Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries: Ottoman Empire This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire. Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with ((WikiProject Geography)). To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

JER-icho is very near JER-usalem, which means "Ur-Salem" or "city [of] peace". "Ur" is quite common, around the region, as a term meaning "city" -- cf. Ur, Uruk, Eridu (Uridu) in Sumer. (cf. Latin Urb- ?) So, perhaps Jericho also begins with this same, quite common, "Ur" element. 66.235.26.150 (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expressive is the name Jeruschalem which is to be described with »foundation of the (God) Shalem« and was adapted in Akkadian language as urusalim, »town of the (God) Shalem«, as well as Egyptian as ruschalimum, »mountain height of the (God) Shalem« while a phonetically more assonant sense was wrung from the prefix jeru, what meant "foundation". The God Shalim/Shalem is well known from late bronze age texts of the canaanite port Ugarit on the Syrian Mediterranean coast and is connected there as an evening star with the divinity Shahar, the morning star, and with the solar divinity Shamash. Jerusalem bears the God Shalim/Shalem as a town God in its name which should stand up as a god of war for the protection of the town, got in touch as the evening star also with the realm of the dead, and applied as an offspring of the creator god El.

from: Das antike Jerusalem: Archäologie und Geschichte, author: Eckart Otto, publisher C.H.Beck, ISBN: 340656881-5, year: 2008, page 46, translated by myself (sorry!)

Tri-l (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I propose that the name of Jericho could be the last avatar of the hieroglyphic name Sharruken. It was designing the main fortress of Hyksos in Canaan that was taken by Pharaoh Ahmose after a 3-year siege. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.69.146.60 (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The city of Jericho was called Ruha in Egyptian documents from the Middle Kingdom forward until its destruction sometime in LB I. The proper name would have been Ur Ruha in Akkadian and Ir Richo in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PPN A and B much older than Catal Höyük. --Yak 15:03, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

"and has a population of over 20,000 Arabs." this statement looks very strange for me, 20,000 Arabs!!! maybe the person who wrote it was trying to distinguish it from Israeli settlements.. otherwise, It looks like Arabs are another type of beings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.5.86 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has since altered to "over 20,000 Palestinians". I've removed the demonym entirely; it doesn't seem appropriate here, since virtually no other city article comments on the nationality of its population this prominently. Shimgray | talk | 14:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sign/s: ((NPOV))((expansion))((Cleanup)) placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 07:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I feel like the Cleanup sign should be added; this article, especially in the PPN B section of the article.

I twice removed these passages from the article:

However, the current orthordoxy among acheologists is that Jericho was uninhabited at the time or in the words of Bill Dever "...if you want a miracle, here's your miracle: Joshua destroyed a city that wasn't even there". (It Aint't necessarily so, John McCarthy p61)

I don't dispute that many archaeologists take this position, however:

• The claim is already stated in the "Archaeology" section
• It is poorly written
• It is not in the "Archaeology" section, but rather inserted into the list of biblical quotes.

If it is sufficently notable, we can cite McCarthy's book (ISBN: 0747245061). As it now stands, the passage disrupts the article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the section has been moved. It has been expanded but I think that counts as useful background (hopefully). I've asked for citation for the the 15 destructions not because I dispute it but simply because if I didn't then it would look as if it is from "It ain necessarily so".Dejvid 13:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does the article start with recent history, rather than work chronologically? Mzyxptlk 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should start with the current position and statistics of the city because it still exists. If it were no longer an inhabited place with a government or social structure then starting chronolically would make sense. If you were to look up New York City would you expect it to start chronologically, or with it's present statistics and reference?

Actually, the New York City article does deal with the city's history chronologically Rojomoke 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undoing change 22.02.07

In my view, the article is correct to start with the recent history, for two reasons:

• (i) Modern Jericho is a significant town, with importance for current events. This surely takes priority.
• (ii) The section on modern Jericho is comparatively short, and easily seen past for readers primarily interested in archaeology. But the reverse is not true.

For those reasons, I'm backing out the most recent change, and moving the current status of the town back up to the top of the article. Jheald 10:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Modern Jericho section should go back to the way I had it, as it seems like a more logical order. Though the "section on modern Jericho is comparatively short" -- this section should be expanded. And, the lead section be improved to give greater mention of modern Jericho. --Aude (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jhealed, the most common layout, to my knowledge, is to begin with a brief leader containing notable, interesting or otherwise important facts, then moving into a discussion of history in chronological order. After that, any other topics about the city (ex. politics, administration, economy, culture, transportation, etc.) are discussed in an order deemed reasonable. But I really think one shouldn't move into a discussion of a city's current state in detail without first discussing its history. I know this has been resolved but that is my take on it for future reference if this ever comes up again. However, I think that the current state of the city is still woefully underrepresented so if anyone has any new information to add...--Jt (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the Casino info section from the article. This doesn't belong in the entry for the city of Jericho. Here it is for the record:

On September 16, 1998, a medium-sized casino (35 tables (later increased several times) and 220 slot machines) and hotel (220 rooms), jointly called Oasis, were opened on the southern outskirts of Jericho. Owned by the Palestine Investment Fund, as well as foreign investors including Austrian financier Martin Shlaff and South African financier Cyril Kern, and operated by Casinos Austria, the project was the largest private employer in the West Bank with over 1000 local and foreign workers (mainly croupiers). The casino/hotel was supposed to be the first stage of the Jericho Resort Village including a convention center, golf course, a cultural activities center and a Swiss Austrian cable car that links Old Jericho(10000 BC) with the Mount of Temptation where Jesus fasted for fourty days.

For the few years of its existence, it attracted mainly Israeli gamblers. After the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in September 2000, Oasis continued to operate with many Israeli gamblers still coming to gamble with the assurance of the Palestinian government for safety of patrons. Soon after, militants used the high-rise hotel to fire on Israeli Army forces who returned fire damaging the structure. The Palestinian forces abandoned the site and the damage was repaired. A lull in the violence allowed speculation of a reopening, the construction on the widening expansion to Route 1 was also renewed in anticipation, but the casino/hotel, still a prominent landmark, have since remained idle.

Hamas, who originally opposed the opening of the casino, refuses to reopen it while heading the Palestinian government.[1]

I don't think a search for "Jericho" should arrive at this page automatically, instead it should go to the 'disambiguation' page, as, I would venture most hits at present would be after the TV show. 220.245.137.174 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't even know there was a TV show called Jericho. I think most people looking in an online encyclopedia would be looking for this page rather than some TV programme.

Actually, the TV show was what I was after.

After seeing the TV show, I was looking for info on the real Jericho, knowing that there is a connection between the title of the show and the real place. I wanted to know the history of the place, to better understand the title of the show. All I knew was there was a biblical story about Jericho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amccarri (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

How about we add a sentence in disambiguation text, sth like "for the Tv show see...". I've seen it in lots of places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.246.94 (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I would say that even listing "for the TV show see..." at the top of the page wouldn't be desirable as there are obviously numerous other uses (many towns, a band, a video game and so on). I'm glad that the present solution of "for other uses" has been settled on. Should this issue ever come up again though, let me just reiterate that the idea we should move an article on one of the most culturally significant cities in human history to accommodate a mildly successful TV show is utterly ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.248.44 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm attempting to correct some typos in this paragraph and someone changed it back. Any reason why?

"The opinion of some archaeologists is in stark contradiction to the biblical account. However, virtually every archeological study involving some aspect of the bible is going to be heavily scrutinized and viewed from a mythological light by more humanistic members of the archeological community. One must judge the credibility of the sources when looking at supposed evidence regarding some biblical findings, and realize there are many in the sciences that are rabidly for and against the bible."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevenwhig (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 October 2006.

The above paragraph was added in the rather destructive and rather POV edit by 12.25.186.226 on 18 October [2]. I have reverted the whole section on the walls of Jericho and the historicity of the Biblical account of their destruction to the last version immediately before that edit, restoring the more detailed and informative (and NPOV) discussion on the page up to that point. If there are any issues with this text, they should be discussed and reasoned out here. Large-scale partisan deletions without discussion, such as 12.25.186.226's edit, are not the Wikipedia way. Jheald 07:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I am new and was just trying my hand at correcting some typos. Thanks for the change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenwhig (talk • contribs)

I think that portions of last part of the "Walls" section need a rewrite. Ok, archeology often disagrees with the biblical account. Nothing new under the sun there. What I find objectional is the almost Ad-hominum way in which parts of the paragraph is written. "Scholars who link these walls to the biblical account must explain...", and the way in which the writer is almost *instructing* us. "Nevertheless, Josephus's historical inaccuracies should be considered and his word not taken as law." "...virtually every archeological study involving some aspect of the Bible is going to be heavily scrutinized..." "One must judge the credibility of the sources when looking at supposed evidence regarding some biblical findings..." To me, this style of writing is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and I've gone ahead and put a NPOV tag at the head of the final section.Johnmc 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the NPOV tag, as most of the disputed text has been removed or brought into line. It looks ok now (better than I could have done)--Johnmc 07:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a change over at the Book of Joshua section with the following info you may want to incorporate into this section and later edited by the guy in charge of the book of Exodus section: A theory suggested by Emmanuel Anati states that the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites actually occurred prior to the Late Bronze Age as commonly held. Anati says he has found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the Early Bronze Age circa 2200–2500 BC. Anati says that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the Biblical cities of Ai and Jericho were destroyed in this time frame, in a period when both sites had defensive walls. He also found that Ai was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua, and that the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology.

(I also put sources over there for this, an article by Dr. Anati, which last I checked you could peruse online for free.)

I can find no evidence of an etymology that would equate "jericho" with "holy echo." I think this is false etymology, based on the fact that the word in Greek is comprised (sort of)of these two words. Considering that the word is not primarily Greek, this seems ridiculous and should be removed. -M

I can't find it either. --Zero^talk 12:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed it. If it finds its way back into the article, the only way I can see it passing muster is if it's explained as a false etymology. That said, I can't even find that anyone noteworthy has even seriously proposed this fanciful theory. Tomer^talk 21:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was relocated to Jericho, West Bank by Cwk14724. The apparent purpose for the move is to enable a disambiguation page at Jericho so that a link can exist to the editor's article on the fictional town of Jericho, Kansas. I have entered a move request to repair the damage. --~~

Page is restored to its original location. Requested page moves can be discussed at WP:RM. --Aude (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By no means should the place in the Middle East be moved, as it is by far the most notable bearer of that name. Tewfik^Talk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion aside, I have to say I am suprised that the modern west bank city and the biblical city are essentially merged into the same article. I know that they are essentially the same location but I would think the breadth of information uniquely pertaining to each would warrant two separate articles. Then' a disambiguation page would make more sense since I think a slightly larger segment of the readership would be looking for the Biblical city article, followed by the modern city and with the fictional one lagging way behind. 205.157.110.11 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THIS PAGE MUST BE MOVED. THE PPL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT JERICHO. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BongHits4Jesus4Ever (talk • contribs)

A subsection on synagogues occurs twice, with effectively the same information (the second occurance has a couple of links). Unsure as to where it should stay, but the repetition is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.8.94 (talk • contribs)

The second mention seems out of place. WP:BB You can delete it. --Shuki 17:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block quote

.

i

There are two reasons for questioning whether this site has been properly identified; 1. The biblical narrative does not equate the current location with the few topographical clues contained within scripture. a. Its west of Gilgal(uphill). b. It has a spring. In desert regions it is common to find water in sloping draws, which also implies it was uphill from the Jordanian plain. 2. Tactical considerations exclude its placement on an unprotected plain. The only way to reconcile the narrative with sound tactics is to place it on one of several nearby elevated plains, any of which can include nearby springs which will almost completely confirm a new, more viable excavation site.

I note the article claims the destruction of Jericho as listed in the Biblical record is 'the city is the first of nearly 30 systematic genocides carried out by the Hebrew people'. No evidence is given for this claim, either Biblical or archaeological. And of course there is no evidence for this claim, either Biblical or archaeological. --Taiwan boi 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The people raised the war cry, the trumpets sounded. When the people heard the sound of the trumpet, they raised a mighty war cry and the wall collapsed then and there. At once the people stormed the city, each man going straight forward; and the captured the city. They enforced the curse of destruction on everyone in the city; men and women, young and old, including the oxen, the sheep, and the donkeys, slaughtering them all. -- Joshua 6:20-21"

Here is the evidence you were after.

That would be a slaughter, not a genocide. Unless one was making the case that the inhabitants of Jericho were the sole representatives of some distinct cultural or ethnic group. Evidence from excavations would seem to indicate that the inhabitants of Jericho were not a distinct ethnic or cultural group, as their material remains correspond well with those of the entire southern levant in all periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article states "Jericho is believed to be the second oldest continuously-inhabited city in the world" - but this list claims it to be the oldest. Which is correct? Ramskjell 17:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list linked no longer states as the oldest city. Also references used only mention 9000bc not 11000bc Jericó as abandoned during its history it seems? AndresMP.wiki (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:

• The earliest village sites discovered by archaeologists at Jericho are 2,000 years older than other finds in the region, with the exception of similarly dated outposts in what is contemporary Syria.
• After a period of Israeli control during Operation Defensive Shield, it was returned to the Palestinian Authority on March 16, 2005.

If anyone can find sources to support them, feel free to re-add them. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 10:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be good to indicate somewhere in this article that Jericho is/was a city in Canaan, which seems to be the case. Neither this article nor the Canaan article make it very clear. The adjective Canaanite is used a few times in this article, but nowhere does the article explain Jericho's relationship to Canaan. An internal link to the Canaan article is absent. The Battle of Jericho article is a bit more forthcoming, but that took me a while to find. I defer to others to decide how best to fit this into what seems to be a delicately balanced Biblical vs archeological discussion of the origins of Jericho. It would have been helpful if it was included when I was doing my research, so maybe it would help others, too? --Pat (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invention of taxes? First human dynasty run by humans? On account of the bible and the occult it seems that the sumerian civilizations ended sometime with a transition around 600 bc. Now jericho was around 9000 bc, therefore it was the first tax'd city before the roman empire. Who would be stupid enough to invent taxes? Thats right humans. Therefore this city has no influence of the divine kingdoms or culture. The sumerian hybrids, Sennacherib and the cromagnums? No nature of their culture what so ever. It must have been run by lower-nature humans of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.60.164 (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article's info box has a place for jurisdiction size, but no size is present. Anyone have any information on this? I can't find anything at all. --Jt (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading the second paragraph about Roman and Byzantine period, I got somewhat confused about the years when things happened.

I've included the section below with the life of the people mentioned. It just doesn't seem right!

"During Herod (73 BC – 4 BC) the Great's reign of Jericho, he managed to build three independent palaces at the same site, which ultimately functioned as one. In 37­1 BCE, the Hasmonean family continued to use his palace in Jericho. The dramatic murder of Aristobulus III (b. 53 BC - d. 36 BC) in a swimming pool at Jericho, as told by the Roman historian Josephus (37 – sometime after 100), took place during a banquet organized by Herod's Hasmonean mother-in-law. In 330 BCE, Jericho was taken from Herod and transferred to the control of Queen Cleopatra of Egypt."

I think it should also be clarified which Cleopatra we're talking about (I - VII), or at least link to the one directly!

--Suhajdab (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to have been a typo. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have two links within the first few paragraphs of this article to another article called "List of oldest continuously inhabited cities" and yet the page we link to does not contain Jericho as an entry. One of two things needs to happen: 1) the "List of oldest continuously inhabited cities" needs to be updated to include Jericho as an entry, or 2) The link needs to be removed. If option 2 is selected, I think it's important to remove the second link as it's redundant to say "Jericho is believed to be one of the oldest continuously-inhabited cities in the world" in two different paragraphs and citing two different footnotes. I don't know enough about the subject to make these edits myself but felt they should be brought to attention to be resolved.Deleteyourself16 (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's troubling....The history section of the article currently says that The Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed c.1550 BC, and the site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BC.--if that's true, I don't see how it qualifies as "continuously inhabited" except since the 9th century BC--which would not be enough to put it in the running for oldest city. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The last Canaanite city city (city iv) was destroyed in the late bronze i period. The date of this period is greatly disputed across all ancient near eastern archaeology and history, with archaeologists and historians placing the period much lower than those who preform radio carbon studies. It is a very well known and document issue with rc dating that materials in this period from all over the ANE produce inconsistent results. So, Bronk Ramsey produced an example of a date of short lived grains from Anatolia burned in Theran ash that dates over 100 years earlier than short lived grass materials from the reign of Hatshepsut (who ruled Egypt when Thera erupted) that were also associated with Theran ash. Until RC can produce a more reliable result, it's not a precise enough measure for dating Bronze Age remains. After the destruction of city 4, an administrative building was built on the tell. Those who choose to use the biblical narrative in interpreting the site would identify this building as the palace of the Edomite King Eglon which was described as being built on the site after the city was burned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So not 11000 years old? All references from [7-15] seem to state 9000 BC but article states 11000 to 9000 BC. AndresMP.wiki (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the article it states that

In the Book of Exodus, Jericho's walls are said to have come tumbling down upon Joshua's order;

Last time I checked this didn't happen anywhere near Exodus.Am I imagining things? Chocom (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The conquest and sack of Jericho by the Israelites is described in the Book of Joshua, which is most often placed in sixth position after the five books of Moses who did not enter the "promised land" but died after seeing it. The book chronicles the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan under the new leader Joshua. [[[Special:Contributions/93.196.233.191|93.196.233.191]] (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

These deletions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jericho&diff=279338696&oldid=279282780 removing a few hundred words from the Bronze Age section go too far. The correct action to take would be to add fact templates, in order to get editors to add citations as needed. If, after a reasonable period, there was no interest in backing it up, it could be deleted. I also note that much of the deleted text were already supported by citations. patsw (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Thank you very much, I was looking exactly for this information. It should be included in the article.[[[Special:Contributions/93.196.233.191|93.196.233.191]] (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)]Reply[reply]

WEST BANK?

When in History was Jericho a part of a WEST BANK? The Article says that Jericho is in hte West Bank, but nowhere in history was this land called the west bank. Historically, it is known as Judea. What is a WEST BANK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 03:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See West Bank or nearly every map of the Middle East in the world for the location of the West Bank. nableezy - 03:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The destruction of Jericho ca. 1550 B.C.E. has been disputed and this should at least be noted. The single article referencing Dr. Bryant Wood is hardly encompassing of his work on Jericho. In the very least this should be included next to reference 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjaggard (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dr Wood's challenge to Kenyon's dating has been found to be incorrect - the accepted date remains c.1550 BCE. This is referenced in the footnote in this article, and at more length in the article on Wood.PiCo (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wood's criticism of Kenyon's dating of the the fall of Jericho city iv to the MB has withstood all criticism for the last 25 years. Garstang, Kenyon and the new Italian-Palestinian dig at Jericho all found LB I ceramics on the tell in the last layer of Jericho city IV. The RC dates of grains from city iv are dated far older than any historian or archaeologist would accept for LB I, a problem all across the archaeology of the ancient near east at this time. Just to be clear, Kenyon was wrong, because she dated the fall of city iv in the middle bronze. The last scarabs found on the tel and in associated tombs are those of Amenhotep iii. The destruction of city iv took place early in his reign, which is late bronze. Kenyon's dating at other sites has also been demonstrated as incorrect as well. She followed a pattern of judging a site's date by what she didn't find in it, rather than what she did find. She was specifically interested in Mycenaean ware at Jericho. Because she didn't find any in her small sections, she judged that there was none. However, Mycenaean ware was found by Garstang (also by the Italian-Palestinian digs). Additionally, the wares she did find in her city iv plots were indisputably LB I as well, just local. The article should reflect that the fall of city iv, demonstrated by pottery and scarab evidence from the tel and tombs, took place in the late bronze, during the reign of Amenhotep iii. The dispute about dates is not one of when Jericho fell, but a wider debate about the dates for the whole Bronze Age in the ancient near east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this section could we have some commentary on how the biblical accounts are thought to relate to reality? E.g. "The biblical account of the collapsing of the walls of Jericho are thought to refer to the destruction of the city in 1550 BCE". I'm not proposing that sentence (I just made it up), but something saying there is lots/some/no evidence to tie the biblical accounts to actual events, if indeed they happened at all (if not then that should/could be said). LastDodo (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

throughout this article i have noticed the use of CE and BCE where one would normally use AD and BC. in the case of BCE i would just delete the E, ans Before Current Era typically means the same as Years Ago, it does not refer to the year 1 on our calendar. but the use of Current Era in place of AD leaves me to wonder if its a good idea to change.

discuss. JetJon (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easy one: "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change", and there has to be "consensus for the change" from all editors. What's the "substantial reason" for "Jericho"? --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment we have a short article on the Neolithic A wall which it has been suggested by another editor should be merged with this article. I agree with this suggestion so am putting it forward here. This article is not yet that big that it wouldn't benefit by such a merger, and the current title of the stub is confusing. Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I was the editor who suggested this merge. Since then I have revised the wall page with a very notable quote and discussion about the rock-cut ditch around the exterior of it and it's construction by Kenyon to give the article more validity as a stand alone. I have also created a Tower of Jericho article which I believe qualifies as the world's tallest skyscraper between 8000 BC and 2700 BC. These are highly notable components of a major archaeological site and I now support the view that they should be treated as separate articles. The article on Jericho is quite big and these neolithic elements are a field of study unto themselves as the 2011 Jerusalem Post reference demonstrates. I now propose removing the merge tag on the wall if no-one objects within a reasonable amount of time.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how that changes the issue about the wall page which is still a stub. And this is an unusual use of the word 'skyscraper', media hype aside. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Point taken, so I've updated the page up to at least start class and removed the stub tag. I've added extra details about all the various walls (17 in the early bronze age!), the biblical account, more dimensions. Also made the point about the "media hype", or at least "elevated public interest" in the wall of jericho up until Kenyon's excavations. I guess that's the point I am making, that the wall was a highly notable topic of debate during the period before Kenyon's excavation along with the neolithic one being probably the most exciting information to come from the dig. There is still improvement to be done here and I'd be interested to know what you think. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Tend to Oppose. In case Wall of Jericho is a notable archaeological site, still existing today, it may have an article of its own (as aracheological site).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page should not merge.

The wall is a Tower. .First Skyscraper Was a Monument to Intimidation: How Jericho's 11,000-Year-Old 'Cosmic' Tower Came Into Being http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110217125205.htm see http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/barkai327/

The page should move to an archaeology portal. If I was not a dork I would do it,... I'm a dork. The Neolithic settlement should merge with the Levant, Fertile Crescent , prehistory, The Ancient Near East,...not Jericho today.... Romanfall (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is simply a request for more clarity in the first couple of paragraphs in the History section of the article. It says,

"Jericho is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world, with evidence of settlement dating back to 9000 BCE, providing important information about early human habitation in the Near East.[3]

...

The site remained uninhabited until the city was refounded in the 9th century BCE."

It may be that the second sentence refers to only part of the city, but at first (and even second) glance the second section in bold apparently contradicts the first.

If what is meant is that the city of Jericho is considered to be one entity, but that different parts of it were inhabited at different times, then that should be clearly stated. If there was an overall continuity but certain sections of the city fell in and out of use, then that too should be said.

Can somebody who has a good grasp of the overall early history of the site perhaps clarify this?

Jorvikian (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The website http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/ is a non-commercial website promoting the contemporary Jewish connection to the city of Jericho. It reports on activities in and around the city of Jericho, mainly related to the ancient synagogue in the centre of town, talks about Jericho by leading rabbis, history and archaeological articles and a diary of future activities to be held in Jericho. It also has individual pages about various sites in Jericho. Most of the site is in Hebrew, but it has an English section http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/english . The site is still under development, and the English-language section has yet to be revamped and given a modern format, but nevertheless there are already some interesting articles (especially http://www.jewishjericho.org.il/english/thoughts/VisitingTheCityofJericho-en.html and articles describing various sites in the city, under the "Places in Jericho" menu item). It is important to show the public that there is a contemporary Jewish side to the city of Jericho, and this is the only site (as far as I know)doing this. Blessings, 80.230.41.90 (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Yonathan Gormezano e-mail: yoni_go at hotmail comReply[reply]

Such political web sites do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for "reliable sources". Also, Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise. Zero^talk 02:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now found the English language link—thanks. Such proselytising statements as "we will succeed, with G-d’s help, to settle Jericho" seem to conflict with the WP's WP:NPOV policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cities of the ancient Near East lists Jericho as (Tell es Sultan). Findings at Tell Qaramel predate Jericho, but most Wikipedia pages list Jericho as the oldest city on record. The two cities are not equal, but each is important. Old Jericho, or Tell es Sultan designation ? Romanfall (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is. Tell Qaramel says that it has stone towers older than those found in Jericho, but the "oldest city" claim refers to "continuous" habitation, but just the age. Tell es Saltan is alleged to be the original site of Jericho, about 2km NW of where the modern town was. Nowadays both locations are within the Jericho built-up area. Zero^talk 09:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure everyone agrees Qaramel was a city in any case. For instance this [3] doesn't call it a city. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what's a city? civilization, culture ? It depends which dictionary you grab. They were cultivating wild cereals and herding goats. Jericho & Qaramel were both pre-ag settlements. But, my point is mixing history and prehistory is confusing. Don't merge the wall page, take the prehistorical info out. split the articles. Romanfall (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dougweller makes an important point. [4] is a great site. Thanks. Scientists disagree. Most likely no one is correct. We can date the wall. It probably took 10 years to build a 28ft ? tower. The guys building it would have lived outside of the wall. Some anthropologists think we built religious shrines first. Hunter-gatherer clans would meet on holy days at the holy sites. c. 4200 BCE Tell Brak shows how wary people were of living closely to one another. To live in a city, eat in public, you need food security. Anthropologists learn from trash. These sites have art and skeletons, but why is there no garbage? Romanfall (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section was removed. I am not sure why. The reason given was because it contained original research. This section refers to biblical references which are mentioned in the bible are not original research. Biblical references are an integral part of this article. Both pages on Nazareth and Bethlehem contain biblical references. If one would argue against original research then neither of those articles should contain biblical references. 62.219.145.234 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia editors sampling primary religious texts in order to generate content that demonstrates that something is the case is original research. Please have a read through WP:OR e.g. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." If you see this kind of thing in other articles please delete it. It isn't allowed. Editors need to use secondary (or tertiary) sources that discuss biblical references to Jericho etc and use those instead. They should be easy to find. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

did Jericho was the first city in the world ? . פארוק (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jericho is show in the bible befor Damscus. פארוק (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter, it's the archaeology that's important here as this is long before written records. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell Aswad near Damascus has emmer wheat first at ca. 8800 BCE, which is the first crop that can support a sedentary population. Jericho had a giant 600m x 3m x 9m ditch around it not long after (ca. 8000 BCE) that was likely used for some irrigation purpose. I would interject that the history of our first city would have been held of exceptional importance to our race, as every child wants to know where we came from! Hence I do not deem it as entirely unlikely as Doug does that stories of this settlement could have been passed down via language prior to written records. For a less distorted account of such things, older records than the Bible should be studies however as they are less corrupted. Sumerian records begin at about 2700-2600 BCE (1500-2000 years before the earliest parts of the Bible) with works such as the Kesh temple hymn that may be of interest to people studying such things. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to carbon dating the Canaanite city (Jericho City IV) was destroyed between 1617 and 1530 BCE, but rounded as c.1550 BCE

Cary Cook — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cary Cook (talk • contribs) 08:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like an error to me. I have corrected the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The grain found burned in Garstang's city IV level was RC dated by Bruins and Van Der Plicht to 3306 bp plus or minus 7 years. There are a number of RC calibration schemes. All produce unsatisfactory results for this time period because of a 'wiggle' or 'turn about' in atmospheric carbon during this period. So, a single bp date will produce a set of bce dates. In this case, the calibrated dates produced by the scheme selected by Bruins and Van Der Plicht produced the date sets of 1601-1566 bce and 1561-1524 bce. None of these dates are acceptable to archaeologists and historians. The fall of city IV almost certainly took place during the reign of Amenhotep III, whose scarabs were the last (most recent) found on the tell and in the graves associated with the city. This, along with indisputable ceramic evidence from LB I (ignored by Kenyan) cement the case for the destruction of city IV in LB I. No archaeologist or historian of note would accept a date for Amenhotep III that is compatible with the date range suggested by the RC results. This problem is not confined to Jericho, but is a well known problem affecting all ANE archaeology. Kenyan's MB II destruction (presumed as she did not publish a final report before her death). Has been conclusively shown to be invalid since the early '90's principally through the doctoral thesis of Bryant Wood, widely published in non academic circles as well, through the Biblical Archaeology Review. This should be corrected in the article. The evidence unequivocally points to a destruction in LB I and there has been a great deal published on it in the last 25 years. People who hold to Kenyan's work are either doing so in ignorance (an ignorance that Wikipedia should not participate in) or as a social/political opposition to anything that might seem to indicate any level of historicity to the 'biblical' narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 00:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is highly biased. Undue weight to history and archeology. Present day is hidden between history and archeology. Occupation is denied, whereas correction is deleted. A casino that existed only a few years in the past. An Agro-Industrial Park that still does not exist.

You will not find the history that tells:
"The occupation of Jericho and the nearby Jordan banks and bridges on June 7, 1967, by Israel troops practically concluded the *Six-Day War fighting on the West Bank. Along with tropical, irrigated oasis-type farming (with date palms and pomegranates prominent, to which bananas, citrus, fodder crops, and certain tropical species, were later added), winter tourism and recreation developed, particularly from the 1950s, as an additional source of income." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10082.html

"Agriculture is another source of income, with banana groves ringing the city."
Without doubt, the Palestinians will do the slave work, but you will not read that the bananas do not grow in Jericho, but in the Jewish settlements on grabbed land, Tomer, Niran, Naomi, etc, etc. http://electronicintifada.net/downloads/pdf/070905-jv-factsheet.pdf --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just looking at Google Maps, and they seemed to have eradicated Palestine. It is all Israeli. As an example, I looked at Jericho, and there was almost nothing there. Is there some way to address this issue?

thanks, Baden 41.63.142.229 (talk) 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Wikipedia has no influence over what Google do, but Google Maps displays the "Green Line" that separates Israel and the Palestinian territories. They dynamically label Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip based on the scale of the map, and all 3 of those labels are treated the same way i.e. they are either all present or all absent for a given scale. So, while it's true that they don't use a Palestine, Palestinian territories or the ISO 3166 standard name "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" label, they label the Gaza Strip and West Bank individually instead, it's not the case that they treat it all as Israeli. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I am getting at, is if you click on the coordinates at the top of the article, it will take you to the map page, where if you click on Google Map, you will see exactly what I am referring to. No matter at what scale you zoom into, Jericho has no street labels, where if you examine nearby Israeli settlements, they are fully and colourfully notated.

thanks, Baden 41.63.128.175 (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed an apparent contradiction between these pages. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Age section of the Jericho page it says:

"After a few centuries it was abandoned for a second settlement, established in 6800 BC, perhaps by an invading people who absorbed the original inhabitants into their dominant culture. Artifacts dating from this period include ten plastered human skulls, painted so as to reconstitute the individuals' features.[12] These represent the first example of portraiture in art history, and it is thought that they were kept in people's homes while the bodies were buried."

If this second settlement was established in 6800 BC, this implies the earliest time these plastered skulls could have been crafted would be immediately afterward. My concern is with the claim that they represent the first example of portraiture in art history.

In the Tell Aswad page, under the Culture section, it says:

"A collection of 9 technically and stylistically similar, over-modelled, skulls were retrieved from 2 areas. Detailed study of the skulls is currently underway to provide insight into the traditions and social ties of the villagers. The residents of Tell Aswad reserved a very sophisticated treatment for the dead: skulls were removed and cleaned, with a face modelled directly onto the bone with lime plaster and then painted."

That sounds like the very same process referred to in the Jericho page as the first example of portraiture in art history, yet wikipedia lists Tell Aswad as having been deserted in 7500 BC. Would that not imply the Tell Aswad skulls were crafted earlier than 7500 BC and hence predate those from Jericho?

http://anthropology.net/2006/09/26/9500-year-old-syrian-decorated-skulls/

216.64.170.2 (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia requirement that a language be an official language of the country in which a city is located, before the name of that city in that language be used? It doesn't seem to be the case here: Strassburg or here Gdańsk. This standard is not even apparent with regards to other historical cities in the West Bank: [[Hebron], Nablus Brad Dyer (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From WP:PLACE: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted."... so at first glance, no, there doesn't appear to be any requirement that a language be an official language of the country. Tobus (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some comments.

• I don't think looking at other articles is useful in practice because the presence and absence of non-English names is often nothing more than an artifact of ethno-nationalist pissing contests and neglect. This is especially the case in WP:ARBPIA (and a few other topic areas) that are subjected to constant POV pushing by ethno-nationalists, often by unregistered editors and sockpuppet accounts.
• Local official non-English names should certainly be included so that's a simple and straightforward decision procedure for many English Wikipedia articles about localities in Israel and the occupied territories, Israeli settlements for example, localities that are administered by the State of Israel, where both the official Hebrew and Arabic names should be included. That isn't the case in practice however. The official Arabic names (that appear on road signs for example) are almost always absent (see Template:Neighborhoods_of_Jerusalem and Category:Israeli settlements for numerous examples) or systematically removed (see this article history or this ANI report about just one of this persons multiple accounts for example). Of course, ethno-nationalists will tend to focus on adding one language while removing or more often simply ignoring the absence of the other language. This is a major issue in ARBPIA.
• How to handle localities like Jericho, that are outside of Israel and administered by the State of Palestine rather than Israel seems less clear. Hebrew is not a local official language according to Palestinian basic law so the localities are not going have Hebrew names that can be added to the article on the basis that they are local official names. As for including non-official non-English names in regionally "relevant" languages such as Hebrew (or I suppose Ottoman Turkish or even Russian nowadays I guess), what is the precise basis for including Hebrew in this instance ? If it is on the basis that Hebrew is the language of "a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place", who are we talking about and when precisely ? Are we talking about ancient history or Palestinian Jews before 1948 or the post-1967 pre-Oslo situation or what or does it even really matter ? I understand that to ethno-nationalists who see the occupied territories as part of Israel and who don't really distinguish between the modern State of Israel and Eretz Yisrael, the reason to include Hebrew for anything within Eretz Yisrael will be obvious/self-evident, but it isn't to me. I would like to see the rationale spelled out using language I can understand, partly to ensure that rational decisions are being made based on policy (or common sense) rather than as a side-effect of ethno-nationalist socialization or the systemic bias that comes from the demographic make up and prevailing political views of the subset of editors who edit articles about these localities, systemic bias that is evident from the current state of locality naming in hundreds of articles in the topic area.
• Now, having said all that, I'm not very interested in the details or complicated rules personally. I would much rather see a simple one-size-fits-all rule rolled out across ARBPIA (maybe agreed at WP:IPCOLL) to cover this with editors acting responsibly and evenhandedly to ensure that the rule is implemented right across the topic area in a consistent way. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anon 108.217.108.193 is trying to question the validity of the radiocarbon dates published by Bruins and der Plicht in 1993. It is true that the 1993 paper says that the calibration curves were in the process of revision, but it does not say that "new refinements continually give younger dates". It only says that the 1993 revisions gave younger dates than the 1986 revisions, with no mention of an overall trend. These edits will mislead readers into thinking that a bible-consistent calibration of the dates in that paper might be possible. Since the calibration curves have been updated multiple times since 1993, this is not a matter of speculation but just a matter of checking. The following cannot be put into the article since it is probably on the wrong side of the NOR rule, but it does settle the issue of whether the calibration process has trended towards giving younger dates.

The calibration curves are statistical in nature and the results are usually quoted as either "1 sigma" (the most likely range), or "2 sigma" (a wider range covering less likely possibilities). Since the calibration curve wriggles up and down, it is possible for the calibrated result to have more than one contiguous period. Bruins and der Plicht give two weighted averages for the "final destruction layer" near the 17th/16th century boundary. Here are what the IntCal13 calibration curve provides for them. (IntCal13 is the 2013 calibration recommended for non-marine samples.)

Charcoal. Raw 3370±6 BP (now 3389±6 BP). Calibrated 1 sigma: 1728-1723,1692-1663 BCE; 2 sigma: 1738-1714,1695-1657,1653-1645 BCE.
Cereal. Raw 3306±7 BP (now 3325±7 BP). Calibrated 1 sigma: 1628-1612 BCE; 2 sigma: 1639-1608,1582-1559 BCE.

Bruins and der Plicht say "The age of the short-lived cereal samples is likely to be within a few years of the destruction date of the last MBA city at Tell es-Sultan." The 1 sigma dates given by the 2013 calibration curve are not younger but actually 10-20 years older than the 1993 calibration dates. So the scare quotations (and incorrect paraphrase) are misleading, as I wrote. The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples. Zero^talk 01:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never tried questioning the validity of the dates as of the 1993 paper - only their accuracy which the authors themselves say are not absolute for many reasons, not just the recalibration curve of 1993 or whichever year. The paper says, "The 1993 version of the bidecadal calibration curve by Pearson and Stuiver give somewhat younger ages than the 1986 calibration curve. The 1993 version of Stuiver and Becker produces considerably younger dates than their 1986 decadal calibration curve. The 1993 versions of both the bidecadal and decadal calibration curves produce similar dates, buthe 1986 versions of these two curves do not give comparable results. Calibrated dates may change with furtherefinement of both calibration curves and calculation procedures. Therefore, the uncalibrated original BP date must always be mentioned with the calibrated result." Obviously if the 1993 curve gave younger dates than the 1986 this is going to happen for other dates given by the 1986 one. Furthermore, the Italian research, not influenced by "biblically-consistent" archaeologists gave an even younger curve extending into the 14th century BC. If you feel that is misleading, I should have just stated the obvious: the more recent research tends to get, the younger the dates are for the excavation of Jericho. As far as it being "just copied" from a Bryant Wood paper, I don't see how this matters, as if this removes any of the validity of the Italian archaeologists' research. The middle 2 of your 4 paragraphs are irrelevant as you are just summarizing what the calibration curve is and what it said, a bit incorrectly. Dates of 10-20 years older is an amateurish and absurd thing to stay with any definitive certain from C14 dating 3500 years ago, and I feel like if a recalibration produces 100 years younger (1986 vs 1993), then certainly there are a lot of assumptions in the C14 dating method. No one ever uses C14 readings purely on their own and archaeologists try to correlate them with historical information as much as possible, as in this case. The pottery evidence by Bryant Wood, who for some reason you feel cannot be cited and one is making "scare quotations" if doing so, conclusively shows that there was occupation in the 15th century BC but not later. A lecture of his notes how the scarabs found at Jericho are from 15th century BC Pharaohs (Hatshepsut). Although scarabs were reused for many years after, Hatshepsut's became unpopular at the end of Thutmose III's reign, and she was censured afterwards. For a record such as Joshua to describe the ruins of Jericho so accurately, it cannot be mere coincidence unless it was accurate history. More over, I don't know where you change the 3306±7 BP to 3325±7 BP. Moreover, the authors themselves state that more evidence is needed:

It would be extremely valuable to have new sets of high-precision 14C dates from short-lived material of the Second Intermediate period and the XVIth Dynasty in Egypt, to investigate a possible Egyptian connection with the destruction of MBA Jericho. However, the problem and the extent of regional variations between calibration curves needs to be addressed. Development of a new high-precision calibration curve for the Eastern Mediterranean region would be ideal, if only the logs could be found. (p.218)

The uncalibrated original BP date must always be mentioned, because calibrated dates may change with further refinement of both calibration curves and calculation procedures. The preliminary calibration data of the destruction of Tell es-Sultan at the end of the MBA constitute valuable new chronological information, based on detailed and precise 14C measurements. More definite statements about the calibrated dates can be made only after accuracy tests of existing calibration curves and further assessment of regional variability. (p.219)

So I have no idea why you decided that the cereal dated to 3306 +/- 7 BP is now 3325. The cereal grains are assumed to be from around that time period, but 1) that could be untrue as the Italian research shows, and it could have been a previous fire that burnt them up, or other such (the charcoal dates to 64 years earlier and in one case to 300 due to such factors), or 2) The missing material they don't have could give a different date.

The archaeologist who dated the destruction of Jericho to the 16th century BC, Kathleen Kenyon, did not consider pottery ostraca. This is a problem that she has had at least in two other places: she dated some terraces found in excavations at Jerusalem to the 14th century BC, the time of the Amarna letters, whereas now a few scholars are reevaluating the structures' date to the early Iron Age, 150 years later based on, guess what: the pottery evidence (Avni and Galor. Unearthing Jerusalem (2011), pp.180, 192-193). The one time she dated something based on the pottery evidence, Level III of Lachish, she was off by 100 years again, though in the other direction (David Ussishkin. Answers at Lachish, BAR 5:06, Nov/Dec 1979).

Bruins and der Plicht say "The age of the short-lived cereal samples is likely to be within a few years of the destruction date of the last MBA city at Tell es-Sultan." The 1 sigma dates given by the 2013 calibration curve are not younger but actually 10-20 years older than the 1993 calibration dates. So the scare quotations (and incorrect paraphrase) are misleading, as I wrote. The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples.

Well obviously these are not the same grains and the Italian ones date later, when the city was actually destroyed. Therefore, the original conclusion was possibly incorrect regarding their tested grains being within a few years of the city's destruction or being in the 16th century BC. Who is being misleading now? I suspect you simply don't understand the data you're reading and trying to assess, probably due to your blind bias.

I don't see why my scholarly citations have to be removed (Italian source), simply because for some reason you feel that Bryant Wood's sources he cited are not admissible, or that I have been "discovered" just "copying" him (what you said: The reference to Quaderni di Gerico that anon mentioned in an edit summary is just copied from a paper of Bryant Wood and anyway does not refer to the same samples. - in other words "he just copied Bryant Wood" - and? What is the problem? Your references are "just copied" from the Calibration article (and badly at that) plus your own imagination (and faulty interpretation). Why does it have to be the same sample?). So please feel free to remove any "misleading data" and biblical connections in archaeology that you don't seem to like. There are many, few of them stated on wikipedia, probably because of people like you who seem to have a problem with it and people "copying" conservative archaeologists' citations such as Bryant Wood's. In light of this, I'm going to add the findings of the Quaderni di Gerico and let the readers judge for themselves and not have a one-sided discussion.108.217.108.193 (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for reminding me of this discussion, since I recently realised that the results of the IntCal13 calibration that I gave before were incorrect. (This is why we don't allow OR into articles.) Here are a revised set of numbers:

Charcoal. Raw 3370±6 BP. Calibrated 1 sigma: 1682–1673,1667–1642 BCE; 2 sigma: 1688–1630 BCE.
Cereal. Raw 3306±7 BP. Calibrated 1 sigma: 1616–1606,1583–1558,1553-1546 BCE; 2 sigma: 1620-1599,1586-1533 BCE.

These ranges are hardly any different from those given by Bruins and der Plicht (1995). Now regarding the "Italian samples", the reason that Wood's claims about them should not just be copied is that Wood's letter to BAR was an obvious polemic with a non-archaeological motive. The best approach, as usual, is to consult the original source. So we get a copy of Quaderni di Gerico Vol. 2 (2000), editors Nicolò Marchetti and Lorenzo Nigro and look at the pages Wood mentions. On pages 206–207, Marchetti writes "the first one (Rome-1776) fits the chronology of the traditional end of Middle Bronze II, towards 1650 BC, while the second one (Rome-1775) is for some reason too low". So Marchetti thinks one of the samples supports the traditional dating and the other is an outlier. To confirm this we turn to the other pages 330,332 mentioned by Bryant, where we find the technicians' report on the dating. Lombardo and Pilotto write there "On the contrary, samples Rome-1175 and Rome-1176 (1432-1262 and 1688-1506 cal. yrs BC, respectively aged), also collected from the same level in Area A, are not coeval; furthermore while the second is coherent with the archaeological context from which both the samples come from (Middle Bronze Age II, 1800-1650 yr BC circa; Marchetti, Nigro 1998), the first shows a younger age. Subsequently we may suppose at first glance, that a contamination by a younger organic material has taken place, but to explain correctly this data we think necessary to increase the measurements on new samples from the same level." So they also think the young one is suspicious. Incidentally, there have by now been at least 5 additional seasons of excavation by the Italian team at the site. Nigro's opinion (check his papers at academia.edu) remains that a reduction in the size of the city occurred around 1650 BCE and complete destruction around 1550 BCE. It is not true that the accepted dates keep getting younger. It may be ok to quote a qualified person stating a different opinion, but it isn't ok to quote someone claiming support from a source that doesn't provide support, and even less ok to silently quote an intermediate source making such a false claim. Zero^talk 05:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is true, the 2013 dates do not diverge in any significant way from the 1993 ones. However the assumptions that are used could certainly use fine tuning as the authors of the 1993 article themselves state. I wouldn't care if the ancient trees they find and use to recalibrate happen to support a date in 1550 BC or 15,000 BC, but I do care that Kenyon's opinion is so universally accepted when she has been often so wrong, especially without said trees. Moreover, it is perhaps possible that the section of the wall tested was one that was torn down earlier for a new to be rebuilt, if I'm reading correctly this link: http://www.academia.edu/7322013/MB_III_Rampart_and_Cyclopean_Wall_of_Tell_es-Sultan_Jericho .

As for Bryant Wood having a "polemical motive," I feel that's a bit of a move beyond OR and one that goes straight into just ad hominems: one can have a vested interest in something and still be correct (examples include heuristic discoveries like Max Planck's). You shouldn't discount a pottery expert's opinion just because of suspicions of an agenda. Also, his citation of the Italian journal is not his only evidence at all, but only one piece of independent confirmation that I was citing, so I don't believe I was guilty of quoting "someone claiming support from a source that doesn't provide support, and even less ok to silently quote an intermediate source making such a false claim". Pottery analysis is what has corrected Kenyon at least twice by 100-200 years, and the many archaeologists since Kenyon who have agreed with her on Jericho have done so because they were generally following her findings which were limited (she didn't excavate much). This Italian team clearly will not go against the flow because of this same trend so quoting the opinion and reinterpretation of the evidence serves nothing but the very polemic you detest (which if you think is absent in archaeology, you will find is not the case 99% of the time). These grains are specifically said to be short-lived by the 1993 article so how some "younger" material found its way on the same level at a site that was abandoned for hundreds of years (which would make it a mound and not on the same level) is not to be explained away with the magic wand of their editors' "somehow some younger material appeared". I can see how OLDER material can contaminate a sample, like the 3600+ BP charcoal sample of the 1993 analysis, but not younger, unless the sample or someone carrying it had a time machine. So maybe those C14 dating methods do need some calibration after all. At any rate, I earnestly await this Italian excavation's results and may they find the truth with those (apparently priceless) burned grains. 108.217.108.193 (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interestingly, I unwittingly found an article that points out the very issue I was talking about. From the 15th century BC and earlier, at least in some places, there is a Radiocarbon error of 100-150 years regarding Egyptian chronology, and basically impacts the whole of that area: http://www.academia.edu/226890/Bietak_M._and_F._H%C3%B6flmayer._2007._Introduction_High_and_Low_Chronology._In_The_Synchronisation_of_Civilisations_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_in_the_Second_Millennium_B.C._III_edited_by_M._Bietak_and_E._Czerny_13_23._CChEM_9._Wien._Verlag_der_%C3%96sterreichischen_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften . It concludes with this very interesting and important for our purposes observation:

In summation, the agreement between C14 and historical chronology in the 14th century and the sharp rise of an offset a century earlier of up to 100 to 150 years as well as in the preceding centuries only shows that the calibrated radiocarbon dates present-ed by Manning, Bronk Ramsey et al. cannot be considered as a series of chronometric precision, but as a series where the precision seems to deviate considerably from the 15th century backwards. This conclusion is the more cogent one as within the historical chronology of the 18th Dynasty with its dense network of regnal and genealogical data nobody could claim that a mistake of more than 100 years could have mounted up from the Amarna period to the early Tuthmosides (within a century). Under such auspices, one has to ask if it would not be worthwhile to investigate if a systemic failure in the Mediterranean C14 evaluation could be discovered,or if the absorption of C14 was, for environmental reasons, different from the 15th century BC backwards. Probably, we do not know enough about what may affect radiocarbon and its evaluation process. For this reason it, would be very important to close the gaps in Anatolian dendrochronology and to do the same with the cedar tree from Lebanon. Such new standards could be used to build up regional calibration. [p.20]

Of course, I don't expect this to be allowed to be reflected in the main article, so may the fortunate reader who casually stumbles here be informed.2602:306:CD96:CC10:5081:3D56:21F4:1F06 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) You aren't allowed to copy citations from intermediate sources without acknowledging the intermediate source. This is Wikipedia policy, end of story. (2) This article is not about radiocarbon but about Jericho, so general material about dating is not admissible. (3) In archaeology it is perfectly common for strata to be contaminated with younger material. All it needs is for a human or an animal to dig a hole, which both humans and animals do all the time. New plants send down roots into older soil. Etc, Etc.. Your comments about that are factually incorrect. Zero^talk 09:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Zero0000. Right on all counts. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) What are you talking about - I've cited all my sources. (2) The article I cited above pertains to Jericho as it is in the part of the Mediterranean that it talks about. Did you not know Jericho is in the Mediterranean/Middle East? (3) In archaeology, younger material can certainly contaminate but in this case, we'd have to have a second destruction of the city around the time to explain the burnt grain, which by the way is obviously part of the first destruction. Not only that, but it's special pleading and a human/animal digging a hole and a burnt grain finding its way there is simply an ad hoc explanation. Not only are my comments not factually incorrect, but make much better sense than your ignorant and prejudicial views, which conveniently ignore the above evidence cited. Until you deal with the evidence cited above, you should refrain from making one-paragraph blanket responses that have no substance. Anyone with a touch of objectivity would have agreed that the above-mentioned evidence not only has merit to be included in the article (which it most certainly does), but ought to. Since you are obviously too ignorant for this, I'm going to enter this information as it rightfully belongs in a (supposedly) neutral encyclopedia and remove all of your censorship whenever you do it.

To Dougweller, feel free to contribute something of substance to the discussion instead of just tag-teaming with your comments of support.2602:306:BC37:4DA0:3865:CF06:9715:B2B9 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anon, what you just added is exactly why the rule WP:SYNTH exists. If there is properly qualified literature about dating in Jericho you are welcome to introduce it. What you are not allowed to do is to apply other literature that does not mention Jericho according to your own analysis of how it applies. Such inferences have to be made by reliable sources, not by you. The source you added would be a fine addition to an article about chronology in the western Mediterranean in general, but it does not belong here. Zero^talk 02:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreeing that an editor is correct isn't tag-teaming. Zero0000 is correctly reflecting what our policy says. And I'm not ignorant about dating, stratification, etc. You're also making personal attacks and threatening to add badly sourced material. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have already introduced properly qualified literature about the dating of Jericho in at least 3 scholarly articles, which you have rejected in a very obviously biased manner. When an article mentions the southern Mediterranean, where Jericho is found, it applies to it. These are not inferences made by me at all - read what the article actually has to say about the whole of the southern Mediterranean (the Bietak et al article). The source is also very reliable and actually mentions huge problems with Egyptian (undisputed) chronology that C14 dates create, starting from 1400 BC and earlier (again not an inference). I think the source is very relevant to Jericho, especially since it is a pretty popular item (it is not western Mediterranean - Egypt is in the Southeastern Mediterranean).

The bietak paper came from a conference on the topic of the issues with RC for MB dating. RC currently produces dates for the MB that are higher than any historian or archaeologist would accept. Jericho was indisputably destroyed (city iv) early in the reign of Amenhotep III as his scarabs are found on the mound and in graves associated. But, no historian would accept a date of 1550 for Amenhotep III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.239.16.46 (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Dougweller: when all your comment has is: "Very good point", you are simply providing empty content messages for moral support. And don't accuse me of personal attacks as if they have no evidence. If you removed my "personal attacks", you'd be left with a lot of good evidence. If I removed you and your best friend's empty assertions, this page would be left only with my comments. Do you see the difference? The above mentioned user whom you defend accuses of the same things, but without actually providing any rationale but simply abusing their power. You shouldn't invite yourself to a conversation, especially one where you provided no relevance to the topic at hand (yes you have actually ignored dating, stratification and etc by not mentioning anything at all about our subject). Also I don't see how your empty assertion is justified in that my material is badly-sourced.

I didn't even revisit this topic for almost a year and probably wouldn't have had I not accidentally stumbled upon this a few days ago, which is obviously very relevant. So it's not like I'm looking for anything anywhere so I can include it. Since even the Talk section is being mishandled with false accusations of "irrelevance" and "badly-sourced" material, I am not going to waste my time trying to prove the obvious anymore here so that someone like you can come in and make empty assertions in tag-teaming contest and pretend via special pleading that a certain piece of FACTUAL evidence has no relevance and that the moderator abusing their power isn't biased.2602:306:CD96:CC10:8DE3:ECEF:179D:4174 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the calibration process is giving younger and younger dates, then it's getting further and further away from the biblical dates.PiCo (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the issue is that radiocarbon dates for the destruction of Jericho are older than traditional biblical chronology. Zero^talk 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anon, if two editors with vastly more experience than you think that your edits are in violation of the rules, you should listen. Zero^talk 08:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not the issue. The issue is that you insist on not adding relevant information to a certain topic simply because you disagree with it. Not to mention there are plenty of misleading statements such as in the link to "Battle of Jericho". As Zero stated, the younger dates go closer to 1400 BC: the original dates are at c.1550 BC +/- 50 or so years, so younger dates would push it closer to 1400 BC. Of course, the remains of the Late Bronze Age have been "washed away" by the centuries of the city being uninhabited until Ahab's time because there are tombs there yielding Mycenaean pottery (again, arguments out of pottery giving solid results) of a thirteenth century type (Albright, 'The Biblical Period' (4th ed - 1963), p.100, n.59 and in 'Bibliotheca Orientalis' 21 (1964), p.69). The rarity is due to the inland location of Jericho, like Hamath whose 13th century occupation was determined from just two potsherds. (Kitchen. Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966), p.63, n.22). Also the usage of Middle Bronze Age ramparts by Late Bronze age inhabitants is possible (ibid, p.62, n.20), though the C14 dating, if correct would contradict that. And it's unlikely that a second wall was rebuilt 150 years later, but completely eroded, so if the wall is from 1550, then either there was no Conquest or the Exodus is to be placed in the 13th century BC.

But what really calls the whole C14 dating into question (and in addition goes against Kenyon's dating instead of supporting it), is the fact that as the Bietak article above states, undisputed Egyptian chronologies are thrown off by 100-150 years starting from 1400 BC and earlier up until around 1800 BC or so. After and before that, the C14 dates are in perfect harmony with the chronology, hence why the authors say that a reevaluation of how C14 works around that time period in the Southern Mediterranean is needed. I was personally surprised when I found this article and its conclusions. By the way, the new link to the Battle of Jericho contradicts itself in saying Kenyon demonstrated the city was deserted in the mid-13th century yet later says the site was vacant from the late 15th until the 10th/9th. Also on that page, it is misleading to say that "Kenyon...demonstrated that the destruction occurred c.1500 BCE during a well-attested Egyptian campaign of that period," as if it's known from Egyptian records that one of the first three 18th dynasty Pharaohs destroyed it. Is anyone going to take that down? Of course not. Why? The same reason they ignore the above evidence.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed references to the battle and added a hatnote redirecting readers to the separate article (Battle of Jericho); my thinking is that the battle is just a single incident in a long history, and moreover the overwhelming consensus is that it never happened anyway. Other than that, if you find apparent contradictions in sources, by all means mention it, but we need to stick with sources, not come up with our own analyses.PiCo (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only opted to add the single sentence: "However, C14 dating has known problems in that part of the world as Bietak et al note." per the Bietak article. There is actually a lot more to add that's fact and not my own analysis (the late-dated grain is definitely one of them), but I think turtlenecks will make a comeback before anything other than that one sentence passes. I was not trying to insert my conclusions - the statement is a summary of the Bietak article that has relevant as well as very interesting information. If even that one little statement of fact above is too much, then is this web-encyclopedia is useful only for completely undisputed facts (e.g. the melting point of iron)? I only felt that people have a right to know (the point of Wikipedia), something they probably won't stumble upon by accident like I did, but that's obviously not going to happen.2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got nothing against turtlenecks. Where's the Bietak article? PiCo (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for showing interest after a pretty frustrating experience. You might have to login through google or facebook but you can download the whole article for free: http://www.academia.edu/226890/Bietak_M._and_F._H%C3%B6flmayer._2007._Introduction_High_and_Low_Chronology._In_The_Synchronisation_of_Civilisations_in_the_Eastern_Mediterranean_in_the_Second_Millennium_B.C._III_edited_by_M._Bietak_and_E._Czerny_13_23._CChEM_9._Wien._Verlag_der_%C3%96sterreichischen_Akademie_der_Wissenschaften - feel free to see what's fit from it for yourself both here and in the "Battle for Jericho" page if anything - p.20 is especially noteworthy, and the results are quite unexpected :). 2602:306:CD96:CC10:F4FB:A179:CD1E:4797 (talk) 09:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I gather that the dispute is this: carbon from a volcanic eruption on Thera (Aegean island) dates the eruption to (call it X - the precise date doesn't matter). Found with the plant material that gave this result was some Cypriot pottery that's

been dated, by more traditional methods, to Y. As the Cypriot pottery is also used to date Egyptian sites, this matters - if the pottery dating is wrong, then so is the entire Egyptian chronology. Whole conferences have been held about it, and books are still being written - for a recent one, see "Radiocarbon Dating, Second Edition: An Archaeological Perspective"(2014).

I honestly don't think it's relevant to Jericho - the argument put forward by the traditional Egyptologists seems to relate specifically to the Thera dates. A volcanic eruption at Thera wouldn't effect plant material at Jericho (too far away, and relates to cereals, so that the cereal would have to have grown in the same year as the Thera event, which is unlikely). PiCo (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)And no academic source has used this article to discuss the Battle of Jericho? Interesting. But you've been told before about WP:SYN, the paper doesn't mention the battle so it can't be used to discuss the battle. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you are correct that the article seems to focus on Cyprus, thus no longer really relevant. While the paper does focus on Cypriot pottery, and more broadly the coasts of the Levant and Egypt, I do feel that the authors suggest that a general re-evaluation of C14 dating irrespective of Thera is needed (p.20 last 3 paragraphs (right column)), but nothing more can be said. It is, however, known that radiocarbon dates do produce older results by 100+ years at around this period (anywhere). This was cited by another user at the Talk:Battle of Jericho section, the source: Handbook of South American Archaeology (found at Google Books), p.xix. Dougweller dismissed this as a misunderstanding/cherry-picking but the page is abundantly clear that C14 dates are simply unreliable - Thera-related or not. Nevertheless, I suppose the Bietak article is better left unused since it seems to focus on Cyprus and a more vague Mediterranean.

To Dougweller: you'd be surprised what scholars don't know about. A good example with Babylonian cuneiform is given by Kitchen (data that supports the OT) in his Ancient Orient and Old Testament pp.24, 51. One can be forgiven for thinking that the title of "scholar" entitles one to an unerring opinion or that these issues are settled amongst the scholarly community (so J.A.T. Robinson in the introduction to his Redating the New Testament). Even in issues that aren't controversial there isn't a final word: as recently as the 1960's, the development of dendrochronology shifted entire civilizations by 1000+ years. (Just so there's no confusion Anon above is the same as me, this username).Cornelius (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, Renassault, Cornelius, IP, once again this is not a forum. See WP:FORUM. This sort of discussion doesn't belong here. Discussion of sources which mention Jericho does. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This 2012 article claims to solve the problem for Egypt by identifying it as caused by poor sample selection for carbon dating. As before, Jericho is not mentioned and we are not entitled to decide for ourselves how the problem or the proposed solution apply in the case of Jericho. Until we find a reliable source that makes that judgement, the material remains SYNTH. Zero^talk 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. 8 years later. what do you think about this article.

Please note two things before I quote: cambridge.org and Radiocarbon (peer-reviewed) journal article:

"It is suggested here that the high chronology, dating the Middle Bronze Age between 2000 and 1600 BC is difficult to reconcile with dates from many sites. In contrast, a more localized chronology should be adopted, with the Middle Bronze Age continuing into the early 15th century BC in certain parts of the southern Levant, such as the region of Jerusalem." Cornelius (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a 1500-year discrepancy between the PPNA dates given by specialised archaeologists here, and the dates used by the WP articles on Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, Jericho, the Wall of Jericho and the Tower of Jericho: ≈11,500–10,500 cal B.P. vs. 8000 to 7000 BC. The PNAS article is referring specifically to the PPNA site at Dhra', but Jericho is only a stone throw away, so regional differences can hardly play a part. Or is it connected to calibrated carbon dates vs. what has become common dating standards? Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have looked at the PPNA article and the sources cited give the earlier dates, 11,500-10,500 BP, so I have amended the article. The other articles you mention will also need checking. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have quite wide variations now.

Compare with Neolithic#Fertile Crescent with slightly different grouping of sub-periods suggested by French researchers: "between 10,200-8,800 BC, PPNA: Sultanian (Jericho), Mureybetian, early PPNB (PPNB ancien) ".

Here we have: "Pre-Pottery Neolithic, c. 9600 BCE", "The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase at Tell es-Sultan (ca. 8350 – 7370 BCE)", under the PPNA heading: "first permanent settlement ... between 10,000 and 9000 BCE", "Pre-Pottery Neolithic A phase at Tell es-Sultan (ca. 8350 – 7370 BCE)" (maybe a mix-up with "Sultanian", which might (?) have slightly different dates than geographically wider defined PPNA?), and then for PPNB: "Pre-Pottery Neolithic B, 7220 to 5850 BCE".

Barkai & Liran, referring strictly to the tower, are quoting Richard Burleigh: "The tower was constructed and used between ~8300 BC and ~7800 BC (Burleigh 1981, 1983)." Arminden (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenReply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121547/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331192135&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331192135&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614231532/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/phc_97/jer_t1.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/phc_97/jer_t1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118181551/https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/phc_97/jer_t6.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/phc_97/jer_t6.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jericho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080505133103/http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=12 to http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=12
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613235138/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=138 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=138
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217143329/http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/pr150309.html to http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/pr150309.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318001142/http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/pr_April_14_2010.html to http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/pr_April_14_2010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917020530/http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=19 to http://www.jericho-city.org/etemplate.php?id=19

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben-Arieh, p. 80, writes that Schick, 1896 gives Jericho 210 inhabitants. Unfortunately, he does not say which page in Schick....and I have not been able to find it. What am I missing? ...or is it a mistake in Ben-Arieh? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anybody with authorization can add this to the external links:

• Jericho & Tel El Sultan - Aerial photography - Mikraot Gedolot Haketer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel678 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Emmanuel1678: what's your relationship to that website? It looks as though you are spamming it - again. Last time you agreed not to add it without discussion on the appropriate talk page, but only here, where you don't have permission, have you even posted to a talk page. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Billinghurst: this editor has resumed his cross-wiki spamming, any comments? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Also noting that when this site was removed from the spam blacklist, this editor agreed to Billinghurst's request: "I would heartily suggest that continued addition, especially xwiki in the main namespaces of the wikipedias would not be advisable. If in doubt, ask on an article talk page whether the link should be added (due to potential CoI) and rely on the community to make the decision to add or not. I would also encourage you to talk openly with heWP about your vested interst in the link, and arrange with them how they wish to manage the link and your addition. Having that as an open discussion extinguishes natural tensions."[5] Doug Weller talk 10:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

        • @Doug Weller: Hmm, I should have read this page before replying on the user talk page. This user should be required to declare any interest, and we should flag heWP admins like @Matanya, IKhitron, and Amire80: to alert them to local issues if they have returned. The subject matter of which I know sufficient to make an authoritative statement, though the traits of the additions is problematic and does not seem free of vested interest. Cross-wiki it did look that way, and the user does not look to be here to improve our encyclopaedias but to add their link, the contributions seem to be promoting their site luxo:Emmanuel678. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHY ARE PEOPLE NOT SAYING BC AND AD?

WHAT DO BC AND AD STAND FOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justified19 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was changed to a BCE article randomly by user Troy von Tempest in 2019 without any reason. This is a BC article and should not be changed. We should revert their changes. Paokara777 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be accurate, it’s been BCE since 2006 with a small number of IP changes quickly reversed.[6] I can’t see why it should be changed to “year of our lord” dating. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Particularly since calling Jesus our dominus is offensive. We are not his slaves. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to know if this has any relation to Detroit: Become Human. Is it just the name, or does it have some connection to this city? EmeraldTheGamer (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No relationship is known. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An edit was made in 2018 changing the location from the West Bank to Palestine.

I’m sure this was motivated by bias. It is inconsistent with other wiki W.B. cities and Gaza cities. This change is likely going to confuse readers. Maitz23459 (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Each house measured about 5 metres (16 ft) across, and was roofed with mud-smeared brush."

I don't understand what this means, and searching about does not help.

-GreenlandGneiss (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"brush" is like "brushwood". But I don't know if that sentence is sourced. I can't find it in the source given for the following sentence. Zero^talk 20:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Ghaur link under Ayyubid period is clearly wrong. 216.8.188.31 (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for spotting this!  Done Huldra (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change AD to CE: A number of monasteries and churches were built, including St George of Koziba in 340 AD and a domed church dedicated to Saint Eliseus. -> A number of monasteries and churches were built, including St George of Koziba in 340 CE and a domed church dedicated to Saint Eliseus. 016bells (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done. -Tri@l (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done. You need to give a strong reason to change date formats. - Sumanuil (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is funny that the article says "The Arabic name *also* has roots in Canaanite". Instead of saying "the Arabic name is derived from the Ancient/Archaic Hebrew name".

This could cause viewers to think there is a separate etymology that somehow developed both in the Arabian peninsula *before the Arabian conquest of Israel* , and in Israel from the same root at the same time even though Jericho is very far from the Arabian peninsula.

This is obviously untrue, seeing as there are earlier references in the Hebrew language to the place, way before the Arabian conquest of Israel. Also this may cause viewers to think Arabic is *based on* Cannanite, when in fact it derived from an entirely different semetic branch (Cannanite is branch of northwestern semetic and has it's origins in Central Semetic , Arabic is on a different branch of Central semetic)

If my arguments arent enough validation, here is a language chronology order to prove this is true. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#/media/File%3ASemitic_languages_-_Chronology.png

Please fix "also has its roots in Canaanite Reaẖ" to "stems/loans from the Archaic/Ancient Hebrew name יריחו". Colanderion1 (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry WP:OR does not beat WP:RS, especially when there are three of them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As they are stated now, it leaves two substantial gaps, one -, one +: if PPNB covers 9,500-9000, and PPN altogether ends around 6500, that leaves 1780 years belonging nowhere (9000-7220), and extends PPN from the stated 6500 by 650 years to 5850 BC. Must be addressed (different authors maybe, calibrated dates vs uncal., older vs newer periodisation, habitation gap between A and B,... - ?). Arminden (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I was reading this article and noted in the sub-section on the British Mandate Period that the first sentence deals with World War II, before immediately going back in time to talk about World War I and the inter-war period. I would suggest somebody simply moves the World War II sentence later in the section, probably going just before the final paragraph. I would do it myself, but I don't have the clearance thingy necessary to edit the article. GeorgmentO (talk) 22:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, User:GeorgmentO: have done, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Palestine is not a legitimate or "real" place it was made up only in recent times Using the term is offensive and ignorant 70.163.223.87 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: As documented in Timeline of the name Palestine, the name "Palestine" dates to ancient times. The article adequately documents its legal status in the section "1967, aftermath" Vahurzpu (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This statement in the description of the head of an ancestor statue dated at 9000 old is unsourced and factually false. The Brassempouy Venus is over 15 000 years older. Drilou (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Christian Gospels state that Jesus of Nazareth passed through Jericho where he healed blind beggars (Matthew 20:29: Mark 10: 46-52: Luke, 18:35-43) Josmathews (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see discussion here. Arminden (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where in the main article is the Biblical historic record of Jericho being the first point of jewish conquest of the land if Israel? 2A0D:6FC0:742:ED00:DCA1:4C95:B527:CBFE (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a fact of history, it's a myth. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jericho wasn't founded in 9600 BC. 96.53.84.138 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Says who? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change

"In 1994, Israel and the Palestinians signed an economic accord that enabled Palestinians in Jericho to open banks, collect taxes and engage in export and import in preparation for self-rule.[104]"

To

"In 1994, Israel and Palestine signed an economic accord that enabled Palestinians in Jericho to open banks, collect taxes and engage in export and import in preparation for self-rule.[104]" Ruler in Peace (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done The person who loves reading (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Under PPNA: Pulse => Pulse (legume) Thanks. 2001:1C03:3B11:DD00:31C7:A174:1179:507 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - Tri@l (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]