What archaeological evidence supports the events described in Joshua 12:17? Scriptural Text “the king of Tappuah, one; the king of Hepher, one;” (Joshua 12:17) Historical Frame and Dating Joshua’s western campaign concluded c. 1406–1400 BC (early–date Exodus / Ussher’s chronology). Consequently, destruction horizons attributable to the conquest should fall in the late LB II–early Iron I transition (roughly the 15th–14th centuries BC when radiocarbon plateaus are corrected; cf. Wood 2019, Associates for Biblical Research). City of Tappuah 1. Identification • Hebrew תַּפּוּחַ (“apple” / “fruitful high-ground”). • Context in Joshua 17:8–9 places the city on the Manasseh–Ephraim border beside Nahal Qanah. • Best-supported mound: Tel Abu Zarad (Khirbet Tappuah; 32°06′21ʺ N, 35°08′54ʺ E), 6 km SW of Shechem. (Aharoni 1979; Hawkins 2017) 2. Field Evidence • Surface survey (Finkelstein, Manasseh Hill Country Survey I) logged dense LB II sherd-scatter, including Cypriot Base-Ring ware and Mycenaean IIIC. • 2014 rescue dig (Ariel University): 3 m-thick fortification wall with stone revetment, inner mud-brick facing, and an ash-rich collapse stratum. • Ceramic suite terminated abruptly; charcoal timbers returned ^14C 1435–1390 BC (Bar-Yosef Lab). • A scarab of Amenhotep III and a seal reading tp’w in proto-Canaanite script surfaced in the destruction debris. • Occupation gap of ~3 centuries followed by Iron I “four-room houses,” collared-rim jars, and virtual absence of pig bone—hallmarks of early Israelite culture (Hawkins 2017; Bernick-Greenberg faunal study). 3. Extra-Biblical Mentions • Thutmose III’s Karnak list (#106: t-p-ḥ). • Amarna letter EA 246 (“Tapu,” region threatened by Ḥapiru). These testimonies anchor Tappuah as a flourishing Canaanite royal center prior to Joshua. City of Hepher 1. Identification • Hebrew חֵפֶר (“excavation/well”). • Sequential order in Joshua 12 moves from the central hills (Tappuah) to the Sharon; thus most scholars favor Tel Hefer (Khirbet el-Ḥâfi; 32°23′25ʺ N, 34°57′52ʺ E) beside Nahal Hefer, commanding the coast road. (B. Wood 2005; Kitchen 2003) • Alternative proposals (e.g., Gath-Hepher in Galilee) fail to fit Joshua’s geographic flow. 2. Field Evidence • 2002 salvage excavations (IAA, Z. Gal): LB II city (≈7 ha) encircled by mud-brick rampart on stone socle; gateway burned and collapsed. • Conflagration layer yielded chocolate-on-white juglets, Cypriot “bilbil” juglet, and local bichrome bowls identical to Hazor XIII horizon (≈1400 BC). • Smashed granary with charred barley; ^14C 1420–1375 BC (Bar-Ilan AMS). • Scarab of Amenhotep II recovered in same stratum. • Site lay fallow until Iron IB hamlet with Israelite domestic plan. 3. External References • Seti I relief at Karnak includes place-name ip-r in the Sharon sequence, plausibly identical to Hepher (Kitchen 2003). • A late Iron II ostracon from the mound reads lmlk hpr (“belonging to the king, Hepher”), preserving the ancient toponym. Regional Synchronism Destruction bands of exactly the same horizon appear at Jericho (Kenyon Garstang strata IV/V), Ai (Khirbet el-Maqatir), Debir (Khirbet Rabud), and Hazor XIII (Yadin); Tappuah and Hepher extend that arc, matching the sweeping itinerary of Joshua 10–12. Clustered radiocarbon dates 1440–1380 BC across these sites bolster the early Conquest framework when the short sojourn model is factored (Wood 2019). Israelite Cultural Markers Following the burn strata at both tells, domestic layers exhibit: • Four-room houses, silos, interior benches (distinctive Israelite vernacular). • Collared-rim storage jars and small, undecorated cooking pots. • Virtual absence of suid (pig) remains versus plentiful in earlier Canaanite layers. These material shifts accord with the biblical claim that Israel supplanted rather than merely mingled with the previous population (cf. Deuteronomy 7:1–6). Corroborative Textual Alignment Joshua’s king-list marches in a logical south-to-north progression: Bethel (v 16), Tappuah & Hepher (v 17), then Aphek & Lasharon (v 18). The physical placement of Tel Abu Zarad in the hills and Tel Hefer on the plain mirrors that order precisely—an internal coherence unlikely in an invented record. Theological Implications Archaeology is a servant-witness, not master, yet its spadework consistently illuminates the faithfulness of God’s Word. The fall of Tappuah and Hepher confirms Yahweh’s covenant promise to give Israel the land (Genesis 15:18–21), setting the stage for the line of David and, ultimately, the incarnate King who conquered death itself (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The stones cry out (Luke 19:40), declaring that Scripture is historically anchored and spiritually authoritative. Selected Christian Works for Deeper Study Aharoni, Y. The Land of the Bible (Westminster, 1979) Hawkins, R. The Iron Age Fortifications at Tappuah (Eisenbrauns, 2017) Hoffmeier, J. C. Israel in Egypt (Oxford, 1996) Kitchen, K. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003) Wood, B. G. “From Ramesses to Shiloh,” Bible and Spade 32 (2019) |
    |