A Clear Conquest Pattern

SYNOPSIS: A clear conquest pattern is evident in this week’s Thinker Update. It features the second half of a two-part article by Scott Stripling and Mark Hassler that ran in Bible and Spade, Vol 31 No 2, Spring 2018. BIBLE and SPADE is a quarterly publication published by the Associates for Biblical Research. In part 1, Biblical City of AI of the article, Stripling and Hassler laid out the geographic case for why the key Conquest city of Ai should be located at Khirbet el-Maqatir rather than at Et-Tell, which has long been the prevailing candidate for the ancient city of Ai. The lack of evidence matching the Bible at Et-Tell has caused great skepticism in the academic community about the validity of the biblical account of the conquest.

This week, they turn to the archaeological arguments. Like David Rohl and John Bimson, Stripling and Hassler favor the early Exodus date in the 15th century BC. Unlike Rohl and Bimson, they (and their colleagues at ABR) believe Egyptian chronology is not in need of a radical revision. They think evidence matching the Exodus and Conquest can be found in the standard timeframe of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom (Late Bronze Age), rather than Rohl’s proposal for the Exodus being set earlier – near the end of the Middle Bronze Age at the end of Egypt’s Middle Kingdom. The debate over what dates to assign to the evidence and which context best fits the biblical account will be something Patterns of Evidence continues to explore and report on in the future.

And the LORD said to Joshua, “Do not fear and do not be dismayed. Take all the fighting men with you, and arise, go up to Ai. See, I have given into your hand the king of Ai, and his people, his city, and his land. 

– Joshua 8:1 (ESV)

Archaeological Indicators for the Site

Just as the book of Joshua reveals geographical indicators for the location of Ai, it also sets forth archaeological indicators. For a site such as Khirbet el-Maqatir to constitute Joshua’s Ai, it must have the following archaeological indicators.

Inhabited During The Conquest

When the Israelites ascended into the central hill country, they encountered the inhabitants of Ai (Jos 8:1). The encounter transpired in approximately 1406 BC, a date derived from the Bible itself (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1). This dating reflects the 15th century exodus-conquest model (the “biblical” model) rather than the 13th century model.

Artifacts establish the date of occupation at Khirbet el-Maqatir. The preeminent artifact, an Egyptian scarab (beetle), topped the list of discoveries in biblical archaeology for 2013 according to Christianity Today. Engraved on the base of the object is a falcon-headed sphinx and two heliographs: ankh (life) and neter (god). The scarab was found inside the fortress, near the gate, 0.8 in (2 cm) above bedrock, in a sealed locus, beneath a concentration of ash and an Early Roman fill, with four diagnostic and refired sherds from LB I (ca. 1485–1400 BC).

Refired pottery was initially fired in a kiln, then fired again (refired), say, in a destructive conflagration. The refire turns the pottery white and rock hard. Figure 5 [below] shows the sherds discovered in association with the scarab. In light of the preliminary research, the glyptic indicators help date the scarab to the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty, specifically, the reign of Amenhotep II (ca. 1455–1418 BC).

Scarab, Pottery, and Burial Jar Provide Evidence

Another scarab came to light in 2014. Its underside features Egyptian hieroglyphs surrounded by eight sets of concentric circles. The scarab was made locally in Canaan. It is typical of the time of the Hyksos (“foreign rulers” in Egypt) and the early Eighteenth Dynasty prior to the subjugation of Canaan by Thutmose III in ca. 1485 BC. This amulet likewise surfaced from within the fortress, near the gate. It came from a contaminated locus, disturbed by looters, and dates from about 1668 BC to 1485 BC.

Pottery from LB I populates the site. The pottery includes storage jars, small jars, jugs, cooking pots, and pithoi (large storage containers). Late Bronze I sherds lay around and beneath a flagstone pavement by the gate. Fourteen seasons of excavation have not yielded any pottery that relates to the fortress after LB IB (ca. 1445–1400 BC). By all indications, 250 years passed before the site was resettled.

An infant burial jar emerged in 2009. With it came the bones of a neonate and some Bronze Age offering vessels. The jar rested among a few dilapidated walls. It sat on bedrock beneath 15 in (37 cm) of earth. The mortuary custom of burying infants in jars prevailed in the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze I periods (ca. 1750–1400 BC). The pottery points to a date of about 1500 BC for the burial.

In 2014, a bronze figurine—a decapitated ram’s head—arose from an LB I context, within a few meters of the scarabs and at the same elevation. Decapitated figurines from the Late Bronze Age have also surfaced at Tell el-Qedah (Hazor), another site that the Israelites plundered and burned.⁷ The possibility exists that the Israelites severed the ram’s head during their conquest of Canaan.⁸

In addition to the artifacts, the architecture contributes to the dating of the site. Megaliths (large stones) formed structures inside the fortress, both on the east and west sides of the gate. In 2016, workers began to uncover a cluster of fallen cyclopean stones—stones so enormous, the Greeks would say, that only cyclops could have moved them. One of the stones measures a staggering 11.5 x 3.9 x 2.6 ft (3.5 x 1.2 x 0.8 m). The cluster lies at what appears to be the intersection of the southern and eastern walls of the fortress. The use of megaliths and cyclopean stones characterizes construction practices in MB III (ca. 1650–1485 BC).

On the whole, the artifacts and architecture mark the initial, medial, or terminal phases of the fortress at Khirbet el-Maqatir. Based on the finds, one can conclude that the fortress underwent construction toward the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and it fell in LB IB, the time of the Israelite conquest.

Protected by a Fortification System

Israel’s botched attempt to sack Ai resulted in casualties “from the gate as far as the shevarim” (Jos 7:5). When the Israelites finally prevailed, they threw the king’s corpse into “the fortress gate” (8:29). A gate presumes the existence of fortified walls.

Khirbet el-Maqatir possessed a fortification system. It had a gate, but only one chamber survived the ravages of time. The gate complex was robbed in antiquity; however, a flagstone pavement and ḥuwwar surface remained intact next to the southwestern chamber. The chamber did not show signs of interior benches. In the gate passageway, workers found tiled vats, which are evidence of reuse for industrial purposes in the late Second Temple period.

Originally, the gate probably had four chambers, based on the presence of six lower socket stones—two of which were discovered in 2016 [see photo at top of article]. The western wall of the fortress was an impressive 13 ft (4 m) in thickness. In the rear of the fortress, diggers began to uncover what looked like a circular tower, but in 1999, excavation in that area ceased because locals erected an agricultural enclosure which encompassed the southwestern portion of the fortress. In the southeast sector, cyclopean stones provided fortification, as mentioned.

Fortification systems protected contemporaneous towns in Canaan. Beitin had a small fortress in MB II (ca. 1750–1650 BC). The walls stood 11.4 ft (3.5 m) thick and contained multiple gates. The northwestern gate chamber used paving stones repaired with ḥuwwar surface.⁹ In MB III, Gezer possessed a southern gate, a large tower, and fortification walls 13 ft (4 m) thick.¹⁰ At Shiloh, the MB III city wall covered 4.2 acres (1.7 ha) and stood 9.8–18 ft (3.0–5.5 m) thick.¹¹ In the MB III period, Jerusalem benefited from the rectangular-shaped Spring Tower (56 x 52 ft; 17 x 16 m) and city walls 6.6–8.2 ft (2.0–2.5 m) thick.¹²

Accessed by a Northern Gate

In anticipation of the battle, the Israelite warriors arrived “opposite [neged] the fortress, and camped north of Ai” (Jos 8:11). The preposition neged can mean “in front of.” The front side of the fortress, the side with a gate, probably faced north. The gate at Khirbet el-Maqatir faced north.

Dwarfed by Gibeon

Joshua portrays Gibeon as larger than Ai: “Gibeon was a metropolis, like one of the royal cities…it was larger than Ai” (10:2). Gibeon epitomized the “metropolises” of Canaan that Moses had warned about (Dt 9:1). Ai, on the other hand, lacked size and notoriety. The size of Ai failed to impress Joshua’s scouts: “Do not make all the people ascend. Only two or three elephs of men need to ascend in order to attack Ai. Do not make all the people toil there, because they are few” (v. 3). Further, when the writer of the book of Joshua first mentions Ai, he includes multiple locators to help orient the readers (“Ai, which is near Beth-Aven, east of Bethel,” Jos 7:2).

The exact size of Gibeon in LB I remains unknown because the perimeter wall has not been traced. The later Iron Age wall enclosed an area of approximately 15 acres (6 ha). The little fortress of Khirbet el-Maqatir covered only about 2.5 acres (1 ha). By contrast, et-Tell encompassed a full 27.5 acres (11 ha) in approximately 2400 BC.¹³ It tripled the size of Jericho, which covered only 9 acres (3.6 ha) including the embankment.

Joshua depicts Ai as small, whereas Moses styles Ai as a well-known landmark (Gn 12:8; 13:3). In light of the disparity, a short distance may have separated Abraham’s Ai (et-Tell?) and Joshua’s Ai (Khirbet el-Maqatir?). Site names could migrate short distances over time—a well-documented phenomenon.¹⁴

Consumed by Fire

Israel’s ambush squad “set the fortress on fire” (Jos 8:19). Indeed, “Joshua burned Ai” (v. 28). Excavation of the fortress revealed numerous ash pockets, burned stones, calcined bedrock, and refired sherds.

Ruined and Desolate

The Israelites demolished the fortress of Ai and it became a ruin. The account reads, “Joshua burned Ai and made it a ruin forever, a desolation, to this day” (Jos 8:28). In the victory, Joshua buried the ruler of Ai under “a large pile of stones, which remains there today” (v. 29).

At Khirbet el-Maqatir, no one rebuilt the fortress after its demise. In Iron Age I and into Iron Age II, a mere 50 to 70 Israelites inhabited the site, it seems. They used the tumble from the earlier structures to build residences and installations. During the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, a walled town partially overlapped the footprint of the Bronze Age fortress. From the town’s northern wall protruded a massive fortification tower, the largest known tower in Israel (98 x 52 ft; 30 x 16 m).

The town fell in AD 69, as the pottery and coins attest. It appears that the Romans demolished it as they advanced south toward Jerusalem. In the Byzantine period, a monastery stood on the crest of the hill, approximately 656 ft (200 m) from the old fortress. As of 2017, modern development is overtaking the ancient ruins and threatens their preservation.

Ever since the Bronze Age fortress fell, subsequent builders have obscured its ruins by scavenging the stones for their own construction projects. On the other hand, their work protected the foundations of the fortress from additional damage.

Khirbet el-Maqatir satisfies the archaeological indicators listed above. The archaeological record shows that a small but stout fortress existed at the site from MB III to LB IB. Occupancy ceased because of a conflagration.

Conclusion

The geography and archaeology of Khirbet el-Maqatir accord with the descriptions of Ai in Joshua 7–8. The identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir as the Ai of Joshua’s time resolves the problems of chronology and location that ensued from Callaway’s excavation at et-Tell. Nearly forty years of excavation in the West Bank of Israel by ABR archaeologists has resulted in a viable solution. The solution squares with the biblical data concerning the exodus and conquest.

Patterns of Evidence has the pleasure of knowing Dr. Scott Stripling and brings you the above insights from his writings. He is a dedicated ABR staff member and the provost at The Bible Seminary, located in Huston, Texas. His valued leadership as ABR Shiloh excavations director of follows the similar work he led at Khirbet el-Maqatir from 2014 to 2017. He was featured in Archaeology in Action: Archaeology 101 on Logos and more recently in the lead role in their soon-to-come documentary on archaeology and the Bible. Author of The Trowel and the Truth, he intrigues readers with his deep knowledge of biblical archaeology.

Outstanding author Mark Hassler, PhD holds the position of associate professor of Old Testament at Virginia Beach Theological Seminary. We are fortunate to learn from his experience as former staff member at Khirbet el-Maqatir and current role as a staff member of the ABR excavations at Shiloh.

Endnotes

[7] Amnon Ben-Tor, “The Sad Fate of Statues and the Mutilated Statues of Hazor,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever, ed. Seymour Gitin, J. Edward Wright, and J. P. Dessel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 14.

[8] Brian Neil Peterson, “The Kh. el-Maqatir Ram’s Head: Evidence of the Israelite Destruction of Ai?” Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 61 (2016): 53.

[9] James L. Kelso, The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960), AASOR 39 (Cambridge: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1968), 13, 15.

[10] William G. Dever, “Gezer,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), 2:501.

[11] Israel Finkelstein, “The History and Archaeology of Shiloh from the Middle Bronze Age II to Iron Age II,” in Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site, ed. Israel Finkelstein, with contributions by Baruch Brandl et al., SMNIA 10 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1993), 374.

[12] Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron, “Jerusalem,” by Eilat Mazar et al., in NEAEHL, 5:1801; Yigal Shiloh, “Jerusalem,” by Benjamin Mazar et al., in NEAEHL, 2:701.

[13] Joseph A. Callaway, “Ai,” in NEAEHL, 1:39.

[14] Wood, “Joshua’s Ai,” 206.

NOTE: Not every view expressed by scholars contributing Thinker articles necessarily reflects the views of Patterns of Evidence. We include perspectives from various sides of debates on biblical matters so that readers can become familiar with the different arguments involved. – Keep Thinking!