Ai

After Jericho’s fall, the book of Joshua claims that the city of Ai was destroyed and burned. Because of its general location and prominence, Khirbet et-Tell has been the major candidate for the site of ancient Ai. Most archeological evaluations of Khirbet et-Tell have suggested that it was not occupied during the Late Bronze Age. Therefore, the dominant view among scholars is that the conquest of Ai by the Israelites was not a historical event (Mazar and Finkelstein, The Quest for the Historical Israel, 62). As a result, other sites in the area have been proposed as candidates for Ai, such as Khirbet Maqatir and Khirbet Nisya. Although both sites have yielded pottery from the Late Bronze Age, Nisya had extremely limited remains and Maqatir appears to have been merely a village or outpost, perhaps walled, occupied at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Livingston, Khirbet Nisya, 203–22; Livingston, “Is Kh. Nisya the Ai of the Bible?”, 13–20; Wood, “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” 230; Wood, “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995–1998,”123–30; Wood, Digging up Joshua’s Ai, 10–16). Because alternative suggestions have not yet revealed any convincing archaeological evidence that matches fully with the narrative about the fire destruction of a prominent fortified city in the region during the Late Bronze Age, most scholars have been reluctant to accept the relocation of Ai.

Khirbet et-Tell still stands out as an imposing mound. This site was promoted by Albright as a result of his exploration of the area east of Beitin, and he saw no other possible site for Ai than Khirbet et-Tell (Albright, The Biblical Period, 29). Geographical factors in its favor as the site for Ai include its proximity to Beitin (Bethel), a valley to the north of the site, a plain nearby, and ancient fortifications. Khirbet et-Tell was surveyed by multiple explorers and archaeologists, but the first actual excavations, though brief, were carried out by Garstang in 1928 (Garstang, Department of Antiquities Report). A few years later, Marquet-Krause excavated the great walled city of the Early Bronze Age and part of a small Israelite Iron Age village (Callaway, “Excavating Ai,” 19). Because a Late Bronze Age city was not discovered, she concluded that the Israelite conquest account of Ai (Josh 7–8) was primarily legend (Marquet-Krause, “La Deuxieme Campagne,” 341). Later excavations appeared to confirm the idea that the Late Bronze Age city was missing (Callaway, “New Evidence,” 314). Thus, during the period when the Israelite conquest of Ai was supposed to have taken place (the Late Bronze Age) Khirbet et-Tell was apparently uninhabited.

However, Garstang reported Late Bronze Age habitation at the site, although the majority of his soundings were actually on the side of the mound, outside the city walls (Garstang, Department of Antiquities Report; Callaway, “Ai,” 39). Specifically, Late Bronze I pottery dating to the 15th century bc was found, including a Cypriot wishbone handle, but no pottery types from after 1400 bc (Garstang, Joshua—Judges, 356; Callaway, et al., “The 1964 “ai (Et-Tell) Excavations,” 13). If Khirbet et-Tell was uninhabited during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, then either the narrative about the Israelite conquest of Ai is unhistorical or Khirbet et-Tell is not the city of Ai recorded in Joshua.