Joshua 13:8–14 – If Reuben’s and Gad’s territories east of the Jordan were truly established, why is tangible evidence of extensive settlement in those regions sparse?

I. Context of Joshua 13:8–14

Joshua 13:8–14 describes the territories that Moses granted to the tribes of Reuben and Gad, along with the half-tribe of Manasseh, on the east side of the Jordan River. This passage notes that these allotments included major cities and surrounding areas, testifying to an established presence. Yet, modern archaeological surveys often show limited remains of large-scale settlements in these regions.

“Now the other half of the Reubenites and Gadites had received their inheritance beyond the Jordan, just as Moses the servant of the LORD had assigned them. This territory extended from Aroer on the rim of the Arnon Gorge, and from the city in the middle of the valley, all the way to the plain of Medeba… But to the tribe of Levi, Moses had given no inheritance; the LORD, the God of Israel, is their inheritance, as He had promised them.” (Joshua 13:8, 9, 14)

The question arises: if Reuben and Gad truly inhabited these areas with any permanence, why do researchers find only sparse evidence of extensive, permanent settlement?

II. Overview of Reuben and Gad’s Allotments

1. Regional Layout

Scripture locates Reuben’s land around the Arnon Gorge and northward, which encompassed plains around Medeba (Joshua 13:16). Gad’s inheritance lay farther north, stretching into Gilead and reaching toward the region of Bashan (Joshua 13:24–25). These areas included key cities like Heshbon and Dibon.

2. Pastoral Emphasis

The tribes of Reuben and Gad expressed a desire for pastureland for their large flocks and herds (Numbers 32:1–5). Consequently, their settlement may have differed from the more fortified or agrarian-based cities west of the Jordan. A lifestyle involving herding did not always lend itself to extensive building, which might partially account for fewer permanent archaeological traces.

3. Timeline Consideration

Biblically, the conquest and division of land by Moses and Joshua occurred during the Late Bronze Age to early Iron Age (approximately the second millennium BC). Not all regions show continuously dense settlement patterns from this period. Fluctuations in climate and later conflicts may have further complicated the archaeological record.

III. Potential Explanations for Sparse Settlement Evidence

1. Nomadic or Semi-Nomadic Culture

Reuben and Gad’s initial request for the eastern lands hinged on favorable conditions for livestock. Nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples, by nature, leave behind fewer permanent structures. Archaeological digs often uncover large building complexes—palaces, fortress-like walls, or elaborate temple ruins—but may overlook pastoral encampments or simpler homesteads unless specifically sought.

2. Destruction and Overbuilding

Waves of subsequent conquests and occupations in the Transjordan, including Moabite, Ammonite, and later Assyrian or Babylonian control, could have resulted in destruction and rebuilding. Later settlements might have reused or dismantled earlier structures, erasing many distinctives of the Reubenite and Gadite occupation layers.

3. Limited Excavation

Even in modern archaeological efforts, excavation east of the Jordan has not been as extensive as in central or western Israel. Political, geographical, and funding constraints have limited the number of sites thoroughly studied. Consequently, certain settlement layers remain buried or undiscovered.

4. Erosion and Geological Factors

Some segments of the Transjordan feature rugged terrain prone to erosion and flash flooding. Over long periods, natural processes can obliterate the traces of smaller or less permanent habitations more thoroughly than they would large, fortified structures.

IV. Archaeological Challenges in the Transjordan

1. Inconsistent Survey Coverage

Key sites like Dibon (associated with Dibon-gad in Numbers 33:45–46) have furnished inscriptions such as the Mesha Stele (9th century BC), which names Omri, King of Israel, and confirms localized Israelite presence. Yet many other potential tells (archaeological mounds) remain only partially examined.

2. Focus on Major Cities

Most recovered artifacts come from established urban centers. Smaller towns or rural encampments—particularly those favored by pastoral tribes—are easier to miss or interpret. Without city walls or grand buildings, their remains often yield fewer, more scattered artifacts.

3. Overlapping Histories

Multiple cultures lived in or passed through Gilead, Bashan, and Moab. Canaanite, Israelite, Moabite, and Ammonite material cultures can blend or overlap. This can obscure tribal distinctives, making it difficult to identify which stratum belonged specifically to Reuben or Gad.

V. Biblical Support for Reuben and Gad’s Holdings

1. Consistency of Scriptural Accounts

Numbers 32, Joshua 13, and 1 Chronicles 5 confirm that Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh possessed land east of the Jordan, dwelling there for generations. Later conflict accounts (e.g., 2 Kings 10:32–33) describe these territories falling to foreign powers, aligning with the historical saga of warfare in that region.

2. Importance of Pastureland

The biblical emphasis on herds, flocks, and the tribes’ desire for good grazing territory explains why their infrastructure might not reflect the same kind of large-scale civic development seen in tribes more focused on agrarian or trade-based economies.

3. Continual Presence

Scripture portrays these tribes participating in both their own regional governance and in national matters—indicating they had enough stability to engage in covenant ceremonies (Joshua 22) and to send warriors to aid the other tribes (Judges 5:16–18).

VI. Historical and External Data

1. The Mesha Stele

Discovered at Dhiban (ancient Dibon), the Mesha Stele (mid-9th century BC) mentions conflicts between Moab and Israel. It highlights a contested region, showing multiple transitions of power that could have displaced earlier Reubenite or Gadite sites.

2. Aroer and Surrounding Cities

Surface surveys around Aroer (Joshua 13:16) uncover pottery sherds dating to the Iron Age, indicating habitation. However, systematic excavations are limited. Climatic or human disruptions may have further obscured structured settlements.

3. Literary Sources

Ancient writers referencing Transjordanian locations often mention city names tied to biblical events. While direct references to “Reubenite” or “Gadite” architecture may be subtle, the continuity of place names offers indirect testimony to the tribes’ presence. Over time, new inhabitants often adopted, modified, or transliterated existing place names.

VII. Conclusion

Sparse tangible remains do not negate the biblical record of Reuben and Gad’s established territories east of the Jordan. Instead, a combination of nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles, historical conquests, minimal large-scale construction, geological processes, and limited modern excavations are plausible explanations for the limited archaeological evidence.

Such circumstances align both with Scripture and with known historical patterns in the Transjordan, where less fortified, pastoral-oriented communities can be harder to detect in the archaeological record. Existing artifacts—such as the Iron Age pottery around Aroer and inscriptions like the Mesha Stele—reinforce the notion of Israelite residency, even if large-scale ruins are not as abundant as in other parts of the biblical land.

Ultimately, the biblical account stands consistent with the archaeological and historical complexities of the region. The text’s emphasis on pastoralism, subsequent upheavals, and the varied nature of Iron Age settlement helps explain why Reuben’s and Gad’s longstanding presence is often less visible in the material record, yet still affirmed in Scripture and attested by ancient witness.