I previously posted a black and white version of a map depicting the land allotment for Israel in Joshua, but I think the color version is easier to read. I hope this is helpful!
The Land Allotment (Color)
I previously posted a black and white version of a map depicting the land allotment for Israel in Joshua, but I think the color version is easier to read. I hope this is helpful!
Watts in the Word 
Why does the map show Ephraim’s territory as land locked when Joshua 16 : 3 and 16:5 says it ended at the sea?
Thanks for the question! The main reason is that initially I made the map by consulting a variety of maps made by other scholars and publishers, and almost all of them have Ephraim as land-locked. But, your question made me dig a little deeper: why do most scholars denote Ephraim that way? The answer is that the land allotment was complicated by three factors:
1. The land allotment passages are complicated by Israel’s inability or unwillingness to fully drive out the Canaanites (see 19:47 for example), meaning that the actual settlement often didn’t align with the theoretical allotment.
2. The allotment passages are also complicated by the fact that tribes often controlled cities that were technically in other tribes’ regions (see for example 17:11).
3. Because of the first two, the allotment and the regions that ended up actually being settled were often not quite the same. A decision has to be made whether or not to show the practical settling of the regions (as this chart denotes), or the ideal allotment originally handed out.
In the case of Dan and Ephraim, the primary reason to show Ephraim as landlocked is that Dan was explicitly given Joppa and Gath-Rimmon in Joshua 19:45. Both of those cities are coastal cities in the exact place where Ephraim would touch the coast. Thus, while the borders of Ephraim my have theoretically extended to the sea, in practicality Dan controlled the only coastal cities on that stretch of the Mediterranean.