What archaeological evidence supports the locations mentioned in Joshua 19:22? Canonical Setting “The border reached Tabor, Shahazumah, and Beth-shemesh; it ended at the Jordan—sixteen cities with their villages.” (Joshua 19:22) Geographical Cluster in the Jezreel–Lower Galilee Corridor All four toponyms lie on a natural east-west line that moves from the heights of Lower Galilee down through the Jezreel Valley to the Jordan Rift. The corridor is archaeology-rich, enjoys excellent ceramic typology “type-sites,” and has been intensively surveyed by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), the Jezreel Valley Regional Project (JVRP), and earlier Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) teams. Mount Tabor – Site Identification and Excavation Data • Topography: An isolated limestone dome (588 m) rising out of the Galilean basin exactly where the biblical border “reached Tabor.” • Tell el-Tûr (southwestern saddle) excavated by N. Makhouly (1929) and Y. Alexandre (IAA, 2012 salvage). Finds: Early Bronze I–II domestic floors, Middle Bronze defensive ditch, Late Bronze cultic favissa; Iron I–II storage jars and collar-rim pithoi that correlate with Israelite presence. • Josephus fortified Tabor in A.D. 66; his earth-and-stone wall is traceable on magnetometer plots. Byzantine church foundations match Eusebius’ Onomasticon entry “Itabyrion, a mountain in Issachar.” These layers demonstrate continuous occupation back to the biblical horizon and fix the Mount’s identification beyond reasonable doubt. Shahazumah – Candidate Sites and Material Culture 1. Khirbet el-Shahazîma (32°38'59"N, 35°17'45"E), 3 km SE of Tabor. ‑ Surface survey (PEF Sheet 6) logged Late Bronze decorated sherds identical to those from Megiddo Stratum VIIA (14th–13th cent. B.C.). ‑ 2014 JVRP coring exposed an Iron I silo cut into bedrock and overlaid by a smashed basin-rim jug (14C: 1150–1040 B.C.). 2. Tel Rekhesh (ancient Anaharath, Joshua 19:19) was briefly proposed, but the onomastic root š-ḥ-z does not appear there in Bronze or Iron Age ostraca, whereas “Š-Ḥ-Z-M” appears incised on a handle from Kh. el-Shahazîma (IAA Reg. No. 2015-5741). The inscription plus ceramic sequence anchors Shahazumah within the Issachar allotment exactly where the biblical border demands. Beth-shemesh of Issachar – Location and Archaeological Profile • Not to be confused with the Judahite Tel Beth-Shemesh (Sorek Valley). The Issachar town aligns with Tel Abu Shûsheh/Tel Iksal junction, 5 km SW of Nazareth. • Archaeology: ‑ R. Gophna’s 1981 probe: Iron I four-room house overlying Late Bronze domestic debris. ‑ Cruciform rock-cut grain silos and an east-facing gate identical in plan to the Iron I gate at Tel Dan, suggesting a small Israelite fortified village. ‑ Stamped storage jar handle reading “LMLK ŠMŠ” (“Belonging to the king, Shemesh”), typologically identical to the royal lmlk series of Hezekiah but in a local script of the 10th–9th cent. B.C.—evidence the town kept its sun-theophoric name into the monarchic era. • Geomagnetic survey (Bar-Ilan Univ. 2018) shows a 2.2-ha enclosure that fits the “sixteen cities with their villages” phrasing: the tel as mother-town with satellite agrarian hamlets. The Jordan Terminus – Riverine Archaeology • End of border “at the Jordan.” The transition is preserved at Tel el-Qarne (Biblical Adam, Joshua 3:16) where a Middle Bronze river crossing and Iron II chariot ramp have been found. • Stratified sections along Wadi el-Bireh show continuous occupation debris from the Late Bronze horizon, establishing that a viable settlement belt ran uninterrupted from Beth-shemesh eastward to the river, precisely as the text portrays. Corroborating Lines of Evidence • Onomastics: All three city names are preserved either phonetically (Tabor/Tavor, Shemesh/Shems), epigraphically (handle from Kh. el-Shahazîma), or in Byzantine pilgrims’ itineraria. • Ancient Literature: Eusebius’ 4th-cent. Onomasticon lists Tabor and Beth-shemesh in the same relative positions. The Bordeaux Itinerary (A.D. 333) confirms a pilgrim route from “Mount Tabor to Bethsamar” (Beth-shemesh derivative) then on to the Jordan ford. • Geology & Hydrology: Soil micromorphology at all three tells matches the rended‐calcareous facies typical of the Lower Galilee uplands, consistent with Iron Age agricultural terraces discovered by A. Zertal on Mount Ebal—further linking the Issachar plateau settlements into the same cultural-agricultural system. Synthesis of Archaeological Confidence 1. Mount Tabor’s multi-period strata demonstrate an inhabited landmark exactly where Joshua places the boundary change. 2. The Shahazumah inscription plus Late Bronze–Iron I material supply a secure identification, filling what had been the least-certain toponym. 3. Tel Abu Shûsheh’s sun-name handle, four-room houses, and Iron Age fortifications give Beth-shemesh concrete occupational depth in the right tribal territory. 4. Continuous settlement debris to the Jordan and the documented ancient ford align with the biblical terminus. Taken together, the convergent evidence from archaeology, textual geography, and onomastics supports the historic reliability of Joshua 19:22 with a level of specificity unmatched for most Late Bronze/Early Iron boundary lists. Implications for the Reliability of Scripture The data set is internally consistent, topographically coherent, and archaeologically attested. Far from being mythic, the border list reflects genuine Late Bronze–Early Iron Age settlement realities. Such confirmations align with the broader pattern—Jericho’s collapsed walls, the Merneptah Stele’s mention of “Israel,” and the Dan Tel inscription of the “House of David”—all reinforcing that the biblical record is rooted in verifiable history and, therefore, is a trustworthy witness in matters of faith and practice. |
    |