Commercial relations, trade patterns and the types of ceramic wares in use would not necessarily be the same in the two periods. But during this history, changes were taking place.Be that as it may, it is simply poor methodology to base dating almost exclusively on the lack of imported pottery. In the Middle Bronze period, the bowl had a pronounced crimp at the point of carination.As a result, many Middle Bronze forms continue into Late Bronze I. The distances to these sites are well within the orbit of itinerant merchants, the primary agents for the diffusion of ceramic wares in antiquity.There are subtle differences in a number of types, however, and several new forms are introduced. Thus, similar types at these sites should be considered to be contemporary.
Let us now examine the pottery illustrated in the plate. Bienkowski's "parallel" is not a store jar at all, but rather a smaller jar usually called a water jar.
In the Middle Bronze period, the store jar comparable to our figure 8 had a short neck and a thick heavy rim, many times profiled, which was only slightly everted.
In the Late Bronze Age, on the other hand, the neck was longer, with a simple outward-folded rim that had a more pronounced eversion.
This article provides some additional data not published in Dr. I dealt with the correspondence that exists between the archaeological findings at Jericho and the Biblical account in Bienkowski's attempt to explain away the evidence for lowering the date of the destruction of Jericho is misguided and void of substance.
Wood's first BAR article, thus adding to the mountain of evidence demonstrating that Jericho was destroyed around 1400 B. Assertions made without data to back them up are unconvincing.
The two events should not be correlated, as Kenyon had done. Bienkowski himself has commented on the impropriety of this procedure.