Bryant G. Wood<\/b><\/p>\n
Map of the region of Bethel and Ai.<\/b><\/p>\n
The Ai of Abraham<\/b><\/p>\n
The first mention of Ai in the Bible is in Genesis 12:8. There it says that Abraham pitched his tent on a hill east of Bethel1 (= El Bireh, Livingston 1998), with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. Pottery from the time of Abraham has been found at El Bireh. It was no doubt an urban center at that time, as it seems to have been throughout its history. Ai, then, would have been another major landmark in the region by which Abraham fixed his location. The word ʿay in Hebrew means \u201cruin\u201d according to every published Hebrew dictionary. When used as the name of the place east of Bethel is always written with the definite article hā. Thus, it was called \u201cthe ruin,\u201d indicating \u201cthe big ruin\u201d or the ruin par excellence<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The only site in the region which would fit this description is et-Tell, about 3 mi northeast of El Bireh. In the Early Bronze Age it was the most important urban center in the central hill country, occupying an area of some 27.5 acres. According to the excavators, et-Tell was destroyed around 2400 BC,2 roughly 300 years before Abraham journeyed into Canaan. The massive ruins of the Early Bronze Age city there are still impressive today. Significantly, the name et-Tell means \u201cthe ruin\u201d in Arabic, matching the Hebrew name hāʿay, \u201cthe ruin.\u201d<\/p>\n
Abraham pitched his tent east of Bethel on a hār, a word which can mean \u201chill,\u201d \u201cmountain,\u201d or \u201chill country\u201d (used interchangeably with gibʿah, \u201chill\u201d or \u201cmountain\u201d).3 There are several hills between El Bireh and et-Tell which could qualify as the place where Abraham camped and built an altar, including Kh. el-Maqatir where the Associates for Biblical Research is excavating. Eusebius said that Abraham\u2019s Ai was <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 22<\/p>\n
Early Bronze Age ruins at et-Tell, the site accepted by most archaeologists as the ancient city of Ai. Wood suggests it was the Ai of Abraham, but not the Ai of Joshua\u2019s time, seven centuries later (1400 BC). The city in Joshua\u2019s time was located 0.6 mi west of et-Tell at Kh. el-Maqatir.<\/b><\/p>\n
in ruin in his day in the early fourth century AD (Klostermann 1966: 4, 27). There was no occupation at et-Tell following the Early Iron Age settlement, which came to an end in ca. 1050 BC.<\/p>\n
The Ai of Joshua<\/b><\/p>\n
When we come to the account of the capture of Ai by the Israelites in Joshua 7\u20138, some 700 years after the reference in Genesis 12:8, we get a much different impression. After the spies reconnoitered the site, they reported back to Joshua, \u201cNot all the people will have to go up against Ai. Send two or three ʾ ālāph\u00eem4 of men to take it and do not weary all the people, for only a few men are there\u201d (Jos 7:3). In Joshua 10:2 we read that \u201cGibeon…was larger than Ai.\u201d Gibeon occupied an area of several acres, so the Ai of Joshua was only a few acres in size. From the information given in the Bible, it is evident that the Ai of Abraham was a prominent landmark site, whereas Joshua\u2019s Ai was a relatively small place.<\/p>\n
It appears that there were two places named Ai in close proximity to one another\u2014one from Abraham\u2019s time and another from Joshua\u2019s time.5 We should therefore expect to find Joshua\u2019s Ai in the vicinity of et-Tell\u2014most likely on the west side, closer to El Bireh. The Israel Antiquities Authority conducted an extensive survey of archaeological sites in the area of et-Tell. One of the places visited by the survey team, Kh. el-Maqatir, had pottery from the time of the Conquest (Finkelstein and Magen 1993: 82, nos. 6\u20139). This, plus the fact the site appeared to meet the Biblical requirements for Joshua\u2019s Ai, prompted the author to apply for an excavation permit and initiate excavations there in 1995.<\/p>\n
Kh. el-Maqatir is about 10 mi north of Jerusalem and only 0.6 mi west of et-Tell. It has been visited by a number of explorers over the years who typically only made note of the ruins of a Byzantine church on the summit of the site. When Edward Robinson visited on May 5, 1838, he recorded the following:<\/p>\n
To this ruin one of the Greek priests at Taiyibeh,6 who had been delving a little into Biblical history, had chosen to give the name of Ai, and we found the same name among some of the people of that village (Robinson 1856: 448).<\/p>\n
Here we have the only known local tradition concerning the location of Ai, and it places Ai at the site of Kh. el-Maqatir. Robinson went on to say, \u201cBut there is not the slightest ground for any such hypothesis. There never was anything here but a church.\u201d Robinson was right. On top of the hill at Kh. el-Maqatir, there are no ruins other than the church. But, if he had walked down the hill 150 yd to the southeast, he would have seen remnants of the walls of a Canaanite fortress the Associates for Biblical Research is now excavating. Could Kh. el-Maqatir be Joshua\u2019s Ai? In order for a site to be a viable candidate, it must meet the topographical (geographical) and archaeological requirements set forth in Scripture.<\/p>\n
Typographical Requirements for Joshua\u2019s Ai<\/b><\/p>\n
Strategically Significant<\/b><\/p>\n
There are two important questions one must ask when attempting to locate Joshua\u2019s Ai. \u201cWhat was the purpose of the fortress of Ai?\u201d and \u201cWhy did Joshua choose this as the first inland site to be conquered?\u201d The answer to these questions lies in a proper understanding of the geopolitics of the central hill country at the time of the Conquest in the Late Bronze I period (1500\u20131400 BC).<\/p>\n
The most powerful city state in the central hill country throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages was Shechem (Wood 1997). It controlled an area from the Jezreel Valley in the north to just north of Jerusalem in the south. Although the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh settled in the territory of Shechem (Jos 16\u201317), the Israelites never campaigned there. What is more, they convened covenant ceremonies, including women and children, at Shechem during the course of the Conquest (Jos 8:30\u201335; 24). It appears that the Israelites were working together with the Shechemites in carrying out the Conquest of Canaan.<\/p>\n
Following the capture of Jericho to gain a foothold in the land, the first major campaign in Canaan was in the south (Jos 10). Before that was carried out, however, the fortress of Ai was captured (Jos 7\u20138). Ai therefore must have been strategically important to the Canaanites7 and Israelites. A logical conclusion is that Ai was the northern border fortress for Jerusalem and the southern city states. It would have provided early warning in case of attack from Shechem to the north. Thus, Ai had to be eliminated in order to prevent information concerning Israelite movements from being communicated to Jerusalem.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 23<\/p>\n
The site of Kh. el-Maqatir occupies a strategic location which fits what one would expect from reading the Biblical account. It overlooks the Wadi el-Gayeh to the north, which appears to have been the border between the southern city states and the city state of Shechem. From Kh. el-Maqatir, there is clear line-of-sight communication with Jerusalem 10 mi to the south. In case of an incursion from the north, a warning immediately could have been relayed to Jerusalem, and from there to the other city states in the southern coalition.8 <\/p>\n
Near Beth-Aven (Jos 7:2)<\/b><\/p>\n
The Hebrew word used to describe the relationship between Ai and Beth-Aven is ʿ im, which means \u201cclose to,\u201d \u201cbeside.\u201d Therefore, the site of Joshua\u2019s Ai must be near a site which can be identified as Beth-Aven. Approximately 1 mi northwest of Kh. el-Maqatir is the site of Beitin. The modern Arabic name of this site matches quite closely the Hebrew name Beth-Aven. Beit and Beth both mean \u201chouse.\u201d Aven (Hebrew ʾāwen) means \u201cwicked,\u201d with the \u201cn\u201d being preserved in the modern Arabic name. Beitin was excavated in 1934, 1954, 1957 and 1960, with remains from the time of the Conquest being found. The Pilgrim of Bordeux placed Beth-Aven 1 Roman mi (= 1.1 English mi) north of Bethel (Wilkinson 1981: 155). The turnoff to Beitin from the main north-south road is at the 13th Roman milestone (from Jerusalem). Since Bethel is at the 12th Roman milestone, the turnoff to Beitin is one Roman mi north of Bethel. The available data thus points to Beitin as the most likely candidate for Beth-Aven.<\/p>\n
East of Bethel (Jos 7:2)<\/b><\/p>\n
According to Joshua 7:2, Ai was located east of Bethel. Kh. el-Maqatir is located about 2 mi east of El Bireh (= Bethel).<\/p>\n
A <\/b>S̆evār\u00eem<\/b> Nearby (Jos 7:5)<\/b><\/p>\n
When the Israelites were defeated the first time they attacked Ai, the Canaanites \u201cchased the Israelites from the city gate as far as the s̆evār\u00eem\u201d (Jos 7:5). It is unclear exactly what is meant by the s̆evār\u00eem. The root of the word means \u201cto break in pieces,\u201d so one possibility is that the s̆evār\u00eem was a stone quarry. An ancient quarry is located 1.5 mi southeast of Kh. el-Maqatir and possibly could be the s̆evār\u00eem of Joshua 7:5.<\/p>\n
The translation of the Hebrew word ʿ\u00eer as \u201ccity\u201d throughout Joshua 8 is misleading. \u201cCity\u201d is a modern term that was unknown in the Biblical world. The distinction made in the Old Testament is between a fortified place (ʿ\u00eer, qiryāh, qeret) and unfortified, dependent, towns and villages (ben\u00f4t, hāsēr\u00eem) (McCown 1962: 633). Thus, ʿ \u00eer denotes a fortified site of any size.<\/p>\n
Kh. el-Maqatir as seen from Jebel Abu Ammar to the north. The valley between here and Kh. el-Maqatir is called Wadi el-Gayeh. In the Bronze Age it probably served as the border between the Shechem and Jerusalem city states. Following the Conquest it was the border between the tribes of Benjamin and Ephraim (Jos 18:12\u201313). The Mount of Olives, 10 mi south, is visible in the distance.<\/b><\/p>\n
A Descent Between Ai and the S<\/b>̆e<\/b>vār\u00eem<\/b> (Jos 7:5)<\/b><\/p>\n
As the Canaanites were pursuing the Israelites, they \u201cstruck them down on the slopes\u201d (Jos 7:5). The elevation at the gate at Kh. el-Maqatir (see below) is approximately 875 m, while at the quarry 1.5 mi to the southeast it is about 700 m. This works out to an average descent of ca. 22 ft per 100 yd, which would qualify as the \u201cslopes\u201d referred to in Joshua 7:5.<\/p>\n
A Militarily Significant Hill to the North (Jos 8:11)<\/b><\/p>\n
When the Israelites returned to Ai after they had dealt with Achan\u2019s sin, \u201cthey set up camp north of Ai, with the valley between them and the city\u201d (Jos 8:11). Being the astute commander that he was, Joshua would have established his command post at a militarily significant location. Just north of Kh. el-Maqatir is a hill called Jebel Abu Ammar. At an elevation of 914 m, it is the highest point in the entire region. From there, Joshua and his generals would have had a commanding view of the theater of operations for the ensuing engagement with Ai.<\/p>\n
Jebel Abu Ammar is on the north side of Wadi el-Gayeh and in Shechemite territory, if our reconstruction is correct. If the Shechemites were cooperating with the Israelites, as we suggest, support could have been provided from Beth-Aven (= Beitin) immediately to the west. Beth-Aven would have been just across the border in Shechemite territory guarding the southern border.<\/p>\n
An Ambush Site on the West (Jos 8:9)<\/b><\/p>\n
Joshua\u2019s strategy for the capture of Ai was to employ an ambush force to enter the fortress once the defenders had been lured out. This force \u201clay in wait between Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai\u201d (Jos 8:9). The Hebrew construction here is very <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 24<\/p>\n
Stone quarry 1.5 mi southeast of Kh. el-Maqatir, possibly the S<\/b>̆e<\/b>vār\u00eem<\/b> of Joshua 7:5. The root of S<\/b>̆e<\/b>vār\u00eem<\/b> means \u201cto break,\u201d possibly suggesting an unusual broken rock formation or an actual quarry. S<\/b>̆e<\/b>vār\u00eem<\/b> <\/b>means \u201cquarries\u201d in modern Hebrew.<\/b><\/p>\n
specific (also in verse 12)\u2014\u201din the midst of,\u201d \u201cbetween.\u201d There must be a location between Bethel and Ai where an ambush force could hide without being detected from either place. The Wadi Sheban between El Bireh and Kh. el-Maqatir fits the bill very nicely. It is a deep, steep-sided, valley with intervening hills that preclude visibility into the valley from either El Bireh or Kh. el-Maqatir. Thus, Kh. el-Maqatir meets this very unique and special requirement.<\/p>\n
In the Vicinity of Bethel (Jos 12:9)<\/b><\/p>\n
Joshua 12:9 suggests that Ai was not far from Bethel. The Hebrew word used to describe the relationship between the two is miṣṣad, usually translated \u201cbeside.\u201d The only other place in the Bible where miṣṣad is used to describe the relationship between two towns is in Joshua 3:16. Here it says that Adam is miṣṣad Zarethan. These two sites are located on the east side of the Jordan valley. Adam is at Damiyeh and Zarethan is located by most scholars at Tell es-Sa\u2019idiyah, some 12 mi to the north.9 Thus miṣṣad need not indicate close proximately. It seems that the meaning of the Hebrew root ṣad in miṣṣad is akin to the Arabic cognate, which means \u201cvicinity,\u201d \u201cin front of\u201d or \u201cin the vicinity of.\u201d10 Kh. el-Maqatir is 2 mi to the east of El Bireh and thus in the vicinity of Bethel.<\/p>\n
Archaeological Requirements for Joshua\u2019s Ai<\/b><\/p>\n
Occupation at the Time of the Conquest<\/b><\/p>\n
An obvious first and necessary requirement for a site to be seriously considered as a possible location for Joshua\u2019s Ai is that there be evidence for occupation at the time of the Conquest. At Kh. el-Maqatir we have found pottery from the Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze I, Iron Age I, Late Hellenistic\/Early Roman and Byzantine periods. Architecture has thus far been found dating to the Late Bronze I, Late Hellenistic\/Early Roman and Byzantine periods. Abundant pottery from the Conquest period (LB I) has been found, including sherds of pithoi, storage jars, small jars, jugs, and cooking pots.<\/p>\n
Smaller than Gibeon (Jos 7:3; 10:2)<\/b><\/p>\n
What impressed the spies most about Ai was its smallness. \u201cOnly a few men are there,\u201d they reported to Joshua (Jos 7:3). In Joshua 10:2 we are told that Ai was smaller than Gibeon. In the Middle Bronze period Gibeon was a medium-size site, between 2.7 and 12.1 acres(Broshi and Gophna 1986: 82), and no doubt would have been about the same size in Joshua\u2019s day. As presently understood, the LB I fortress at Kh. el-Maqatir occupied an area of about 1.7 acres and so is smaller than Gibeon as required by Joshua 10:2.<\/p>\n
Fortified (Jos 7:5; 8:29)<\/b><\/p>\n
Both the gate mentioned in Joshua 7:5 and 8:29, and the fact that Ai is called an ʿ ir, indicate that Ai was a fortified site. At Kh. el-Maqatir abundant evidence has been found that a small fortress existed here in the LB I period. This is a significant discovery\u2014it is the only known fortified site from <\/p>\n
Pottery from the final phase of the Late Bronze I fortress. This small locus of LB I pottery and two slingstones were found in Square Q17 just south of the gate, lying on a paved courtyard or floor. It represents the only in situ pottery thus far found from the end of the period of the LB I fortress. Abundant pottery from the construction phase of the fortress has been recovered, however.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 25<\/p>\n
Illustration 6: Plan of the Late Bronze I fortress at Kh. el-Maqatir. The small size of the enclosure, less than 2 acres in area, is suggested in Joshua 7:3 and 10:2.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 26<\/p>\n
Southeast wall of the Late Bronze I fortress in Square L21, excavated in 1996. It was found beneath a Late Hellenistic (second century BC) wall and is 2.5 m (8 ft) wide.<\/b><\/p>\n
Southwest wall of the Late Bronze I fortress in Square D14. Excavated in 1998, the wall is 2.5 m (8 ft) wide.<\/b><\/p>\n
the time of the Conquest between Jerusalem and Shechem. The LB I phase is badly disturbed due to the robbing out of stones for building in later periods. In addition, the area inside the fortress has been exposed to the elements and subjected to extensive cultivation following the abandonment of the fortress three and a half millennia ago. Only remnants, bits and pieces, of the LB I phase are left today. Enough remains, however, to trace the plan of the fortress.<\/p>\n
Thus far, segments of the southeast, southwest and northwest walls have been found. The southeast and southwest walls are about 8 ft wide, with the width of the northwest wall yet to be determined. They were constructed with outer and inner rows of large stones, and a fill of smaller stones and earth. The larger stones have been largely robbed out, with the exception of a few remnants of foundations. The smaller fill stones were left behind and are strewn across the site today.<\/p>\n
In addition to the walls that have been uncovered, an intriguing find was made on the west side of the site in 1998. Here, on the slope of the hill, is a long terrace wall a meter or so in height. It has thus far been traced for a length of about 30 m (100 ft). Behind the wall is a fill of cobblestones. Although the function of this terrace is presently unclear, it seems most likely that it was related to the fortification system. The Bible speaks of a mill\u00f4 ʾ (\u201cfilling;\u201d 2 Sam 5:9, etc.) in conjunction with fortified centers. At Kh. el-Maqatir it appears that there was a leveling terrace, or mill\u00f4 ʾ, on the west side of the LB I fortress. Since the summit of Kh. el-Maqatir rises to the west, blocking visibility in that direction, perhaps a massive terrace was constructed as a foundation for a high wall or tower. Hopefully, additional excavation in coming seasons will shed light on the purpose of this puzzling construction.<\/p>\n
The most common vessel type from the LB I phase is the pithos, or large jar. That this vessel type is found in abundance is another indicator that there was a fortress at Kh. el-Maqatir in the LB I period. Pithoi were used to store food and liquids. Large numbers would have been required to store the significant quantity of provisions needed for personnel occupying the fortress.<\/p>\n
A Gate on the North Side (Jos 8:11)<\/b><\/p>\n
When the Israelite forces returned for the <\/p>\n
Southern section of the west terrace wall. Discovered in 1998, this enigmatic structure may be an important part of the fortification system on the west side of the Late Bronze I fortress.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 27<\/p>\n
second battle of Ai. Scripture says that Joshua and his army arrived in front of<\/i> the fortress, and they set up their camp north of<\/i> Ai (Jos 8:11). The front of a fortified settlement is naturally the side the gate, or front door, is on. Thus, the Bible indicates that the gate of Ai was located on the north side of the fortress. A gate has been discovered on the north side of the LB I fortress at Kh. el-Maqatir.<\/p>\n
One of the most exciting finds at Kh. el-Maqatir was made when Associates for Biblical Research executive director Gary Byers found a gate socket stone during the first season at the site in September, 1995. It was visible on the surface and Gary\u2019s inquisitive nature led him to investigate the large stone with the hole in it. From that find, we went on to locate the foundation of the west half of the main gate to the LB I fortress. Unfortunately, the stones from the east half of the gate have all been carried away. In addition, a second, smaller, socket stone was discovered as well as an upper, or counter, socket stone, a very rare find.<\/p>\n
Gary Byers, moments after discovering the socket stone from the Late Bronze I gate, September 26, 1995.<\/b><\/p>\n
Excavations around the gate produced several dozen slingstones indicating that a battle took place here in antiquity (Byers 1998). These could have been from the first, abortive, attempt to capture Ai by the Israelites when \u201cthey were routed by the men of Ai\u201d (Jos 7:4). In the second attack Joshua and his contingent lured the men of Ai out of the fortress. Upon receiving Joshua\u2019s signal, the ambush force entered an empty fortress and \u201ccaptured it\u201d (Jos 8:17, 19), presumably without firing a slingstone or hurling a spear.<\/p>\n
Destroyed by Fire (Jos 8:19, 28)<\/b><\/p>\n
After the ambush force gained control of the fortress, they \u201cquickly set it on fire\u201d (Jos 8:19). At Kh. el-Maqatir a few stones have evidence of burning, but no ash deposits have yet been found. If the fortress had been immediately rebuilt, then perhaps an ash layer would have been preserved. However, since the site was left exposed to the elements following the abandonment of the LB I fortress, and also has been subjected to cultivation, the original surfaces associated with the Canaanite fortress are no longer intact. We are hopeful that somewhere inside the fortress we will find a patch of original surface with evidence of a fire still surviving.<\/p>\n
A Ruin Forever (Jos 8:28)<\/b><\/p>\n
Joshua 8:28 tells us that \u201cJoshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day.\u201d11 One would expect, then, that the ruins of the Ai of Joshua would be present at the surface, with no overlying remains from later occupation. That is exactly the situation at Kh. el-Maqatir. With the exception of the southeast wall, the remains of the LB I fortress are visible on the surface. The LB I fortress was abandoned and left exposed to the ravages of time and the local farmers. Today, the LB I fortress at Kh. el-Maqatir is a \u201cheap of ruins, a desolate place.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Pile of Stones in the Gateway (Jos 8:29)<\/b><\/p>\n
Joshua 8:29 describes the fate of the king of Ai. First he was hung on a tree. Then his body was then taken down, cast into \u201cthe entrance of the city gate\u201d and covered with a pile of stones. We did not find the bones of the king of Ai in the gateway at Kh. el-Maqatir, but we did find an unusual number of large stones inside the gate chamber. Outside the gate chamber there were significantly fewer large stones.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s in a Name?<\/b><\/p>\n
The name Kh. el-Maqatir means \u201cruin of Maqatir.\u201d But what does Maqatir mean? Local residents we have questioned do not know. The root of the word is qtr<\/i>, with a preformative m<\/i> which converts the verbal root into a place name. In the Hebrew lexicon, qtr<\/i> means \u201cmake sacrifices smoke,\u201d or \u201csend up sacrifices in smoke.\u201d There is a similar cognate word in Arabic. With the preformative m<\/i>, the name mqtr<\/i> thus means \u201cplace of sacrificial smoke.\u201d<\/p>\n
Smoke played an important role in the capture of Ai. After Joshua lured the Canaanites out of the fortress, God instructed him to give the signal to the ambush force by raising his spear. The ambush force then rushed in and set fire to the fortress (Jos 8:19). When the retreating Israelites saw the smoke from the burning fortress, they turned and attacked the pursuing Canaanites. At the same time, the ambush force came out of the fortress and engaged the Canaanites from the rear.<\/p>\n
Joshua kept his spear in the air, \u201cuntil he had destroyed (ḥāram, offered up to the Lord) all who lived in Ai\u201d (Jos 8:26).<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 28<\/p>\n
Plan of the gate at Kh. el-Maqatir, excavated in 1996. Only the west side of the gate complex was left for archaeologists to uncover. The eastern side was robbed out in antiquity. 1. Upper socket stone of one of the gate posts. 2. Socket stone for the gate. Either the gate post itself, or a stone base for the post, turned within this socket stone. The socket was worn inside indicating considerable usage. 3. second socket stone was found 8. (2.5 m) from the first.<\/b><\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 29<\/p>\n
Excavating the Late Bronze I Gate at Kh. el-Maqatir, 1996. Joshua 8:11 suggests the gate of Ai was on the north side of the city.<\/b><\/p>\n
The smoke rising from the burning fortress was the sign that initiated the offering of the people of Ai as a sacrifice to God. Because of the importance of the smoke in the capture of Ai, it is possible that the ruined site of Ai became known as \u201cthe place of sacrificial smoke,\u201d a name that has survived to modern times, but the meaning of which has been forgotten.<\/p>\n
The Ai of Ezra and Nehemiah<\/b><\/p>\n
Ai is again mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah in the list of exiles who returned from Babylon. Ezra lists the men of Bethel and Ai as numbering 223 (2:28), while Nehemiah gives the number as 123 (7:32). This suggests that there were people living in the area of Ai at the time of the Babylonian captivity (605\u2013587 BC)12 and also after the return (ca. 537 BC).13 The numbers given (223 or 123) represent the men of both Bethel and Ai. Since Bethel was a major urban center at the time of the captivity, its population would have been much larger than that of Ai. The number of men of Ai returning from exile, therefore, would have been minimal.<\/p>\n
The men of Ai could have settled anywhere in the vicinity of et-Tell. Since they were few in number, they would be difficult to locate archaeologically. Remains from this time (Persian Period) have been found at Beitin and Kh. Nisya. Perhaps this is where the men of Ai settled. A few sherds of pottery that may date to the Persian Period also have been found at Kh. el-Maqatir, but this is yet to be confirmed.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/b><\/p>\n
In archaeology, one is seldom 100% sure of anything. Short of discovering an inscription with the name of the site there is no way to be absolutely certain of the identification of a given place. Investigations at Kh. el-Maqatir have shown that the site meets all of the Biblical requirements, making it a strong candidate for the Ai of Joshua.<\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 30<\/p>\n
Bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n
Broshi, M., and Gophna, R.<\/b><\/p>\n
1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlements and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research<\/i> 261: 73\u201390.<\/p>\n
Byers, G.A.<\/b><\/p>\n
1998 To Sling or Not to Sling\u2014That Was Never the Question. Bible and Spade<\/i> 11: 1\u20134.<\/p>\n
Finkelstein, I, and Magen, Y., eds.<\/b><\/p>\n
1993 Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin<\/i>. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.<\/p>\n
Kitchen, K.A.<\/b><\/p>\n
1991 The Chronology of Ancient Egypt. World Archaeology<\/i> 23: 201\u2013208.<\/p>\n
1992 Egypt, History of (Chronology). Pp. 322\u201331 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary<\/i>, Vol. 2, ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Double-day.<\/p>\n
Klostermann, E., ed.<\/b><\/p>\n
1966 Eusebius. Das Onamastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen<\/i>. Leipzig: Hildersheim, reprint of 1904 edition.<\/p>\n
Livingston, D.<\/b><\/p>\n
1998 Locating Biblical Bethel. Bible and Spade<\/i> 11: 77\u201384.<\/p>\n
McCown, C.C.<\/b><\/p>\n
1962 City. Pp. 632\u201338 in The Interpreter\u2019s Dictionary of the Bible<\/i>, ed. G.A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon.<\/p>\n
Mazar, A.<\/b><\/p>\n
1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible<\/i>, New York: Doubleday.<\/p>\n
Robinson, E.<\/b><\/p>\n
1856 Biblical Researches in Palestine<\/i>. Boston: Crocker and Brewster.<\/p>\n
Wilkerson, J.<\/b><\/p>\n
1981 Egeria\u2019s Travels to the Holy Land<\/i>, second ed. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.<\/p>\n
Wood, B. G.<\/b><\/p>\n
1997 The Role of Shechem in the Conquest of Canaan. Pp. 245\u201356 in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea<\/i>, ed. D. Merling, Berrien Springs MI: Institute of Archaeology\/Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University.<\/p>\n
A few of the slingstones found in the vicinity of the gate. About four dozen flint slingstones have been excavated at Kh. el-Maqatir. All the slingstones were worked into their rounded shape, averaging just over 2 in in diameter and 9 oz in weight.<\/b><\/p>\n
Bible and Spade 12:2 (Spring 1999)<\/b><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bryant G. Wood Map of the region of Bethel and Ai. The Ai of Abraham The first mention of Ai in the Bible is in Genesis 12:8. There it says that Abraham pitched his tent on a hill east of Bethel1 (= El Bireh, Livingston 1998), with Bethel on the west and Ai on the … Continue reading “THE
\nSEARCH FOR JOSHUA\u2019S AI: EXCAVATIONS AT KH. EL-MAQATIR”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15256\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}