Excavations at Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Other Sites — Archaeology and the Conquest Narratives

Introduction

The narratives of Joshua and Judges describe Israel’s dramatic entry into Canaan. Cities like Jericho, Ai, and Hazor loom large as symbols of conquest, divine judgment, and covenant fulfillment. Yet when archaeologists turn their spades on these sites, the evidence has generated intense debate. Do the archaeological layers confirm a sweeping conquest as described in Joshua? Or do they point to a more complex, gradual process of Israel’s emergence in the land?

This lesson examines the major excavations at Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and related sites. We will explore the archaeological data, the interpretations of leading scholars, and the ongoing debates about how these findings intersect with the biblical text. Along the way, we will consider broader models of Israel’s emergence in Canaan and reflect on the theological significance of archaeology’s sometimes confirming and sometimes challenging voice.

Jericho (Tell es-Sultan)

Biblical Narrative

Joshua 6 describes Jericho as the first city conquered by Israel. The walls famously fell after Israel’s ritual marches, signaling God’s miraculous intervention. Jericho thus became the archetypal conquest story.

Excavations

• John Garstang (1930s): Garstang reported evidence of collapsed walls and destruction dating to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1400 BCE), which he linked to Joshua’s conquest (Garstang, 1931).

• Kathleen Kenyon (1950s): Kenyon’s stratigraphic excavation challenged Garstang’s conclusions. She argued that Jericho was not a fortified city in the Late Bronze Age; its destruction had occurred earlier (c. 1550 BCE), during the Middle Bronze period (Kenyon, 1979).

• Bryant Wood (1990s): Re-examining Kenyon’s pottery and radiocarbon data, Wood suggested that Jericho’s destruction may be dated later, aligning more closely with a 15th-century Exodus-Conquest model (Wood, 1990).

Current Consensus

Most archaeologists agree that Jericho was not a significant city around 1200 BCE, the date often associated with the conquest. Yet the site shows evidence of destruction and abandonment in earlier periods. The debate illustrates how archaeological interpretation depends on pottery sequences, radiocarbon calibration, and chronological models.

Ai (et-Tell)

Biblical Narrative

Joshua 7–8 recounts the defeat and subsequent victory at Ai, a small city near Bethel. Ai’s destruction is portrayed as a pivotal moment in Israel’s conquest.

Excavations

• Excavations at et-Tell, the site traditionally identified as Ai, reveal a fortified city destroyed around 2400 BCE in the Early Bronze Age. After that, it remained largely unoccupied until later Iron Age villages (Callaway, 1993).

• No Late Bronze Age city exists at et-Tell, creating a major problem for correlating the biblical account.

Alternative Theories

Some scholars propose that Ai may correspond to a different site, such as Khirbet el-Maqatir, where Late Bronze occupation has been found (Wood, 2013). Others suggest that the Ai story may reflect theological or etiological concerns rather than strict history, serving to illustrate themes of sin, judgment, and covenant renewal.

Hazor (Tell el-Waqqas / Tel Hazor)

Biblical Narrative

Joshua 11 describes Hazor as “the head of all those kingdoms” (Josh. 11:10). Israel, under Joshua, burned Hazor, destroying its king and population. Judges 4–5 later depicts another confrontation with Hazor during the time of Deborah and Barak.

Excavations

• Yigael Yadin (1950s–60s): Yadin’s excavations revealed Hazor’s massive size (over 200 acres), monumental architecture, and a destruction layer dated to the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 BCE). He identified this destruction with Joshua’s conquest (Yadin, 1975).

• Later Excavations: Renewed digs at Hazor continue to confirm a major destruction event in the 13th century BCE, with evidence of fire and collapsed structures (Ben-Tor, 2009).

Interpretations

Hazor remains one of the strongest archaeological candidates for a conquest event. Yet questions remain: Was it destroyed by Israelites, by internal revolt, or by another invading force such as the Sea Peoples? The biblical and archaeological data align on destruction, but the agent remains debated.

Other Sites

Lachish

While not directly tied to Joshua, Lachish provides important context. Excavations show multiple destruction layers, including one attributed to the late 13th century BCE. This may reflect regional upheaval in the period of Israel’s emergence.

Megiddo and Shechem

These sites illustrate broader shifts in Canaanite urban culture during the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition. Many cities experienced decline or destruction, while small rural settlements increased in the highlands (Finkelstein, 1988). This demographic shift corresponds with Israel’s emergence as a distinct people.

Broader Models of Israel’s Emergence

Conquest Model

The traditional view, based on Joshua, holds that Israel entered Canaan in a swift, divinely guided conquest. Sites like Hazor appear to support this, though Jericho and Ai raise difficulties.

Peaceful Infiltration Model

Proposed by Albrecht Alt, this model suggests Israel emerged gradually as semi-nomadic groups settled in Canaan’s highlands, integrating peacefully and only occasionally clashing with locals (Alt, 1925).

Peasant Revolt Model

Proposed by George Mendenhall and later Norman Gottwald, this model views Israel’s emergence as a social revolution among oppressed Canaanite peasants, who redefined themselves with a new Yahwistic identity (Mendenhall, 1962).

Symbiosis / Mixed Model

Israel likely emerged through a combination of migration, settlement, and conflict. Archaeology reveals destruction at some sites (Hazor), continuity at others, and new highland villages, suggesting a complex process rather than a single event (Dever, 2003).

Theological Reflections

For biblical theology, the archaeological debates do not diminish the central message of Joshua. The book proclaims that God gave Israel the land and established them as His covenant people. Archaeology highlights the historical complexity of that process, reminding us that the text is not a modern chronicle but a theological narrative rooted in real history. The tension between archaeological silence at Jericho or Ai and destruction at Hazor invites humility and deeper reflection on the multifaceted ways God’s purposes unfold in history.

Suggested Assignments

1. Site Report: Write a 7–10 page research paper on one site (Jericho, Ai, or Hazor), summarizing its excavation history, key findings, and scholarly debates. Evaluate how its evidence relates to Joshua’s narrative.

2. Comparative Analysis: Compare two models of Israel’s emergence (Conquest vs. Peaceful Infiltration). Write a 6–8 page essay assessing which model best fits the archaeological and biblical evidence.

3. Classroom Debate: Divide into groups representing maximalist and minimalist positions on the conquest. Use Jericho, Ai, and Hazor as case studies to defend your position.

4. Theological Journal Entry: Reflect on how the archaeological debates affect your understanding of Joshua’s message about God’s faithfulness and Israel’s identity.

Conclusion

Excavations at Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and related sites show that the conquest narratives cannot be read simplistically. Archaeology reveals destruction at some cities, absence of occupation at others, and a broad transformation of Canaanite society in the Late Bronze–Iron Age transition. These findings have fueled competing models of Israel’s emergence, ranging from conquest to infiltration to revolution.

For students of biblical archaeology, the lesson is clear: the Bible’s narratives are rooted in history but shaped by theology. Archaeology neither proves nor disproves faith; it provides context that deepens our understanding of Scripture. Jericho, Ai, and Hazor remind us that God’s work in history is complex, often hidden, and always worthy of careful study.

References

Alt, A. (1925). Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palästina. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.

Ben-Tor, A. (2009). Hazor: Canaanite Metropolis, Israelite City. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Callaway, J. A. (1993). Ai: Excavations at Et-Tell, 1964–1972. London: British Archaeological Reports.

Dever, W. G. (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Finkelstein, I. (1988). The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Garstang, J. (1931). Jericho: City and Necropolis. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Kenyon, K. M. (1979). Archaeology in the Holy Land (4th ed.). New York: Norton.

Mendenhall, G. E. (1962). The Hebrew conquest of Palestine. Biblical Archaeologist, 25(3), 66–87.

Wood, B. G. (1990). Did the Israelites conquer Jericho? A new look at the archaeological evidence. Biblical Archaeology Review, 16(2), 44–58.

Wood, B. G. (2013). Khirbet el-Maqatir: A proposed new location for Ai. Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin, 58, 1–34.

Yadin, Y. (1975). Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible. New York: Random House.