They devoted to destruction by the sword the entire city: man and woman, young and old, cow and sheep. (6:21)

    The phrase "devoted to destruction," sometimes called "the ban," refers to the Israelite holy war practice of destroying the entire population of a city along with all its material goods. In the religious perspective of holy war, Yahweh alone fights the battle and achieves the victory, therefore to him alone belongs the booty. By killing and then burning the entire city, everything was given over to God. One of the implications of holy war for Israel is that making war was a not-for-profit enterprise. The Israelites were not allowed to benefit personally or materially from the spoils of victory.
    The instruction to totally eliminate the Canaanite enemy was given to effect a complete separation between the incoming Israelites and the native Canaanite inhabitants. As the account of the book of Joshua goes on to describe, this instruction was not carried out to the letter. The result was that many Canaanites were left in the land, and the eventual spiritual problems of the Israelites were traced to this shortcoming. The Canaanites kept luring the Israelites to follow after foreign gods.
    The notion of Israelite holy war continues to be a problem among those who hold the Hebrew Bible dear. For many modern readers it is a scandal that Israel's God should have mandated the complete destruction of a group of human beings. Can the same rationale be used in the post-biblical age to justify war against "heathens and infidels," as happened during the Crusades and at other times? How should we deal with the warfare ideology of the book of Joshua?
    There is no easy answer, but certain issues should be considered. First, the biblical narrative may be an idealization; that is, perhaps the Israelites never consistently enforced the ban or completely destroyed a resident population. That they did not is in hindsight the Hebrew Bible's own theological explanation of why a pure Yahwism never took hold.
    Second, we must remember that this period in Israel's history was unique. What may have been demanded at this time does not necessarily apply to later periods. Holy war was instituted only to give Israel a homeland in Canaan and cannot be generalized as a religious principle for all time.
    Third, the results of archaeological investigations are inconclusive, but they do suggest that there was no complete destruction of Jericho at the time of Joshua's incursion. In other words, the archaeological record suggests that the ban was never in fact completely carried out.

Archaeology of Jericho. The generally accepted date of Joshua's incursion into Canaan is late thirteenth to mid-twelfth centuries B.C.E. This puts it at the end of the Late Bronze Age or early in the Iron I period. Archaeologists have not found any remains of a fortification wall that date to this period at the only possible site of ancient Jericho, Tell es-Sultan. By the time Joshua would have arrived there, Jericho already had a venerable history of many millennia. The excavations have revealed a fortification wall and tower dating to the Neolithic period (8000-7000 B.C.E.). Walls dating to the Early Bronze Age (third millennium B.C.E.) were at one time attributed to the age of Joshua, but this correlation is now known to have been in error. Fortified walls dating to the end of the Middle Bronze Age have been identified. Wood (1990) claims the archaeological evidence of this destruction correlates well with the biblical description of the Israelite battle. But only if Joshua's battle of Jericho is dated earlier, as suggested by Bimson (1978, 1987), could Joshua be associated with this violent destruction of Jericho.

    Jericho was a pile of burned rubble after the Israelites were done with it--another memorial heap. It was never to be rebuilt (though Hiel of Bethel later did it at great cost, see 1 Kings 16:34), as a reminder of the power of Yahweh and the Israelites over the Canaanites.
    After the victory at Jericho the Israelites attacked Ai. Expecting only minimal resistance, Joshua sent a small raiding party against the city, yet the Israelite fighters were soundly defeated. This defeat was a sign that God was displeased with the Israelites. By casting lots--small objects made of clay, wood, or stone, like dice--an Israelite named Achan was identified as the culprit. Casting lots was the mechanical means whereby God revealed his decisions. After being thrown, their configuration provided answers. Because Achan had stolen goods from Jericho, God was displeased with all the Israelites. Only after the offender was purged from their midst would God's favor be restored.
    Using a method of execution called stoning, Achan was taken outside the camp, where he and his entire family were killed. While the punishment seems severe--not just Achan himself but also his entire family were killed--it has a certain logic. The act of disobedience was considered so serious that Achan needed to be deprived of any future life in Israel. By eliminating all his offspring his family name was forever erased from among the Israelites. It is ironic that nonetheless we still remember him through the narrative. And the pile of rocks heaped over Achan and his family was a reminder to Israel of the need for strict obedience to Yahweh.
    Having been purged of the sinner, the Israelites again attacked Ai. Although the community was now right with God, still Joshua was more deliberate in his plans the second time around. He set an ambush to draw the soldiers of Ai outside the city walls, surrounded them with his men, and completely burned the city and its inhabitants. The account ends with Joshua covering Ai with stones "which stand there to this day" (8:29). It seems that Joshua and the Israelites were intent on leaving stone memorials wherever they went, and they all remain "to this day." They did it at Gilgal after crossing the river, Jericho's walls fell in a heap of stones, Achan and family were buried under stones, and here is yet another stone memorial. Note where else in the following chapters of Joshua you find piles of stones, and try to determine why they are significant.

Archaeology of Ai. Ai in Hebrew means "ruin" (today the site is called et-Tell, which in Arabic also means "ruin"). This story may be another etiological tale, along with a clever pun. The Israelites of the monarchic and exilic periods would have known this site as a ruins, and this story told them how it had happened. Ai was a massive fortified city of some twenty-seven acres through much of the Early Bronze Age (3300-2000 B.C.E.). From then until the beginning of the Iron I Age it lay in ruins. If the conquest is to be dated around 1250 B.C.E., there would have been no occupation at Ai at the time of Joshua. The Iron Age occupation began around 1125 B.C.E. covering only about two acres consisting of an unfortified village. Perhaps a later Israelite capture of Ai was credited to Joshua.