Dipper juglets in the Late Bronze Age became less elongated than their Middle Bronze counterparts, and had more rounded bottoms, rather than the more pointed bottoms of Middle Bronze dipper juglets. Kenyon’s dipper juglet had a trefoil, pinched mouth, a feature that began in the late LB I and continued into the LB II (Mullins and Yannai 2019, 165) [16].

In summary, the pottery from the tell clearly fits within the LB IB/IIA horizon, and the comparables from nearby tall el-Hammam and Shiloh indicate that Jericho was occupied primarily in the LB IIA period. This aligns with Kenyon’s dating of the dipper juglet from the domestic structure she excavated. Given that City IVc dates to the MB III period, as established above, this Late Bronze Age pottery is to be associated with City V.

Beyond the painted pottery from the tell, Garstang also found distinctively Late Bronze vessels in Tombs 4, 5, and 13 (Figure 4). While constructed in the Middle Bronze Age, they were reused in the Late Bronze Age, indicating the site was occupied during this period. The vessels from these three tombs include distinctly Late Bronze forms, such as monochrome painted biconical amphorae, which were discovered in abundance in Tombs 4 and 5. Amphorae lack Middle Bronze antecedents in the southern Levant, and are usually regarded as a Late Bronze innovation (Mullins and Yannai 2019, 163) [16]. They appear in small, medium, and large sizes, and are often decorated with typical Late Bronze Age patterns above the point of carination. Comparable painted biconical amphorae have been found in an LB IIA tomb in Jerusalem (Mullins and Yannai 2019, Pl. 3.30.6) [16] and in Stratum 6 (LB IIA) at Shiloh (Buhl and Holm-Nielsen 1969, Pl. XXVI, 204; Finkelstein 1993, Fig. 6.36, 14) [26,32]. A larger, one-handled biconical jug was also discovered in Tomb 4. The coarse fabric and sloppy runs in the painted lattice work decoration indicate that it may be a local imitation and most likely dates to the LB IIA. Comparable one-handled biconical jugs were found in an LB IB/IIA context at Tel Batash (Panitz-Cohen, N., Mazar, et al. 2006, Pl 37:11) [33], and in an LB IIA context at Megiddo (Amiran 1969, Pl. 47, 6) [34].

Figure 4: Pottery types from the necropolis of Jericho, excavated by Garstang, along with comparable forms from nearby sites.1. Photo courtesy of Bryan Windle; 2. Image courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society in S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors Vol. 3, from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Israel Exploration Society, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Israel Antiquities Authority, American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem (2019), Pl. 3.30:6; 3. Image courtesy of Tel Aviv University in Finkelstein, I., Bunimovitz, S. and Lederman, Z., 1993, Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 10), Tel Aviv: Fig. 6.36:14.; 4. Image courtesy of the Louvre, CC BY 4.0; 5. Image courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society in S. Gitin (ed.), The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors Vol. 3, from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Israel Exploration Society, W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Israel Antiquities Authority, American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem (2019), Pl. 3.32:2; 6. Image source: Amiran, Ruth. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Israel: Masada Press. Pl. 47:6; 7. Image courtesy of the Louvre, CC BY 4.0; 8. Image courtesy of the Louvre, CC BY 4.0; 9. Image source: Amiran, Ruth. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Israel: Masada Press. Pl. 54:7; 10. Image source: Amiran, Ruth. 1969. Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Israel: Masada Press. Pl. 54:11.

The tombs also contained numerous examples of Base Ring (BR) ware, which is both distinctive and diagnostic. It originated in Cyprus and comes in two forms: BR I ware, which first appeared in the LB I, and BR II ware, which generally dates to the LB II. In the southern Levant, BR I and BR II often occur concurrently, especially in the LB II period (Artzy 2019, 343) [35]. While BR I ware was introduced in the LB I period, most examples derive from LB IIA contexts in the southern Levant; imitation BR II ware also became popular during the LB IIA period (Bienkowsk 1986, 69-70) [21]. In his meticulous study of pottery from Jericho, Bienkowski recorded that Tomb 5 contained seven Cypriot BR I jugs and eight imitation BR II jugs, indicating the tomb was likely used in the LB II period (Bienkoski 1986, 69) [21]. While Garstang dated most of this tomb pottery to the LB I phase, Kenyon (1957, 261) [31]. believed it dated to the LB IIA period, writing that the tombs “were reused between about 1400 BCE and c. 1350–1325 B.C.” According to Nigro (2023, 607) [2], Tomb 5 contained vessels datable as early as 1450–1400 BCE, while Tombs 4 and 13 yielded vessels datable to 1375–1275 BCE. Thus, the pottery assemblage from Tombs 4, 5, and 13 indicates Jericho City V was occupied beginning in the mid-to-late fifteenth century BCE and into the fourteenth century BCE.

Similarly, the scarabs discovered in the necropolis of Jericho indicate the site was occupied during the LB IB/IIA horizon, associating them with City V. Garstang found scarabs of Thutmose III and Hatshepsut in Tomb 5 at level d-e, which he dated to the LB I (Garstang 1933, 27) [36]. A second scarab of Thutmose III derived from Tomb 11 dating from the Iron I period (Nigro 2013, 6) [37]. In Tomb 4, Garstang (1933, 22) [36] excavated two scarabs of Amenhotep III, the latest in the series of scarabs (Figure 5). Finding scarabs in funerary contexts is unsurprising as most scarabs from Late Bronze Age contexts in Canaan come from tombs where they were placed as burial gifts (Ben-Tor 2011, 204) [38]. Pharaohs like Thutmose III and Amenhotep III were popular and revered long after they died. Consequently, their scarabs were copied and collected for many years and are therefore not helpful in determining a terminus date, unless they are found in a stratum dating to the reign of said pharaoh. This was the case with the scarabs of Amenhotep III, which were discovered while sifting material from above the MB II level d, in the later material of the upper levels (Garstang 1933 23) [36]. Garstang (1933, 27) dated this level to the LB I, but more recent analysis dates this to the LB IIA based on the pottery associated with that level. Given that Amenhotep III reigned in the LB IIA period, and his scarabs came from an LB IIA context, the scarab can be used to date the occupation of Jericho to the LB IIA period.

Figure 5: The sequence of scarabs excavated by Garstang in the necropolis indicate the site was occupied from the LB IB period into the LB IIA period. The scarabs are as follows: 1. Scarab of Thutmose III from Tomb 5 (Photo courtesy of Gary Urie); 2. Scarab of Hatshepsut from Tomb 5 (Photo courtesy of Gary Urie); and 3. Scarab of Amenhotep III from Tomb 4 (Photo courtesy of Associates for Biblical Research).

Hatshepsut’s scarab is also helpful for dating. Unlike popular pharaohs, like Thutmose III and Amenhotep III, Hatshepsut was despised, and her name was systematically erased from inscriptions in Egypt in antiquity (Tyldesley 1996, 114–115) [39]. Her scarabs are rare because they were not copied or kept as amulets. This likely makes the Hatshepsut scarab a good chronological indicator, as noted by Wood (1990b, 49) [15]. Thus, Hatshepsut’s scarab would imply some occupational evidence in the LB IB. Depending on whether one uses the high chronology or the low chronology, the sequence of Late Bronze Age scarabs discovered in the tombs at Jericho is as follows: Hatshepsut ca. 1504–1484 BCE, Thutmose III ca. 1504–1450 BCE, Amenhotep III ca. 1391–1354 BCE (Aling 2014, 15–16) [40] or Hatshepsut ca. 1473–1458 BCE, Thutmose III ca. 1479–1425 BCE, Amenhotep III ca. 1390–1352 BCE (Shaw 2003, 485) [41]. The scarab of Amenhotep III is vital to establishing a terminus ante quem for City V. Regardless of which Egyptian chronology one prefers, the series of scarabs indicates occupation at Jericho during the LB IB period into the LB IIA period.

In addition, during his excavations on the eastern side of the tell, just outside of the Middle Building, Garstang discovered a single cuneiform tablet that measured 5 cm × 4 cm. He described it as “most similar to the Tell el-Amarna tablets” and estimated that it most likely dated to the fourteenth century BCE (Garstang 1934, 116, 117) [22]. Nigro has variously dated Garstang’s tablet to the fourteenth century (Nigro 2020, 202) and the fifteenth century (Nigro 2024, 58) [7]. It is most accurate to simply date it to the LB IB/IIA horizon. The tablet was significantly damaged, and only a handful of signs are discernible, not enough to translate anything meaningful with certainty. One partial translation reads, “…older? S[o]n of Ta[g]atuka…” (Horowitz and Oshima 2006, 96) [42]. Even though the inscription cannot be meaningfully read, there are potentially important inferences that can be drawn from its discovery. First, it may imply that there was an archive during the Amarna period of the late fifteenth or fourteenth century BCE. Secondly, it may imply that Jericho was a city-state under Egyptian hegemony at this time. Nigro (2020, 202) [7] summarizes: “The discovery by Garstang of an administrative tablet dating from the same [Amarna] period…is a substantial piece of evidence in favor of the existence of a palace and a city during the fourteenth century BCE.”

Evidence for Late Bronze Fortification of City V

The nature of the Late Bronze fortification system of Jericho has been a matter of confusion and debate. Sellin and Watzinger (1913, 15) [20] labeled their fourth stratum Israelitische, believing it to be the city the Israelites lived in. Thus, they referred to the so-called “Great revetment wall” that they traced around almost three-quarters of the city as “Israelitische Boschüngsmauer” when, in fact, it belonged to the Middle Bronze Canaanite city (Burke 2008, 281) [43] Garstang believed he found the remains of the Late Bronze walls, but they were constructed in the Early Bronze Age (Kenyon 1957, 181; Kenyon and Holland 1981, 2) [6,30,31]. Kenyon (1967, 275) never produced a site-wide stratigraphy for Jericho, but suggested that the actual walls of City IVc, which Garstang believed belonged to the final Canaanite city, were destroyed near the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Some scholars, such as Bryant Wood (1990a, 50) [10], have argued that the fortification walls of City IVc were actually constructed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, but fell in the LB I period, and that Kenyon misdated that stratum. Bienkowski, on the other hand, has argued that Late Bronze Jericho was unfortified, citing the lack of physical evidence and the widely held belief that cities in the Late Bronze Age were unfortified (Bienkowski 1986, 124) [21]⁶. In short, the nature of the Late Bronze fortification system at Jericho has been confusing and contradictory.

Nigro has harmonized the findings of the previous excavations and clarified the phases of the fortifications. Their new synthesis explains many of the discrepancies that existed between the results of the previous excavations (Burke 2008, 275) [43]. They clarified the fortifications of the Bronze Age city, particularly those belonging to the Middle Bronze Age. According to Nigro (2020, 1996) [7].

Four superimposed fortifications protected the MB city: a solid mudbrick wall with rectangular towers in MB I (1950–1800 BCE), two successive earthen ramparts with a limestone revetment crowned by a mudbrick wall in MB II (1800–1650 BCE), and a rubble rampart supported by triangular terrace-walls and a Cyclopean Wall at its foot in MB III (1650–1550 BCE).

Fiaccavento and Gallo (2020, 241) [44] note that the rampart protecting the MB III city was constructed over the remains of the MB II lower city at the southern end of the tell:

The area of the city was reduced in size, and part of the southern lower town was razed for the construction of a massive rubble rampart sustained by a huge retaining wall set within a foundation trench at its foot and a series of terrace walls on the slope and covered by a superficial revetment of crushed limestone.

Thus, during the final phase of City IVc in the MB III period, the rubble rampart ran from the base of the tell, up over the Cyclopean wall, which was buried and unseen, continuing up the tell to the mudbrick wall.

⁶. Bienkowski cites a study by Rivka Gonen showing that only eight out of seventy-six known Late Bronze settlements were fortified as evidence that Jericho was likely unfortified. Gonen (1984, 70) explained this as “an outcome of the Egyptian policy in Canaan, intended to weaken the power of the semi-independent city-states and to prevent uprisings and revolt.” More recently, however, Abigail Leavitt (2025, 140) conducted a survey analyzing Late Bronze II sites in the central hill country, the area the Israelites initially settled during the conquest, and discovered that 40.3% were fortified, urban sites, 6.0% were cultic sites, 3.0% were enclosures, 22.4% were cemeteries, 19.4% were small ruins, 6.0% were medium ruins, and 3.0% were large ruins. She concluded that fortified, urban sites were by far the most common in the central hill country in the Late Bronze Age period. Similarly, David Hansen (2000, 184–185) completed a survey of thirty Late Bronze sites mentioned in the book of Joshua, nineteen of which are described in the biblical text as being fortified. Excavations have revealed evidence of fortifications (ie. mudbrick walls, revetment walls, ramparts, and/or gates,) at 84%, or sixteen out of nineteen of these sites.

After the final Middle Bronze city (City IVc) was destroyed, it lay abandoned for at least a century before it was again resettled. Nigro (2023, 600) [2] believes Jericho City V was established ca. 1450 BCE, while Fiaccavento and Gallo (2020, 240) [44] believe it was closer to 1400 BCE. The citizens of Late Bronze Jericho reused the remains of the MB III fortifications, adding a new mudbrick wall on top of the surviving crest of the Cyclopean Wall (Nigro 2020, 202, Figure 6) [7]. Interestingly, this is precisely what Kenyon had suggested (1957, 262). It is also what Yigal Yadin (1982, 22) [45] noted: “In many cases the Late Bronze Age people did not actually build new fortifications but, rather, reused Middle Bronze fortifications, strengthening them where necessary. Interpreters often overlook this fact.”

Figure 6: The remains of the MB III Cyclopean wall (repurposed in the Late Bronze Age) on the southern end of the tell. Nigro’s team excavated a portion of this wall in Area A. Photo courtesy of Bryan Windle.

Remains of Late Bronze mudbrick walls atop the MB III Cyclopean wall have been identified by each of the excavation teams at Jericho, even if they were not always recognized as such (Figure 7). In his most recent article on Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, Nigro (2023, 601–605) [2] has identified the remains of the Late Bronze fortifications in photos from each of the previous excavation teams’ reports. For example, he notes that Sellin and Watzinger identified the mudbrick wall overlaying the MB III Cyclopean wall on the northern end of the tell and east of the spring, but they misidentified it as Israelite and dated it to the Iron Age. The caption accompanying the photo reads: “The LB II fortification wall on top of the MB III Cyclopean wall excavated by the Austro-German Expedition (after Sellin-Watzinger 1913, pl. 10)” (Nigro 2023, 602) [2,20].

Figure 7: The remains of a few courses of the mudbrick walls atop the Cyclopean Wall on the northern end of the tell can be seen in this photo from Garstang’s excavations. Nigro identified these mudbricks as the remains of the Late Bronze fortification system of Sultan V (2020, 202; 2023, 601). Photo courtesy of the PEF. Arrow added by Bryan Windle. After Nigro 2020, 2023.

Garstang correctly identified the Late Bronze mudbrick superstructure atop the MB III retaining wall in Trench d-d, Square C6, D6, and E6 (Garstang 1930, Pl. VI) [46], even though he misidentified the double city wall, suggesting it was Late Bronze when it really belonged to the Early Bronze city. In a photo from Garstang’s dig, several remaining courses of mudbricks can be seen atop the Cyclopean Wall on the northern slope of the tell. Nigro has captioned this photo: “LB I–II mudbrick wall on top of Cyclopean Wall” (Nigro 2020, 202) [7]. Kenyon also found remains of the LB Mudbrick Wall in Trench I (west), Trench II (north), and Trench III (south). Photos of the remains of the LB I-II mudbrick walls are included in her plates (Kenyon and Holland 1981, pls 110a, 272c) [29]. While Kenyon identified the remains of this wall as having been part of the Middle Bronze city, Nigro (2023,603, 605) now believes these were the remains of the Late Bronze walls of City V.

The remains of mudbrick walls atop the Middle Bronze Cyclopean Wall discovered by previous excavations resemble the remains discovered by the Italian-Palestinian team in Area A on the southern slope of the tell. Nigro (2023, 605)[2] writes,

“The LB II wall was 2m wide and it was erected moving back 20–30 cm from the front edge of the Cyclopean Wall. The whole extension of the fortification wall should be of ca. 850 m, as suggested by the analysis of the field reports published by the Austro-German and the two British Expeditions; the occupied area of the LB II city, thus, could be around 4.5 hectares .”

Using the well-known 1:3 ratio of estimating an ancient wall’s height given the width of the base, the Late Bronze wall at Jericho stood to a maximum height of 6m (19 ft), taking the fragile nature of mudbricks into consideration (Leen Ritmeyer 2025, Personal Communication).

Evidence for the destruction of City V

Jericho City V was fortified in the LB IB/IIA period, and if Nigro is correct, traces of these fortifications were discovered by each of the previous excavation teams. In describing the Late Bronze fortifications of City V, Nigro (2023, 605) [2] writes, “The LB mudbrick wall was recognized by Kenyon in the trenches she excavated at the western (Trench I), northern (Trench II) and southern (Trench III) sides of the tell.” He footnotes Kenyon’s excavation report as follows: “Kenyon 1981, 110, 169, 219, Pls 109a-110a, 125b, 255b, 272c” (2023, 605) [1,30]. In Trench I, Kenyon noted the revetment wall with mudbrick remains atop in Stage XLIII, Phase lxi and fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment in Stage XLIV, Phase lxiv. Her complete description reads as follows:

Above the fill associated with the kerb wall KE, during which the final M.B. bank remained in use, was a series of tip lines against the face of the revetment. The first was a heavy fill of fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment. These probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank, of which the foundations were found in Site A (p. 375). If, however, the conclusion that the brickwork above the revetment (see above) was not a facing to the bank but an actual wall, they could have come from this. (Kenyon 1981, 110) [30].

The fallen mudbricks in Trench I from Stage XLIV, Phase lxiv of Trench I can be clearly seen in the cross-section diagram published in Kenyon’s final excavation report (Kenyon 1981, Pl 236; Figure 8) [30]. To be clear, Kenyon dated these walls to the Middle Bronze Age; Nigro (2023, 605) [2] has redated them to the Late Bronze Age, associating them with City V, not City IVc as Kenyon did. More specifically, Nigro (2025, 242) [24] dates the destruction of these walls to the latter half of the fourteenth century.

Figure 8: A cross-section of Trench I on the western side of the tell. It depicts a layer of collapsed mudbricks from Stage XLIV, Phase lxiv, labeled “FALLEN RED MUDBRICKS” (shaded red). These mudbricks would have once stood as a defensive wall atop the MB III Cyclopean Wall. Nigro (2023, 605) [2] identifies these bricks as the collapsed remains of the mudbrick wall from City V. Image: Bryan Windle, after Kenyon 1981, Pl 236 [30].

Should this collapsed mudbrick wall be associated with the Middle Bronze City IVc as Kenyon posited or the LB City V, as Nigro argues? As previously stated, the MB III Cyclopean wall was unseen in the Middle Bronze Age, as it was buried, and its purpose was to support the monumental rubble embankment of the rampart and prevent erosion (Fiaccavento and Gallo 2020, 240) [44]. The MB III mudbrick wall was not constructed directly atop the Cyclopean wall, but was located further up the tell at the top of the rampart. In contrast, the Late Bronze fortification wall was placed directly atop the crest of the Cyclopean wall (Figure 9). Kenyon’s excavations revealed that the fallen red mudbricks her team discovered piled to the top of the Cyclopean wall were from a stage (Stage XLIV) that immediately followed the one (Stage XLIII) where the mudbricks were constructed atop the revetment wall (Kenyon and Holland 1981, 110) [30]. While she dated this to the Middle Bronze Age, it matches what is now known about the Late Bronze fortification system, not that of the MB III period. Fiaccavento and Gallo (2020, 241) [44] do note that the MB III Cyclopean wall was “capped with a mudbrick wall…to regularize its top. The Cyclopean Wall was completely buried by the rubble filling of the rampart, so it was clearly not intended to be seen.” However, the few courses of mudbrick used to level the top of the Cyclopean wall before it was covered by the rubble rampart would not have produced the volume of bricks Kenyon discovered at the base of the revetment. Thus, the fallen mudbricks discovered by Kenyon belong to the Late Bronze mudbrick superstructure that once stood atop the Cyclopean wall and should be associated with City V.

Figure 9: A comparison of the fortification system of City IVc (MB III) and City V (LB I–II) based on the latest research from the Italian-Palestinian team. The mudbrick wall that collapsed beneath the Cyclopean Wall belongs to City V, as this was the only time the wall stood atop the Cyclopean Wall. The City IVc fortification system consisted of a mudbrick wall farther up the tell and Cyclopean Wall was buried at that time. Image: Bryan Windle.

If these mudbricks are the remains of the walls that fell in the Late Bronze Age, where are the mudbricks from the earlier Middle Bronze fortification wall? Since Jericho City IVc was abandoned for a period of 100–150 years after its destruction, many of the mudbricks likely disappeared through erosion. It is also possible that the LB inhabitants reused the stable mudbricks and remade new ones from the unstable ones when constructing the fortification wall of City V (Scott Stripling 2024, Personal Communication) [47]. For example, Lorenzon et al. (2023) [48] note the reuse of mudbricks at ancient Artaxata in Armenia where mudbricks were taken from previous structures, “broken down and remixed with additional water and temper to mold new bricks…This type of intensive recycling can still be considered reuse with the caveat that it is incredibly challenging to trace and identify in the archaeological record.” Recycling of old mudbricks leads to consistency in mudbrick composition between time periods (Rosenberg et al. 2020) [49], which can make dating difficult. Further, at Megiddo and Pela, excavators found that mortar was made from recycled occupation material (Homsher 2012) [50]. Thus, the mudbricks from the MB III fortification wall likely disappeared through erosion and/or were recycled for the Late Bronze fortifications.

While the well-known destruction of City IVc dates to the MB III period, evidence of Late Bronze destruction was discovered by Kenyon in a house in Area H on Spring Hill. The final excavation report lists the different phases of stratum as follows: Phase H XIV. liv (new building), liv a (occupation on floor and in bin), livlv (destruction), lv (additional walls in Square H II), lvi (Fill post destruction of lv), lvii (Pits dug into phases liv and lv), (Kenyon 1981, 371) [30]. She found evidence of destruction in phase liv-lv, although she provided no specifics. Kenyon (1957, 262) [31] dated this Late Bronze house and its destruction to the third quarter of the fourteenth century. However, Kenyon later revised her dating of the Late Bronze occupation at Jericho by shifting it half a century earlier, as she did with the Middle Building (Bienkowski 1986, 114) [21]. If this is applied to her dating of the Late Bronze house she excavated on Spring Hill, it means that it was destroyed in the first quarter of the fourteenth century.

There is also evidence of the destruction of City V by fire in the Late Bronze Age. Garstang’s excavations revealed evidence of destruction dating to the Late Bronze Age outside and at the base of the MB III Cyclopean Wall. In his section drawing for the north end of the tell along Line N-X in Squares C6, D6, and E6, he noted an “outer layer of burnt debris” which he earlier described as a destruction layer dating to the middle of the Late Bronze Age (Garstang 1930, 132, Pl VI) [46]. As Nigro (2023, 602) [2] noted, while Garstang misdated the double brick walls further north, which were actually Early Bronze walls, he did correctly note the remains of the Late Bronze mudbrick walls atop the MB III Cyclopean wall. Thus, the burnt destruction layer identified by Garstang at the base of the Cyclopean wall correctly dates to roughly the middle of the Late Bronze Age.

In his 2021 ASOR presentation, Nigro (2021, ASOR Presentation Slide 7) [51] noted further evidence of destruction of the City V by fire: “The Late Bronze ended in some kind of conflagration…The Late Bronze Age ends in a fierce destruction, which is, however, not clearly documented, as it was excavated by the first two excavations in a non-reconstruct able way.” Nigro has not yet definitively offered a date for this destruction. He has acknowledged that a drought of archaeological evidence in the “last century of the Late Bronze Age [ie. the thirteenth century BCE], during the Ramesside reign of Egypt” has been interpreted as abandonment of the site (Nigro 2019, 150) [3]. This implies that the destruction of the Late Bronze Jericho by fire occurred in the fourteenth century BCE. This drought of archaeological evidence at Jericho in the thirteenth century BCE has also been noted by Garstang (Garstang and Garstang 1948, 126–128) and Kenyon (Kenyon 1957, 262–263) [4,31]. While a specific date has not been determined, the destruction by fire of City V likely occurred in the fourteenth century.

The evidence presented above indicates that Sultan V, not Sultan IVc represents the final Canaanite city at Jericho. It is natural to ask who or what is responsible for the destruction of Jericho City V in the fourteenth century BCE? Nigro (2025, 242) [24] attributes the destruction of the walls to a powerful earthquake. While this could explain the collapsed mudbrick fortification walls, it would not necessarily explain the destruction by fire near the city walls unearthed by Garstang.

Perhaps the city was destroyed by an enemy. The vassal correspondence in the Amarna archive, which dates to the middle of the fourteenth century BCE contains numerous references to Canaanite city-states attacking each other. Canaan was under Egyptian hegemony during this period, and the rulers of the various city-states wrote letters to the Egyptian king with numerous requests and complaints. For example, in EA 290, ʿAbdi-Ḫeba, the ruler of Jerusalem, informs Pharaoh that Milkilu of Gezer and Shuwardata of Gath “assembled the troops of the city of Gezer, the troops of the city of Gath and the troops of the city of Qilti (and) they seized the town of Rubbôte” (Rainey 2015, 1125) [52]. It is plausible that a rival city-state, or coalition of city-states, similarly attacked Jericho around the same time.

The Amarna archive also contains references to an enigmatic group known as the ʿapîru or ḫa-bi-ru. The ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru are mentioned in other ancient texts, from the UR III period to the 20th Egyptian Dynasty (roughly 800 years), and the term is primarily a sociological designation for “marauding nomads” (Collins and Holden, 2019, 126) [53]. While an earlier generation of scholars tried to make an etymological link between the word ḫa-bi-ru and the term Hebrews, the term ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru is not usually used as an ethnic designation. Still, there are striking similarities between the ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru described in letters from the rulers of city-states in the central highlands, and the biblical conquest narratives which occurred in the same area. For example, letters from Milkilu, the ruler of Gezer (EA 271), ʿAbdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem (EA 286), Biridiya, the ruler of Megiddo (EA 243), contain details of attacks by the ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru, including the coalition of city-states in defense, the loss of territory, the inability of local rulers to maintain control over outlying settlements, and the erosion of Egyptian control. The Israelites of the conquest narratives would almost certainly have been seen as ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru by the local rulers of the Canaanite city-states. The Amarna texts provide a valuable contemporary witness to the kinds of social upheaval that led to the emergence of new populations in the highlands during the Late Bronze Age.

Interestingly, the archaeological evidence for the destruction of Jericho aligns with the chronology of the conquest narrative and the dating of the Amarna letters. While many scholars place the composition of the biblical books much later than the events they describe, one cannot ignore the fact that the literal internal chronological data places the destruction of Jericho within the timeframe that the archaeological evidence does, if one adopts and early-date view of the conquest. Scholars generally advocate one of two dates for the Israelite conquest: an early date in the fifteenth– fourteenth centuries BCE or a late date in the thirteenth century BCE, depending largely on whether they interpret the chronological data in passages such as 1 Kings 6:1 literally or symbolically. This present author adopts an early date position, albeit with an important qualification. Unlike typical early-date advocates, the author takes seriously the well-known textual variant in 1 Kgs 6:1, which reads “480th year” in the Masoretic Text (MT), but “440th year” in the Septuagint (LXX). Interpreted literally, these readings place the beginning of the conquest at approximately 1406 BCE and 1366 BCE, respectively. In light of the acknowledged ±20-year margin of error in Egyptian chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Kitchen 1991, 204) [54] to which the different phases of the Late Bronze Age are connected (Amiran 1969, 24; Mullins and Yannai 2019, 151) [34,16], together with the imprecision inherent in current archaeological dating methods such as ceramic typology and carbon dating, this author advocates a chronological-window approach to the textual evidence. Specifically, this author proposes a conquest window of 1426–1346 BCE, representing a ±20-year margin on either side of the MT and LXX dates and corresponding broadly to the LB IB/IIA horizon.

The archaeological evidence for the destruction of Stratum V fits within this chronological window. Nigro dates the destruction of the walls to the second half of the fourteenth century BCE. Similarly, Kenyon dated the destruction of the Canaanite house she excavated to the fourteenth century BCE. Further, she accepted the general historicity of the destruction of Jericho within the context of the conquest narratives, writing “All the canons of historical criticism demand that we accept the main facts of the story of the conquest of Jericho as authentic, for it was obviously an event of great importance in the ultimate dominance of the Israelites in Palestine, and the wealth of detail makes it clear that it was a faithful…record” (Kenyon 1957, 258) [31]⁷. Jericho City V was destroyed during the mid-to-late fourteenth century BCE, at which time ʿapîru/ḫa-bi-ru are known to have been attacking Canaanite city-states, and close to the time the only ancient text describing the fall of the city places its destruction.

This study uses ceramic typology, comparative assemblages from nearby sites, radiocarbon dating, glyptic evidence, architectural remains, and stratigraphic analysis of the Late Bronze fortifications of Jericho to demonstrate that City V, not City IVc represents the final Canaanite occupation of the site. Moreover, archaeological indicators place the destruction of City V sometime in the fourteenth century BCE; several plausible causes were discussed.

The latest excavations from Nigro’s team shed light on Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. After City IVc was destroyed in the MB III period, the site lay abandoned for close to a century. Sometime late in the fifteenth century BCE, Jericho was rebuilt as a fortified city, reusing the fortifications from the Middle Bronze City IVc. Jericho City V was a modest city of approximately 11 acres (4.5 ha), whose fortification walls stood atop the MB III Cyclopean Wall. The exposed Cyclopean wall stood at least 15 feet tall, with a mudbrick superstructure rising an additional 19 feet above it. According to Nigro (2016, 16) [9], Garstang’s discovery of a cuneiform tablet indicates this city “had a political role, a palace, a ruler, and even an archive.” This is consistent with what is known of other Canaanite city-states during this period from the Amarna archive, as well as with what is known about Jericho from the biblical conquest narratives.

^7. The author agrees with this statement.

1. Kennedy Titus (2023) The Bronze Age Destruction of Jericho, Archaeology, and the Book of Joshua. Religions 14(6): 796.
2. Nigro Lorenzo (2023) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, in Durch di Zeiten: Through the Ages, eds. Katja Soennecken, Patrick Leiverkus, Jennifer Zimni and Katharina Schmidt. Munich: Gütersloher Verlagshaus 599-614.
3. Nigro Lorenzo and Jehad Yasine (2024) Interim Report on the Excavations at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (2019-2023): The Bronze and Iron Age Cities. Vicino Oriente 29: 47-96.
4. Garstang John and J E B Garstang (1948) The Story of Jericho. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, Ltd.
5. Kenyon Kathleen M (1952) Early Jericho. Antiquity 26(103): 116-122. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Kenyon Kathleen M (1967) Jericho. Archaeology 20(4): 268-275.
7. Nigro Lorenzo (2020) The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997–2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage, In Digging Up Jericho: Past, Present and Future, eds. Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers and Josef Mario Briffa, Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd.: 175-213.
8. Marchetti Nicolo and Lorenzo Nigro, eds (2000) Quaderni di Gerico 2. Rome: Universita Di Roma.
9. Nigro Lorenzo (2016) TELL ES-SULTAN 2015: A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine.” Near Eastern Archaeology 79(1): 4-17.
10. Wood Bryant G (1990a) Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence. Biblical Archaeology Review 16(2): 44-57.
11. Kenyon K M and T A Holland (1983) Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Five. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
12. Bowman SGE, Ambers JC, Leese MN (1990) Re-Evaluation of British Museum Radiocarbon Dates Issued Between 1980 and 1984. Radiocarbon 32(1): 59-79.
13. Bruins H J and J Van Der Plicht (1995) Tell es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short-Lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age. Radiocarbon 37(2): 213-220.
14. Kutschera Walter, Manfred Bietak, Eva Maria Wild, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Michael Dee, et al. (2012) The Chronology of Tell el-Dab‘a: A Crucial Meeting Point of 14C Dating, Archaeology, and Egyptology in the 2nd Millennium BCE, Radiocarbon 54(3-4): 407-422.
15. Wood Bryant G (1990b) Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts.” Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): 45-68.
16. Mullins Robert A and Eli Yannai (2019) Late Bronze Age I–II, in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbours, Volume 3: from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
17. Kenyon Kathleen M, T A Holland (1982) Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Four. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
18. Bonfil Ruhama (2019) Middle Bronze Age IIB–C, in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbours, Volume 3: from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, ed. Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
19. Mazar Amihai and Robert A Mullins, eds. (2007) Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996, Vol. II: The Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society.
20. Sellin Ernst and Carl Watzinger (1913) Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.
21. Bienkowski Piotr (1986) Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Oxford: Aris & Phillips.
22. Garstang John (1934) Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fourth Report. University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21: 99-136.
23. Bienkowski Piotr (1990) Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age. Biblical Archaeology Review 16(5): 45-46.
24. Nigro Lorenzo (2025) Gerico: La Città Ulrico Hoepli Editore S.P.A.
25. Collins S, G Byers, C Kobs, et al. (2016) The Tall el-Hammam Season Eleven, 2016: Excavation, Survey, Interpretations, and Insights, Jordan Department of Antiquities.
26. Finkelstein Israel (1993) Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv: Emery and Claire Yass Publications.
27. Moore Jonathan E, Jordan McClinton, and Scott Stripling (2026) The Shiloh Favissa: Israel’s Only Levitically Sanctioned Cultic Deposit. Journal of Anthropological & Archeological Sciences 12(4): 1693-1710.
28. Duff Catherine A (2015) Shechem V: The Late Bronze Age Pottery from Field XIII at Shechem/Tell Balatah. The American Schools of Oriental Research.
29. Shalvi Golan, Shlomo Shoval, Shay Bar, Ayelet Gilboa (2020) Pigments on Late Bronze Age Painted Canaanite Pottery at Tel Esur: New Insights into Canaanite–Cypriot Technological Interaction. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 30(1): 102212.
30. Kenyon Kathleen M and Thomas A Holland (1981) Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Three. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
31. Kenyon Kathleen M (1957) Digging Up Jericho. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.
32. Buhl Marie Louise and Svend Holm Nielsen (1969) Shiloh, the Pre-Hellenistic Remains: The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926, 1929, 1932 and 1963. Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark.
33. Panitz Cohen N, Mazar A, et al. (2006) Timnah (Tel Batash) III: the finds from the second millennium BCE. Qedem
34. Amiran Ruth (1969) Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Israel: Masada Press.
35. Artzy Michal (2019) Late Bronze Age I–II Cypriot Imports, in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and its Neighbours, Volume 3: from the Middle Bronze Age through the Late Bronze Age, ed. Seymour Gitin. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
36. Garstang John (1933) Jericho: City and Necropolis. University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20: 3-42.
37. Nigro, Lorenzo (2013) Jericho in the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Archaeology 2, D. Master (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York 1-9.
38. Ben Tor Daphna (2011) Political Implications of New Kingdom Scarabs in Palestine during the Reigns of Tuthmosis III and Ramesses II. In Under the Potter’s Tree, edited by David Aston, Bettina Bader, Carla Gallorini, Paul Nicholson and Sarah Buckingham. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies.
39. Tyldesley Joyce (1996) Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh. London: Viking.
40. Aling Charles F (2014) Eighteenth Dynasty Chronology. Artifax 14-16.
41. Shaw Ian (2003) Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42. Horowitz W and Oshima T (2006) Cuneiform in Canaan, Cuneiform Sources from the Land of Israel in Ancient Times. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society.
43. Burke Aaron A (2008) Walled Up to Heaven: The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
44. Fiaccavento Chiara and Elisabetta Gallo (2020) Protecting the People: The Fortification Systems of Middle Bronze Age Jericho in Light of the Italian-Palestinian Excavations, In Digging Up Jericho: Past, Present and Future, Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers and Josef Mario Briffa, Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd pp. 231-245.
45. Yadin Yigael (1982) Israel Comes to Canaan: Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest Historically Reliable? Biblical Archaeology Review 8(2): 16-23.
46. Garstang John (1930) Sir Charles Marston’s Expedition of 1930, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 62(3): 123-132.
47. Greenfield Haskel, Scott Stripling, Jordan McClinton, Aharon Tavger, Liora Freud (2024) Forthcoming. Archaeological and Zooarchaeological Research of the Late Bronze Age Favissa at Tel Shiloh: New Perspectives from the Recent Salvage Excavation. Judea and Samaria Research Studies.
48. Lorenzon M, B Cutillas Victoria, E Holmqvist, M Gkouma, L Vrydaghs, et al. (2023) Exploring mudbrick architecture and its re-use in Artaxata, Armenia, during the 1st millennium BCE. A multidisciplinary study of earthen architecture in the Armenian Highlands. PLoS One 18(10): e0292361.
49. Rosenberg Danny, Serena Love, Emily Hubbard, Florian Klimscha (2020) 7,200 years old constructions and mudbrick technology: The evidence from Tel Tsaf, Jordan Valley, Israel. PLoS One 15(1): e0227288.
50. Homsher Robert S (2012) Mud Bricks and the Process of Construction in the Middle Bronze Age Southern Levant. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 368(368): 1-27.
51. Nigro Lorenzo (2021) Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Iron Age. (Conference Presentation). 2021 ASOR Annual Meeting Virtual Component.
52. Rainey Anson F (2015) The El-Amarna Correspondence. Brill.
53. Collins Steven and Joseph Holden (2019) The Harvest Handbook of Bible Lands. Harvest House Publishers.
54. Kitchen K A (1991) The Chronology of Ancient Egypt. In World Archaeology 23(2): 201-208.
55. Garstang John (1941) The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58(4): 368-372.
56. Kenyon Kathleen M (1970) Archaeology in the Holy Land. New York: Praeger Publishers.
57. Nigro Lorenzo (2004) In the Shadow of the Bible. Archaeological Investigations by the Deutsches Palästina Vereins before the First World War: Taannek, Megiddo, Jericho, Shechem. In Archéologie dans l’Empire Ottoman Autour de 1900: Entre Politique, Économie et Science, edited by V. Krings and I. Tassignon, 215–29. Bruxelles-Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome.
58. Sala Maura (2014) The Archaeological Expeditions to Tell es-Sultan (1868-2012). In Archaeology in the Land of Tells and Ruins: A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer. Bart Wagemakers. Oxford: Oxbow Books: pp.117-130.
59. Tushingham A D (1953) Excavations at Old Testament Jericho. The Biblical Archaeologist 16(3): 46-67.