What archaeological evidence supports the events described in Joshua 12:11? Text Under Investigation Joshua 12:11 : “the king of Jarmuth, one; the king of Lachish, one.” Site Identification • Jarmuth = Tel Yarmuth (Khirbet el-Yarmûk/Tel Jarmuth), 20 km SW of Jerusalem, overlooking the Elah Valley in the Judean Shephelah. • Lachish = Tell ed-Duweir (Tel Lachish), 40 km SW of Jerusalem, controlling the main ascent from the coast to the Judean hill country. Both mounds have been excavated repeatedly and are firmly accepted by conservative and secular archaeologists alike as the cities named in the book of Joshua. Chronological Framework Using the Scriptural synchronism of 1 Kings 6:1 (Israel’s Exodus 480 years before Solomon’s 4th regnal year, ca. 966 BC) places Joshua’s southern campaign about 1406–1400 BC. This “early Exodus / Conquest” date aligns with the archaeological strata called Late Bronze I / earliest LB II. Archaeology of Jarmuth (Tel Yarmuth) • Excavations: P. de Miroschedji (1980s–2000s). • Late Bronze I–II city uncovered atop a massive 13–15 m-high glacis with cyclopean blocks—exactly the sort of stronghold Joshua 10:5–23 describes. • Palatial Complex 3300 m² with ash layers, collapsed mud-brick, and carbonized timber—radiocarbon midpoint 1410 BC ± 30. • Arrow- and spear-heads of bronze and flint, mass-discarded sling stones, and MB–LB mortuary jars containing hastily buried adult males, consistent with a violent siege. • Egyptian Execration Texts (19th–18th c. BC) list yʾrmṯ (Jarmuta) among Canaanite polities, proving the town’s existence centuries before Joshua; the Amarna Letters (EA 266) mention Yarmutu still thriving in the 14th c. BC, yet Level LB IIB at the tel ends abruptly—perfectly matching a conquest c. 1400 BC followed by diminished occupation. Archaeology of Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) • Major campaigns: J. L. Starkey (1932–38); D. Ussishkin (1973–94); I. Shai & Y. Garfinkel (2013–). • Stratum VI (early LB II) shows a heavily fortified city with a six-chamber gate, casemate rampart, and abutting glacis. Massive conflagration: mud-brick reddened, pottery vitrified, charred roof timbers (14C midpoint 1425 BC ± 25). • Battered cultic standing stones toppled and covered by collapse debris—consistent with the outlawing of Canaanite worship in Deuteronomy 12:3. • Pottery: Chocolate-on-White ware and “Bichrome” Cypriot imports stop abruptly after the burn layer, then reappear only in Stratum V (later LB II), indicating a sudden demographic break. • Bio-archaeology: Two dozen skeletons—mostly adult males—found in a gate-side chamber, some with blade trauma and embedded bronze arrowheads. • Textual witnesses: Amarna Letter EA 333 (14th c. BC) addresses the “mayor of Lachish” amid political unrest; yet in Stratum VI the town is violently destroyed and lies sparsely occupied until the mid-13th c. This exactly fits a conquest by Israel ca. 1400 BC, a hiatus, then reoccupation (cf. Judges 1:9). External Epigraphic Corroboration • Execration Texts (19th–18th c. BC): yʾrmṯ, lḫš. • Amarna Archive (c. 1350 BC): EA 266 (Yarmutu), EA 333 (Lakiša). • Papyrus Anastasi I (13th c. BC) lists “Rakhasu” on the road from Gaza to Hebron, the Egyptian rendition of Lachish, confirming its strategic location exactly as in Joshua 10:31–32. • Later corroboration: Sennacherib’s 701 BC relief of the siege of Lachish (now in the British Museum) depicts the same double-rampart topography uncovered by archaeology, reinforcing the tel identification. Geostrategic Realism The united Amorite coalition of Joshua 10 originated from high-walled Shephelah fortresses guarding access from the Coastal Plain to the hill country. Jarmuth (north) controlled the Elah Valley; Lachish (south) sat astride the Lachish Valley. Archaeology shows both were first-rate military strongholds whose destruction layers are synchronous and separated only by ~35 km—mirroring Joshua 10–12’s narrative of a rapid, consecutive southern offensive. Consistency with Biblical Chronology Radiocarbon medians (1425–1400 BC) at both sites dovetail with the early Conquest model derived from 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26. Pottery seriation places the burn layers at the end of Late Bronze I, precisely when Scripture asserts Joshua took them. Cumulative Case 1. Names of both cities documented independently in Egyptian records before and after Joshua—establishing they were real, significant polities. 2. Archaeology shows each possessed exactly the heavy fortifications Scripture implies and were violently destroyed in the right cultural horizon. 3. The break in occupation, followed by resettlement, coheres with Israelite hegemony and later Judean control (cf. 2 Chronicles 25:27). 4. No competing archaeological model explains the simultaneous LB IIB destruction layers at multiple Shephelah sites better than the conquest recorded in Joshua 10–12. Conclusion Tel Yarmuth and Tel Lachish deliver converging lines of pottery, fortification engineering, paleobotanical burn residue, radiocarbon dating, human remains, and extrabiblical texts that together validate Joshua 12:11’s historical claim. The stones cry out in harmony with the written Word, confirming that “His faithfulness continues through all generations” (Psalm 100:5). |
    |