Age. However, for reasons ranging from incomplete excavation reports to serious site erosion that complicated stratigraphic determinations, it could not be stated with certainty that the site was fortified in LB I. Therefore, the six were labeled “uncertain.”

Summary

The above discussion, summarized in Table III, suggests that 9 of the 18 “not fortified” locutions fit the Biblical description of what the Israelites were to find once they entered Canaan. Combining the 27 “fortified” locations with the three agricultural, three cultic, and three Egyptian sites suggests that of the 51 locations known to have been occupied in the Late Bronze Age, 36 (70.6%) of them accord with the Biblical description of the land of Canaan at the time the Bible says the Conquest occurred. Adding the six “uncertain” sites (those with fortifications which could possibly be LB I) increases the number to 42 (82.4%). Therefore, there IS abundant archaeological evidence for not only the presence of fortified Canaanite cities in the 15th century BC, but also of cultic, rural, and unfortified locations, just as the Bible states.

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 84

Table II. Canaanite Archaeological Sites Occupied During the Late Bronze Age

Site Name

Ref #

Location1

Zone2

Status3

Walls

Gates

Glacis/Rampart

Comments

Abu Hawam, Tell

1521.2452

Rampart

Acco, Tel

1585.2585

Rampart

Achzib

1598.2727

Rampart & Glacis

‘Ajjul, Tell el-

0934.0976

Rampart & Fosse

Aphek

143.168

Ashdod

1180.1290

Fosse

Ashkelon

107.119

Batash, Tel

1410.1320

Beit Mirsim, Tell

1415.0960

Beitin

172.148

Rampart

Beth-Shean

1977.2124

Egyptian Ctr

Beth Shemesh

1477.1286

Beth Zur

1590.1108

Dan

2112.2949

Rampart

Dothan

173.202

Far’ah, Tell el- (N)

1823.1882

Glacis & Fosse

Gerisa, Tel

1319.1665

Glacis

Gezer

1425.1407

Hadar, Tell

2112.2507

Halif, Tell

1373.0879

Haror, Tel

0879.1125

Hazor

2032.2691

Fosse

Hefer, Tel

1976.1415

Hesi, Tel el-

1240.1060

Jaffa

162.127

Jemmeh, Tel

097.088

Jericho

1925.1420

Rampart & Glacis

Jokneam, Tel

1604.2289

Egyptian Cir

Keisan, Tell

164.235

Kitan, Tel

2043.2270

Cultic Site

Lachish

1357.1083

Egyptian Cir

Megiddo

1675.2212

Glacis

Mevorakh, Tel

1441.2156

Cultic Site

Michal, Tel

131.174

Rampart

Miqne, Tel

1356.1315

Maqatir, Kh. el-

1738.1469

Mor, Tel

1175.1368

Nagila, Tel

127.101

Nisya, Khirbet

1718.1449

Rural Village

Qashish, Tel

160.232

Rabud, Khirbet

1515.0933

Regev, Tel

158.241

Sera’, Tel

119.088

Shechem

177.179

Shiloh

1775.1626

Cultic Site

Shiqmona

1462.2478

Taanach

171.214

Wawiyat, Tell el-

178.244

Rural Village

Yavnch-Yam

1212.1479

Rampart & Glacis

Zeror, Tel

1476.2038

‘Ein Zippori, Tel

1761.2374

Rural Village

Note:

1= Location: Survey of Israel identification

2= Zone: C (Coastal); S (Shephelah); H (Hill Country); G (Galilee Region); J (Jordan Valley); N (Sinai/Negev)

3= Status in LB 1: F (Fortified); U (Uncertain); N (Not Fortified)

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 85

Application of the Research to the Biblical Period of the Conquest and Conclusions

This article was written to investigate the proposition that during the Late Bronze Age IA/B period (ca. 1480–1390 BC) Canaanite cities were generally unwalled and unfortified. To investigate the question in more depth, Table IV was constructed. Table IV listed 30 of the study’s sites that are known to be a place (actual or assumed) in the book of Joshua. There is general agreement that 22 of the 30 sites (73%) are, in fact, locations mentioned in Joshua; another eight have been tentatively identified. Table IV summarizes how the Bible characterizes each: either as a “city” (which would imply it was a walled location) or by another reference. Seventeen of the 30 sites (56%) have evidence of LB I walls and/or fortifications. This leads to the following findings:

I. Of the 22 LB I sites unquestionably identified as locations in the Book of Joshua,

A. The Book of Joshua, and in one instance Deuteronomy, identify 14 of the 22 as walled (i.e., “city”) and/or fortified. LB I walls and/or fortifications have been located at all 14, a 100% correlation.

B. Six sites do not have evidence of LB I fortifications or walls.

(1) Of these six, the Book of Joshua refers to three as a “city” (i.e., walled): Beth-Shean, Jokneam, Lachish. All three have unique topographic characteristics that could have made them appear as large cities with “walls up to the sky” (Dt 9:1).

(2) The Book of Joshua is silent regarding the defenses at the three remaining sites (Aphek, Ashkelon, Shiloh) although the Bible describes Shiloh as a “camp” (Jos 18:9). Thus, the lack of excavated evidence for LB I walls/fortifications at these three sites corresponds to the Biblical depiction.

C. Evidence for LB I fortifications/walls is uncertain at two LB I Canaanite sites. Of these two, one (Tel Sera=Ziklag) is reported to have been a “city” (i.e. walled) but the book of Joshua is silent regarding the other, Jaffa.

II. Eight of the 30 LB I Canaanite sites have been tentatively identified as places in the book of Joshua. Assuming these identifications are correct, the following observations are to appropriate:

A. Three of the sites have evidence of LB I fortifications and all three (Beitin=Bethel? or Beth Aven?; Maqatir=Ai?; Abu Hawam=Shihor-libnah? or Achshaph? are described in Joshua as fortified and/or walled.

B. Four other sites have not produced evidence for LB I walls and/or fortifications. The book of Joshua described three (Halif=Rimmon? or Hormah?, Qashish=Dabbesheth?, Wawiyat=Neah?) as a “city” (i.e., walled) but is silent regarding the architectural defenses of the other (Hefer=Hepher?).

C. At the remaining site, (Tel Keisan=Achshaph?), walls or fortification evidence is uncertain. The book of Joshua is silent regarding Achshaph’s LB I defenses.

Finally, a comment is in order about the inclusion of Tel Halif and Tel Sera’ in the list of 30. Tel Halif’s Biblical identification is questionable and it most probably was an Egyptian trading post in LB IB (Seger 1997). At Tel Sera’ (= Ziklag), walls and fortifications have been found that might well be LB I, but the stratigraphy is very unclear. Ziklag is mentioned twice in Joshua as a “city.” Including Ziklag (=Tel Sera’) in the final analysis would strengthen the correlation between the mention of “cites” in Joshua and their extant LB I remains. But, pending more conclusive evidence for either the small fortress at Tel Sera’, or confirmation of Tel Halif’s identification, those sites are not included in the list of 22 “known” LB I sites from the Book of Joshua.

Table III: Summary of Sites that Conform to the LB I Biblical Description;
36 of 51 Agree with the Biblical Description of LB I Canaan

Classification

Comment

Number

Sites

Fortified

LBI

See Table I: LB I Fortifications and/or walls

Not Fortified

Rural/Village

Tel Ein Zippori, Khirbet Nisya, Tell el-Wawiyat

Not Fortified

Egyptian Center

Beth-Shean, Lachish, and Jokneam (“great cities walled up to the sky” Dt 9:1)

Not Fortified

Cultic Location

Tel Kitan, Tel Mevorakh, Shiloh

Sub-Total

Uncertain Dating of Fortification

LBI City?

Fortifications and/or walls are present; date unclear

Other Not Fortified

Unclear

Excavator not certain of purpose of LB occupation

Total

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 86

Table IV: LB I Sites Identified with Locations in the Book of Joshua

Site Name

Ref #

Name of Site in Book of Joshua

Reference(s) in Book of Joshua

“City” (‘îr) or fortified in Jos/Dt

Evidence of LBI Fortifications

Comments

19:30 ref to

Abu Hawam, Tel

Shihor-libnath?

19:26

5m wide wall, 1.6m rampart, citadel

Excavator called wall “cyclopean”

________

Achshaph?

11:1; 12:20; 19:25

19:30 ref to 19:25

Achzib

19:29

19:30 ref to 19:29

5m high revetment, Fosse, glacis

Site became a fortified island

Ajjul, Tel el-

Sharuhen

19:6

3m high fosse, rampart, wall

Palace fortress on acropolis

Apehk

Aphek

12:18

LB I purpose unclear

Ashdod

11:22; 13:3; 15:46, 47

15:21

Brick wall, fosse, gate complex

Excavator calls city “strong”

Ashkelon

13:3

Limited LB I

Beitin

Bethel?

8:9–17; 12:16 18:13

18:22

4m walls, glacis

________

Beth-aven?

7:2, 18:12

Beth-Shean

17:11, 16

17:12

On high hill, not Fortified

Beth-Shemesh

19:41; 15:10; 21:16

19:22, 38; 21:16

Wall 2.2-2.4m wide

Beth Zur

15:58

15:59

Wall 2.5m Wide; 5 towers

Wall made of huge stones

Dan

Dan/Laish/ Leshem

19:47

19:48

Rampart around mound

Gezer

10:33; 12:12; 16:3; 16:10; 21:21

21:22

4m wide wall, gate, glacis

Hadar, Tel

A location in the Land of Geshur

12:5; 13:11; 13:13

Implied in Dt 3:5

Wall 2.5-3m wide; 19m wide tower, gate

City in Land of Geshur

Rimmon?

15:32; 19:7

15:32

Halif, Tel

________

Hormah?

12:14; 5:30; 19:4

15:32

Hefer, Tel

Hepher?

12:17; 17:2, 3

Jaffa

Joppa

19:46

Uncertain

Jericho

Chap. 2–7

Chap. 2ff

Revetment wall, mudbrick wall, glacis

Jokneam, Tel

Jokneam

12:22; 19:11; 21:34

21:35

Keisan, Tel

Achshaph?

11:5, 12:20; 19:25

19:30 ref to 19:25

Uncertain

Lachish

10; 12:11; 15:39

15:41

Maqatir Kh. El-

Ai?

Chaps 7–8

8:4ff

2.5m wide wall

Megiddo

12:21; 17:11

17:12 ref to 17:11

Gate, glacis, walls

Miqne, Tel

Ekron

13:3; 15:11, 45–46; 19:43

15:51

Thick-walled fortress

Fortress on acropolis

Qashish, Tel

Dabbesheth?

19:11

19:16 ref to 19:11

Rabud, Kh.

Debir

10:38–9; 12:13; 15:7; 15:15, 17–19; 21:15

21:16 ref to 21:25, 10:39?

4m wide walls

Sera, Tel

Ziklag

15:31; 19:5

19:6; 15:21

uncertain

Palace w/ 2m wide walls on acropolis

Shechem

24:1–28; 17:7; 20:7; 21:21; 24:32

21:21

3.5 to 4m wide walls, gate

Excavator calls walls “cyclopean”

Shiloh

18:1–10; 19:51 21:2; 22:9–12

Referred to as camp in Jos 18:9

Taanach

12:21; 17:11; 21:25

21:25

1.75m wide wall

Wawiyat, Tel el-

Neah?

19:13

19:15 ref to 19:13

Small village

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 87

This study examined the proposition that Late Bronze I Palestinian cities were unwalled and/or unfortified. By accepting that proposition as truth, many archaeologists and Bible historians have argued that if the Israelites invaded Canaan in the LB I as the Bible describes, the Israelites would not have had to contend with walled and/or fortified cities.

However, the depiction of Canaanite cities as unwalled or unfortified contradicts the Biblical picture of urban settlements at the time of the Conquest. Further, Moses repeatedly cautioned the Israelites that they would confront cities during the Conquest that were “large and fortified to heaven” (Dt 1:28; 9:1, NASB). This characterization is further supported by the report of the 12 spies who investigated the land (Nm 13). This study has found archaeological evidence that establishes that fact that Late Bronze I Canaan was similar to the Biblical description. It had both walled and fortified cities, cultic sites, and unwalled villages. Of the 51 Palestinian archaeological sites with evidence of Late Bronze I occupation, at least 27 (53%) were “fortified” with city walls and/or other defensive fortifications.

Deeper analysis of the data revealed that 30 of the 51 sites are locations that are assumed to be in the book of Joshua. Twenty-two of those 30 have been positively identified. The Bible describes 14 of those 22 locations as walled or fortified and, in fact, walls and/or fortifications have been found at all 14, a 100% correlation. The Bible ascribes walls to three more sites. These three are situated on high tells and were Egyptian administrative centers in LB I; however, they might have appeared as cities with “walls up to the sky” (Dt 9:1). The Bible is silent regarding walls/fortifications at the other four and, in fact, LB I walls or fortifications have not been found at those locations.

Conclusion

The archaeological evidence fully supports the Biblical description of Canaan as having many walled and/or fortified cities at the time of the Conquest, as well as also having number of unfortified villages and cultic locations. This study will support evangelical scholars who agree with the Biblical description of the land of Canaan at the time of the Conquest and provide a response to theories and neo-historical accounts of those who seek to alter the Scriptural record.

Bibliography

Birdsall, J.

1997 City. Pp. 207–9 in New Bible Dictionary, third ed., eds. 1, Howard Marshall, Alan R. Millard, James I. Packer and Donald J. Wiseman, Downers Grove IL.: InterVarsity.

Browning, Daniel C., Jr.

1998 The Hill Country is not Enough for Us: Recent Archaeology and the Book of Joshua. Southwestern Journal of Theology 41.1:25–43.

Byers, Gary A.

1999 The Prince of Egypt: What Archaeology Tells Us About Moses. ABR Newsletter 30.2:1–3

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 88

Beth Shean. In the background is the towering tell on which buildings were constructed that could have given the impression of being “fortified to the sky.” Following the Conquest Beth Shean was allotted to the tribe of Manasseh (Jos 17:11), but they were unable to occupy the town because the Canaanites there had iron chariots (Jos 17:12, 16; cf. Jgs 1:2). Excavations have shown that at the time of the Conquest (late 15th century BC) Beth Shean was an Egyptian administrative center, including a large sacred precinct and administrative buildings.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Silberman, Neil A.

2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of its Sacred Text. New York: The Free Press.

Frick, Frank S.

1977 The City in Ancient Israel. Missoula MT: Scholars.

Gonen, Rivka

1992 The Late Bronze Age. Pp. 211–57 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. Amnon Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenberg, from Hebrew. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hansen, David G.

2000a Evidence for Fortifications at Late Bronze I and IIA Locations in Palestine. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Trinity College and Theological Seminary (Newburgh, IN).

2000b “The Cities are Great and Walled Up to Heaven”: Canaanite Fortifications in the Late Bronze I Period. Faith and Mission 18:77–95.

Hoffmeier, James K.

1997 Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Malamat, Abraham

1976 Origins of the Formative period. Pp. 3–87 in A History of the Jewish People, ed. H.H. Ben-Sasson. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Massing, M.

2002 New Torah for Modern Minds. New York Times, March 9: A15-16.

Mazar, Amihai

1990 Archaeology in the Land of the Bible 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday.

Miller, Kevin D.

1998 Did the Exodus Never Happen? Christianity Today, September 7:44–51.

Mitchell, C.M.

1997 Rehob. P. 1006 in New Bible Dictionary, third ed., eds. 1. Howard Marshall, Alan R. Millard, James I. Packer and Donald J. Wiseman. Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity.

Mullins, Robert

1999 Beth Shean Level IX Revisited. Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society, Boston.

Na’aman, Nadav

1994 The Conquest of Canaan. Pp. 218–81 in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeology and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, eds. Israel Finkelstein and NadavNa’aman.Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Oswalt, John N.

1980 270g, Fortification. P. 1:123 in Theological Wordbook of the old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody.

Paul, Shalom M., and Dever, William G.

1974 Biblical Archaeology. New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co.

Ray, Paul G.

1997 Problems of Middle and Late Bronze Age Chronology: Toward a Solution, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 42:1–13.

Schultz, C.

1980 1615, City. Pp. 1:664–65 in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. Chicago: Moody.

Seger, Joe D.

1997 Lahav, Tel. Pp. 553–59 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 3, ed. Eric M. Myers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ussishkin, David

1993 Lachish. Pp. 897–911 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 3, ed. Ephraim Stern. New York: Simon & Schuster.

1997 Lachish. Pp. 313–23 in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 3, ed. Eric M. Myers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Watzman, H.

2000 A Reluctant Israeli Public Grapples with what Scholarship Reveals about the Old Testament’s Version of History. The Chronicle of Higher Education 21, January: A19.

Wood, Bryant G.

1999a Beneath the Surface: An Editorial Comment. Bible and Spade 12:1–3.

1999b The Search for Joshua’s Ai: Excavations at Kh. el-Maqatir. Bible and Spade 12:21–30.

BSpade 16:3 (Summer 2003) p. 89