Continue reading Piotr Bienkowski has challenged the results of my analysis of the date of the destruction of the fortified Bronze Age city at Jericho, maintaining that Kathleen Kenyon's date of about 1550 B. Bienkowski begins by making the point that since Cypriote imports from the Late Bronze IIA period (1400-1300 B. E.) were found at Jericho, Kenyon was quite correct in utilizing the absence of these wares from the Late Bronze I (1550-1400 B. There was a protracted time of abandonment between the two periods, resulting in a cultural discontinuity.In the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period a fortified urban center existed at the site, with Area H being a poor domestic quarter.
They use their masterful Introverted Intuition (Ni) to form deep insights into people and situations.
With this intuition they are constantly looking ahead to determine what will be.
Wood's expertise and thorough familiarity with the evidence. The events described in Judges 3 did not enter into my discussion at all.
This article provides some additional data not published in Dr. I dealt with the correspondence that exists between the archaeological findings at Jericho and the Biblical account in Bienkowski's attempt to explain away the evidence for lowering the date of the destruction of Jericho is misguided and void of substance.
Bienkowski then turns to the four types of data which I put forward as evidence for a date of about 1400 B. The other three are merely supportive and are not in and of themselves sufficient to compel a revision of Kenyon's date. Stratified tell material should be given preference over tomb material, rather than the reverse.
Taken together, however, they form a strong case for lowering Kenyon's date.discussion of the ceramic data is somewhat premature, since my detailed study of the pottery of the Middle Bronze-Late Bronze I period at Jericho has not yet been published. Given that the material in Gibeon tomb 30 all dates to the Middle Bronze II period as Bienkowski suggests, the discerning eye will note that the Gibeon example has a more pronounced crimp and therefore should be placed earlier than the Jericho example.In fact, the material culture of the Late Bronze I period is simply a continuation of that of the Middle Bronze period. Bienkowski dismisses the cited Late Bronze I parallels from Ashdod and Hazor by stating that an "attempt to achieve a precise dating by parallels from such a distance is unconvincing." This is a desperate attempt to discount this telling evidence.As a result, many Middle Bronze forms continue into Late Bronze I. The distances to these sites are well within the orbit of itinerant merchants, the primary agents for the diffusion of ceramic wares in antiquity.They use their auxiliary Extraverted Feeling (Fe) to connect with people and understand their needs and emotions.They care deeply about the human race and want to help people by listening, counseling, and emotionally supporting them. There are subtle differences in a number of types, however, and several new forms are introduced. Thus, similar types at these sites should be considered to be contemporary.With careful study of the pottery evidence, therefore, it is possible to distinguish the Late Bronze I period from the terminal phase of the Middle Bronze period. bowls decorated with internal concentric circles (Jericho 5, fig. Not only is the conical bowl with interior concentric circles a major bowl type in the latter half of Late Bronze I levels of Ashdod and Hazor, but it is also found at virtually every site where there are remains from the latter half of Late Bronze I, such as Lachish Fosse Temple I, The parallel in this case is invalid.Bienkowski then suggests that even though the Egyptians or Hyksos were not responsible for the destruction of Jericho, a destruction could have occurred in the mid-16th century as a result of local conflicts between the various Middle Bronze urban centers. He discusses each item in turn, a format which I, too, shall follow. Tomb groups are isolated deposits which cannot be placed in a chronological sequence as can stratified tell deposits.Regardless of the merits or shortcomings of Bienkowski's suggestion, it contributes nothing to the determination of the date of the destruction of Jericho, the major issue at stake. Of these four lines of evidence, the ceramic data are first and foremost. Moreover, tombs were often used for long periods of time; the material in them is mixed and represents a wide chronological spectrum.These are two completely different types of vessels with differing modes of typological development.In the Middle Bronze period, the store jar comparable to our figure 8 had a short neck and a thick heavy rim, many times profiled, which was only slightly everted.