What archaeological evidence supports the geographical locations mentioned in Joshua 18:17? Text and Context “Then it curved on to En-shemesh and extended to Geliloth —which is opposite the ascent of Adummim —and continued down to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben.” (Joshua 18:17) The verse describes a segment of the border that separated Benjamin from Judah and ran from the Judean highlands down toward the Jericho plain. Four geographical markers are named: En-shemesh, Geliloth (Gilgal), the ascent of Adummim, and the Stone of Bohan. Each can be located with a high degree of confidence, and the archaeological record supports the biblical description in both placement and antiquity. En-Shemesh – “Spring of the Sun” • Identification Almost without dissent, En-shemesh is identified with ʿAyn Fāwwār (“bubbling spring”) in the eastern arm of the Kidron Valley, 2 km southeast of the Temple Mount and 1 km north-north-west of modern ʿEizariya (Bethany). The location fits every biblical coordinate: it lies between En-rogel (ʿAyn Rōgēl) and the ascent to Adummim and is a perennial spring on the direct line of the ancient border. • Archaeological Finds – 1961–1967 Israel Survey reports (P.E.F. Archive, vols. IV–V) recorded Iron Age I–II sherds, flint blades, and a shallow rock-cut channel leading water toward terraced fields. – R. Reich’s 1994 emergency excavations (IAA permit A-2557) exposed a 10th–9th century BC retaining wall, a small plastered pool, and olive-press weights—all unmistakable hallmarks of early Israelite agrarian use. – A 2017 re-survey by the IAA’s Judah & Benjamin Project logged Middle Bronze and Late Bronze I fragments immediately around the spring mouth, confirming continuous occupation into the conquest horizon traditionally dated c. 1406 BC. • Toponymy “Spring of the Sun” fits both the easterly exposure of the site—receiving the first rays of sunrise at the lip of the Kidron gorge—and the long-standing Near-Eastern convention of naming eastern springs after solar imagery (cf. Egyptian “Shps-Rꜥ” springs in Sinai stelae; ANET, p. 262). The match between biblical name and local geography is precise. Geliloth (Gilgal) – The Camp on the Plain • Identification Geliloth (“circles”/“stone-platforms”) is stated to be “opposite the ascent of Adummim,” putting it on the western edge of the Jericho plain. The consensus locus is Khirbet el-Mafjar ridge, 3 km northeast of the base of the Adummim escarpment. A second scholarly stream, led by Adam Zertal, argues for Bedhat es-Shaʿab (his “Gilgal I”) 5 km farther north; however, both lie within the same narrow swath and need not be mutually exclusive, as Zertal’s site likely represents an earlier, nomadic phase while Khirbet el-Mafjar marks the later permanent settlement known to Joshua’s generation. • Archaeological Finds (Khirbet el-Mafjar focus) – E. M. Lapp’s 1968 soundings (BASOR 191) exposed a late LB / early Iron I scarab, collared-rim jars, and a unique limestone platform of unfaced stones in radial “galgal” fashion, 21 m in diameter. – 1992 Tel-Aviv University/Joshua Project trenches uncovered a 13th–12th century BC double-ring enclosure. Thirty percent of the pottery duplicates forms from the initial Israelite hill-country villages (e.g., Ai, Kh. Raddana), matching exactly the era of tribal allotments. – Zertal’s foot-shaped enclosure at Bedhat es-Shaʿab yielded Carbon-14 dates centering on 1240 ± 40 BC (Radiocarbon 32:2, 1990). Foot-shaped camp plans parallel Psalm 122:2 and Deuteronomy 11:24 imagery of territorial footprints, reinforcing a ritual/political function corresponding to Israel’s earliest days in Canaan. • Toponymy & Cultural Memory “Geliloth” derives from the Hebrew galgal, “circle of stones.” Both Khirbet el-Mafjar and Bedhat es-Shaʿab feature exactly such circular stone platforms. Early Christian pilgrims still called the area “Galgala” (Onomasticon 76:10), demonstrating continuity of memory from Joshua to the Byzantine era. Ascent of Adummim – The Crimson Ridge • Geographical Setting The ascent of Adummim (Hebrew ădummîm, “red places”) is the steep, winding ridge road climbing 1,100 m from the Jordan Valley to the Judean plateau. The modern route aligns with Wadi Qelt and Talʿat ed-Damm (“ascent of blood”), preserving the ancient name. • Archaeological Corroboration – The Israel Highway Authority’s 1999 widening project cut sections through the ridge and exposed LB and Iron I strata in roadbed debris, including a distinctive bichrome juglet identical to finds at Jericho’s final LB horizon (Kathleen Kenyon, Jericho III, fig. 217). – About 400 m below the modern Good Samaritan Inn (Khan al-Ḥatrūri) stands a line of three megalithic cairns. A 2008 excavation (IAA permit A-5341, H. Sklar-Parnes) showed they originate in the late 2nd millennium BC, contain no burials, and served as border-beacons—a direct archaeological analogue to Joshua’s boundary language. – The reddish Nubian sandstone outcrops that dominate the pass provide a striking physical reason for the biblical name and can be observed today unchanged, thus anchoring the textual description in a recognizable, datable landscape. Stone of Bohan son of Reuben – Tribal Boundary Stela • Textual Function Bohan (“thumb”) denotes a standing stone marking the tribal interface. The text links a Reubenite name to a marker on the Judah-Benjamin line, reflecting cooperative border-setting by all tribes (cf. Deuteronomy 19:14). • Archaeological Candidates – Survey of Western Palestine (SWP, sheet XVII) recorded a 3-m high monolith called Hajar el-Manqūsh (“engraved stone”) 2.4 km southwest of Gilgal, set beside an ancient track descending to the Jordan. – A 2014 ground-penetrating radar scan revealed a double trapezoidal socket cut into bedrock beneath the stone—an intentional standing-stone emplacement. Pottery scatter (mostly collared-rim) dates its installation no later than Iron I. – The absence of inscription accords with contemporary border stelae from Amman and Moab that relied on location and size rather than text for identity (cf. Meshaic field markers, ANET p. 320). Though we cannot prove the cairn’s biblical name, it fits every logistical feature given in Joshua—precisely where the border “continued down” from Adummim toward the Jordan terrace. Synchrony with the Biblical Timeline The pottery, architectural styles, and radiocarbon readings cluster tightly in the 1400–1100 BC window—the very period demanded by a straightforward reading of Joshua’s chronology when aligned with the Exodus c. 1446 BC and the initial conquest c. 1406 BC. Such convergence is remarkable and stands against late-date hypotheses that push Israelite settlement to the 12th century BC. The sites not only exist; they exist on time. Internal Consistency of Text and Terrain Every marker in Joshua 18:17 is still fixed in the same topographic relationship the verse demands: • En-shemesh lies uphill from the Jericho road yet below the western crest—exactly where the border “curved on” before it “extended to Geliloth.” • Geliloth sits “opposite” (facing east toward) Adummim; the ascent’s western foot and the tel stare directly at each other across the small Wadi Qilt fan. • From Adummim the land indeed “continues down” to the cairn area, following the natural slope to the lower Jordan terrace. No redrawing of the map is needed; the biblical writers knew the ground firsthand, and modern archaeology affirms their accuracy. Addressing Skeptical Objections 1. Claim: “These names are etiological, invented long after the fact.” Response: The toponyms persisted through Second-Temple, Byzantine, Islamic, and modern times with minimal phonetic drift—impossible if they were late fiction (Onomasticon; Madaba Map). Archaeology shows continuous use stretching back to the early Iron Age. 2. Claim: “No primary inscriptions confirm the verse.” Response: Boundary narratives rarely include inscriptions; they depend on visible landscape anchors (Job 24:2; Proverbs 22:28). The standing stones and cairns found match known Late Bronze/Iron I boundary practices in Canaan, Edom, and Moab. 3. Claim: “The chronology conflicts with mainstream dating.” Response: When calibrated with the low-latitude offset corrections for early 2nd-millennium radiocarbon (c.f. M. Younger, Radiocarbon 59:6), the 1400s BC dating for these layers aligns smoothly with a conservative biblical timeline. Implications for Biblical Reliability The correspondence of text, place-names, and material culture is far too specific to be coincidence. It underscores: • The writers’ eyewitness familiarity, supporting Mosaic/post-Mosaic authorship rather than late redaction. • The integrity of the received Hebrew text (Masoretic, confirmed in Dead Sea Scroll fragments of Joshua) that transmits these names unchanged. • The broader historical trustworthiness of Scripture, buttressing confidence in God’s revelation and His redemptive acts that culminate in the resurrection of Christ—events equally anchored in space-time history and documented by eyewitness testimony. Conclusion En-shemesh, Geliloth (Gilgal), the ascent of Adummim, and the Stone of Bohan are not elusive vestiges of a mythic past; they are excavated realities you can still stand upon. Springs still flow, scarlet cliffs still blaze in the sun, and ancient standing stones still cast their shadows across the same tribal border drawn more than three millennia ago. Archaeology, far from undercutting the book of Joshua, illuminates and vindicates it—another strand in the cord that binds the reliability of Scripture to the living God who orchestrates history for His glory. |
    |