The location of has been most elusive for those involved in biblical research and the historical geography of Israel. Proposals for its identification, which have ranged all over the Shephelah and Philistia, include Mughar (map coordinates 129138) in the northern Philistine plain (Conder and Kitchener 1883:411-413; Warren 1884:443; Garstang 1931:181; Press 1952:596), Deir edh-Dhibban (139120) and Tell e~-Sari (Tel Zafit, 135123) in the western Shephelah (Albright 1923:14, n. 14; 1924:9), Kh. el-Kheishum (tIorvat Hushsham, 145126) in the central Shephelah (Abel 1938:378), Tell Bornat (Tel Burna, 138115) in the southwestern Shephelah (Kallai 1958:155; 1967:320), Kh. Beit Maqdum (147104) in the southern Shephelah (Holzinger 1901:39; Elliger 1934:57), and even one site far to the north in the Ephraimite foothills, QalCat el-Muwaqdah (151148; Ben-Shem 1960:88). More recent studies (Aharoni 1967:195, n.59; Broshi 1968:303; Kaufman 1970:143; Weippert 1971:30, n. 80; Soggin 1972:126) consider Makkedah's location unknown. occurs nine times in the book of Joshua, distributed among five separate contexts or episodes. The passages most influential in the scholarly search for are those associated with Azekah in the narrative of Joshua's victory at Gibeon (Josh. 10). The Israelites, after routing the confederated forces of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon at Gibeon chased them by the way of the ascent of Beth-horon, and smote them as far as ('31) Azekah and [as far as] ('311) Makkedah (vs. 10). Azekah (Tell Zakariyehffel CAzeqa, 144123) lies about 25 kms. south of Lower Beth-horon (Beit cOr etTai}tii, 158144). This passage has led many writers (Abel 1938:379; Wright 1946:110, n. 13; Broshi 1968; Kaufman 1970:143) to assume the proximity of Azekah and and hence to seek in the vicinity of Azekah. This is the same line of thought that led to the identification of with Mughar (Warren 1884:443). The patristic evidence and the association with Lachish in Josh. 15:41, however, require that be located farther south. So the problem before us is to try and harmonize these apparently conflicting lines of evidence. First of all, it should be noted that the prepositional construction in Josh. 10:10, '31' •••'31, normally presents two termini, the second of which lies, not near, but beyond the first (contra Ben-Shem 1960: 87-88). A useful example is Josh. 16:3 where the southern boundary of the sons of Joseph is said to continue (':11) Lower Beth-horon and unto ('311) Gezer. The latter of these two sites (Tel Gezer; 142140)was about 15 kms. beyond Lower Beth-horon. Other examples can be cited for comparison, e.g. Neh. 3:16, 24,31; 1 Sam. 17:52a, b; and possibly 1Kgs. 18:45. Therefore, the statement in Josh. 10:10 merely indicates that should be beyond Azekah for someone coming from Beth-horon.
Read full abstract