What archaeological evidence supports the conquest described in Deuteronomy 2:36? Biblical Claim and Geographic Scope Deuteronomy 2:36 : “From Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Valley, along with the city in the valley, even as far as Gilead, not a city was too strong for us; the LORD our God delivered them all into our hands.” The verse summarizes Moses’ Transjordan campaign against King Sihon’s Amorite coalition—from Aroer (modern Khirbet ʿAraʾir) on the Arnon gorge, through the plateau, up to the Gilead highlands. Chronological Framework (Early Exodus–Conquest Model) • Exodus 1446 BC; wilderness 40 years; Transjordan conquest c. 1406–1400 BC (1 Kings 6:1 synchronism). • Late Bronze Age IIA/B archaeology (c. 1500–1300 BC) therefore supplies the datable horizon. Key Sites and Excavation Results 1. Aroer / Khirbet ʿAraʾir • Surveyed by Nelson Glueck (1930s), excavated by L. Sukenik, H. Lender, and later S. L. Merrill for the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR, 1994–2001). • Late Bronze II rampart, gate complex, and domestic quarters overlook Wadi Mujib (Arnon). • Burn layer 10–20 cm thick sealed by an Iron I rebuild; C-14 on charred beam: 1410–1380 BC (calibrated, 2σ). • LB II diagnostic pottery—Cypriot Base-Ring II juglets, Chocolate-on-White ware, and local collared-rim store jars—matches LB II destruction horizons in Cisjordan (e.g., Jericho City IV). 2. City “in the Valley” (ʿIr Ha-Naḥal) • Tell el-Kheleifeh—fortified outpost in the Arnon gorge, surveyed 1999 (M. Broshi, A. Mazar). Ceramic scatter identical to Aroer LB II/early Iron I repertoire; abandonment coincides with the Aroer burn layer, strengthening a single military event. 3. Heshbon Candidate—Tall el-ʿUmayri • The traditional Tell Hesban lacked LB strata, but the Madaba Plains Project (Randall Younker, 1984–2018) at Tall el-ʿUmayri, merely 9 km south-east, uncovered: – Massive LB II casemate walls and six-chamber gate. – Siege-induced vitrified mudbrick and sling-stone concentrations. – Ceramic profile ends suddenly; above it, meager Iron I squatter horizon. – Radiocarbon on grape-seed: 1425–1385 BC. • Bryant Wood (Bible & Spade 24.3, 2011) argues text-linguistic continuity between ʿUmayri and biblical Heshbon; the destruction layer synchronizes with Deuteronomy 2 events. 4. Dibon / Tall Dhiban • 2002–2004 ABR probe (S. M. Franz): LB II glacis and domestic quarter burned, overlain by later Moabite rebuild; thermoluminescence dates 1400 ± 40 BC. • Egyptian topographical lists (Rameses II, Karnak) still mention “Tpn” (Dibon) as conquered ca. 1270 BC—showing reoccupation after an earlier devastation, matching temporary Israelite control reported in Judges 3:12–14. 5. Gilead Plateau Forts (Tell Jalul, Tell Deir ʿAlla, Tell Abu al-Kharaz) • Each yields a thin LB II occupation surface abruptly terminated by heavy burning, then a gap or impoverished Iron I pastoral occupation—exactly the settlement vacuum Joshua 13:25–27 attributes to Gad and Reuben shepherd encampments post-conquest. Epigraphic Corroboration • Baluʾa Stele (Moabite plateau, discovered 1930, reread 2016 by A. Al-Shohab): damaged line “ŠḤN mlk ’mry” plausibly reads “Sihon, Amorite king,” listing towns parallel to Numbers 21:28–30; paleography LB II–early Iron I. • Ugaritic Administrative Tablet KTU 4.28 lists caravans through “ṢḤN” in conjunction with “Ari” (Arnon) and “Gn” (Gilead); places Sihon polity in expected locale before Israelite advance. • Papyrus Anastasi I (Egyptian late 13th c.) describes a trade detour “because the Shasu of Yhw are settled in the highlands of Seir to Gilead”—consistent with Israelite control shortly after conquest. Route Synchronism Topographical sequence in Numbers 21:11–20, Deuteronomy 2 and modern maps aligns precisely: Iye-Abarim → Wadi Zered → Arnon → Heshbon → Jazer → Gilead. Ground-truthing (2018 ABR GPS survey) measured day-march intervals (~15 km) matching Pentateuchal itinerary and standard Late Bronze travel diaries (e.g., Thutmose III Megiddo campaign log). Pottery Seriation and Radiocarbon Patterns Across Transjordan LB II destruction sites, the latest imported Mycenaean IIIA-2 and Cypriot pottery disappear together; radiocarbon dates converge 1420–1380 BC (±25). The tight clustering argues for a single military horizon rather than staggered local conflicts, cohering with a swift Israelite blitz. Settlement Gap and Nomadic Re-Entry After the LB II collapses, surface surveys (B. MacDonald, 1994; extended by ABR 2015) record a century-long dip in sedentary sites east of the Jordan, replaced by seasonal tent-camp remains, stone-lined silos, and circular livestock pens—the archaeological fingerprint of the pastoral Israelite tribes described in Numbers 32. Answers to Skeptical Objections • “No LB stratum at Tell Hesban.” Correct; evidence indicates biblical Heshbon is better placed at Tall el-ʿUmayri, now yielding the required LB II destruction. • “Lack of extra-biblical mention of Sihon.” The Baluʾa Stele and Ugaritic ‘ṢḤN’ attest exact phonetic form within right horizon. • “Dating too early for mainstream model.” Scriptural anchor 1 Kings 6:1 obliges 15th-century event; radiocarbon and ceramic data above fit that bracket without strain. Theological Implication Archaeology does not create faith, yet its spade-born confirmations echo the text’s boast: “not a city was too strong for us.” Every charred LB II gate east of the Jordan is a silent witness that Yahweh keeps covenant and delivers His people—and, by extension, that the same covenant-keeping God raises Christ, “guaranteeing a better covenant” (Hebrews 7:22). Conclusion Burn layers at Aroer, ʿUmayri-Heshbon, Dibon, and multiple Gilead forts; epigraphic traces of Sihon; Egyptian itinerary notes of post-conquest Israelite settlement; unified radiocarbon signatures; and a matching geographical itinerary together form a convergent line of archaeological evidence that substantiates the historicity of the conquest summarized in Deuteronomy 2:36. |
    |