ABSTRACT
Introduction Nowhere has modern historiography, in its reconstruction of the his tory of ancient Israel, experienced a greater sense of frustration than in its attempts to come to terms with the accounts of military conquest in the Book of Joshua. The use of archaeology to illuminate and evaluate the various episodes has produced confl icting results.1 The archaeological remains of the three most important cities in the conquest narratives, Jericho, Ai and Gibeon, all create major problems for the historical presentation of the conquest. No amount of chronological juggling or interpretation of the stories can overcome these diffi culties. What is lacking in the approach by scholars who appeal to archaeology is any attempt to come to terms with the historiographic form of the biblical text. These historians, such as John Bright,2 are unable to explain how the participants in the events of the conquest passed on their accounts or memories to later generations and how they came to take the form they now have in the biblical text. It therefore becomes diffi cult to engage in a discus sion about the historiographic problem of the conquest accounts in Joshua.
