# Kenyon and Jericho
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 16, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284 "2001-01-16T05:25:06Z")
**Posts on this page:** 4
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2001, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284/1 "2001-01-16T05:25:06Z")
You folks may remember that earlier there was a dispute (to put it mildly) in which Danielinthewolvesden claimed that the Internet Infidels had misrepresented the work of archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. Specifically, DITWD’s original claim was that Kenyon believed that the walled city of Jericho had been destroyed before the arrival of Joshua, and that Joshua had destroyed a small settlement which had been built on the site afterwards. In DITWD’s opinion, the Infidels had misrepresented Kenyon’s work by not mentioning the possibility of a small settlement, although in the end it was shown that, in fact, the author of the Infidels essay in question did believe that Joshua could have destroyed such a settlement.
I am currently reading a book entitled _Archaeology of the Bible,_ (copyright 1977) written by Magnus Magnusson, which discusses the ideas of Kenyon and a number of other archaeologists who have studied Jericho. I realize that it would be best to have quotes direct from Kenyon herself, but I felt that Magnusson’s statements would be of interest to those who were involved in the earlier debate. (Bear in mind, too, that Magnusson is a fairly neutral author, to the extent that he tries to represent a spectrum of conflicting opinions from different archaeologists, rather than promoting a particular viewpoint himself.)
In his chapter on Jericho, Magnusson writes:
> [@](#):
>
> …However, Dame Kathleen is adamant that the reoccupation of 1400BC lasted for less than a century, before the town was wrecked or abandoned again no later than 1300BC. Her conclusion is that Jericho, like Ai, must already have been a ruin by the time of the Israelite conquest, if that is correctly dated at 1250-1225BC, right at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the start of the Iron Age.
Even more striking is the next paragraph, in which Kenyon’s views are contrasted with those of Yigael Yadin. Bear in mind that a few pages earlier, in the discussion of Ai, Magnusson writes, “Dr. Yadin has written that he approaches a dig with a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other.” Here is the paragraph in which he describes Yadin’s views on Jericho:
> [@](#):
>
> Dr Yigael Yadin disputes her conclusions. He interprets the evidence differently, and believes that it proves that there _was_ an occupation, albeit small, in the thirteenth century, although centuries of erosion have removed all evidence of what may have happened to the walls.
(emphasis in the original.)
In other words, Yadin- to whom Magnusson contrasts Kenyon- holds to precisely that view which DITWD attributed to Kenyon herself.
Magnusson goes on in the next paragraph to discuss Kenyon’s views of the conquest model in more detail:
> [@](#):
>
> Dame Kathleen does not find it surprising, or disappointing, that there should be no evidence of Joshua at Jericho. She believes that the Israelite occupation of Canaan was not acheived in one fell swoop, but was the result of a series of incursions by different groups at different times, some of whom may have come from Egypt, others who may have come from elsewhere, and who entered Canaan at different places. All these disparate events, in her opinion, were later combined by the Bible writers in an attempt to form a continuous story out of disjointed fragments of tradition.
If Magnusson’s report of Kenyon’s views is to be trusted (and I don’t see why it should not be,) then we have, in the end, the ultimate irony: the Infidels article promotes the point of view which DITWD had originally attributed to Kenyon, while Kenyon held to the point of view which DITWD had originally attributed to the Infidels.
-Ben
---
### Author:  [@malkavia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/malkavia)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2001, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284/2 "2001-01-16T05:29:34Z")
Aww… I thought there was gonna be some Positively Kanyon/Chris Jericho fight. =(
---
### Author:  [@quixotic78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/quixotic78)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2001, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284/3 "2001-01-16T07:19:31Z")
I can’t believe you’re bringing this up again. On the one hand, that’s pretty damned petty. Anyone who even **skimmed** the original thread(s) knows that DITWD was thoroughly proven wrong–why re-hash it? On the other hand, do you really think he’s going to change his story? I mean, **Gaudere** did a damned fine job of showing cite after cite contradicting DITWD, and then showing how his story vascilated constantly.
On the third hand (Bless you, Krishna), it’ll be interesting to see how he refutes this. But, knowing that it’s a post from you, **Ben** , I’m sure he won’t respond.
Quix
P.S. Heh, Magnus Magnusson won all those World’s Strongest Man competitions on ESPN2… then again, that’s gotta be like John Smith in Scandanavia.
---
### Author:  [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2001, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kenyon-and-jericho/50284/4 "2001-01-16T08:15:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by quixotic78 \*
> \*\*I can’t believe you’re bringing this up again. On the one hand, that’s pretty damned petty. Anyone who even **skimmed** the original thread(s) knows that DITWD was thoroughly proven wrong–why re-hash it? \*\*
Two reasons:
I thought the truth was eminently ironic.
And, DITWD’s claims about the Infidels weren’t a one-off argument; he had been making them for a while, in pretty much every discussion of Biblical archaeology.
For both of these reasons, I thought that what I learned might be of interest to the people who had been involved in the debate, if only so that they could find out what was really going on.
Call it petty if you like, but in the end I decided that it was just too interesting to pass up.
-Ben