Re-evaluate the whole archaeological record in terms of the Bible's time framework
alone. This is the task of the present author.
There is much at stake in this discussion, for the whole historical validity of
the Scriptural message of hope is at stake. The reality of the promises and covenants
(legal agreements) of the spiritual message of hope rest on the historical validity
of those promises and covenants. The world's hope stands or falls on this issue.
It cannot just be left to be dealt with in the cold halls of the intellectual who
otherwise has no interest in the biblical message, for it is of dynamic concern
to all people.
The genealogy of Genesis 11 has been put under the microscope by many, often without
due regard to the Hebrew text. Some would claim that there are gaps in this genealogy.
This of course would solve part of the problem, if such gaps exist. However, the
formula of the genealogy leaves this impossible if one is to accept the Hebrew text
as correct, for it has the following formula:
X at age Z begat Y
That is, a named person at a named age begat a named person. Such a formula absolutely
resists the input of gaps, unlike the genealogy of Matthew's gospel (Matthew 1),
which allows a gap without denying the historical reality of missed generations
in that genealogy.
Matthew's formula of 'A begat B' allows gaps. Genesis does not. We must insist that
if the Hebrew words mean anything they must be taken at face value and resist the
insertion of gaps. The issue is one of correctness historically or otherwise of
this whole record.
A new placement of Abraham's time against the archaeological record
In order to arrive at an approximate guide as to where we should look for the times
of Abraham we start with the biblical dates from the Flood to Christ, as years B.C.,
and attempt to reinterpret all the archaeological data against that time scale.
This has been done before in 'The Times of the Judges - the Archaeology' (see Osgood,
EN Tech. J., this volume). The resultant chronological table is reproduced here
in Figure 3 with the area of Abraham pin-pointed.
Figure 3. Composite archaeological table.
|
It can be seen against this archaeological table that Abraham fits somewhere towards
the end of the Neolithic of Jericho passing into the Chalcolithic of Jericho. It
is around that approximate area we will now look in the archaeological record to
see if we can make positive identification of the times of Abraham. The reader will
no doubt appreciate the huge difference in time on the accepted scale between the
Chalcolithic of Palestine and the MB I of Palestine. What I am insisting here is
that the whole archaeological chronology must be re-evaluated against the biblical
record. Let us begin that reevaluation.
In order to make positive identification of the period of Abraham we will begin
with a narrative in the life of Abraham as taken from Genesis 14.
Genesis 14 is a narrative which begins with a confederation of four Mesopotamian
kings:-
- Amraphel, king of Shinar
- Arioch, king of Ellasar
- Chedorlaomer, king of Elam
- Tidal, king of Goiim (Genesis 14:1)
These extended their empire to include Palestine, or at least the Jordan valley,
and in particular they brought under their suzerainity the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah and Zeboiim and Bela - the five cities of the plain. For twelve years (verse
4) this continued, but in the thirteenth year the kings of the plain rebelled, so
in the fourteenth year the four kings of Mesopotamia, apparently with Chedorlaomer
as chief, came and attacked the whole region.
Now many have been the attempts to identify these kings, for most have realised
that if they can be identified in the archaeological record, then the times of Abraham
can be found for certain. As R.K. Harrison has put it:
‘The chronology of the patriarchal period would be stabilized if a reliable
identification of the four invading Mesopotamian Icings could be made. This may
emerge as the result of future excavations in the area, but in the meantime the
chronology of the period under consideration must be placed between the twentieth
and the late seventeenth centuries B.C.’4
The problem is not so much one of identification of the kings, for they are named
in the narrative and their nations are given. Rather it is a problem of identifying
the period from which these kings came in an archaeological context. So far this
has defied success. However, it is my hope that the discussion here will lay to
rest that search as we identify the only period when such a confederation could
conceivably have existed.
In order to achieve this we will continue the narrative and the search for the details
of this narrative in the life of Abraham.
Figure 4. Route of Chedorlaomer.
|
When the four kings of Mesopotamia attacked, they followed a particular course which
can be seen on the maps in Figures 4 and 5. They came down through Syria into the
Bashan area where they attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim (Genesis 14:5).
Then they proceeded southwards into Trans Jordan to the later Ammonite area and
attacked the Zuzim in Ham. (These are later mentioned in Deuteronomy 2:20.) Moving
further south into the region later identified as Moab, they attacked the Emim (Deuteronomy.
2:10), and then on they went down into the region which later became Edom, where
they attacked the Horites in Mt Seir (see Deuteronomy 2:22). Having completed their
conquest of Trans Jordan, they crossed the Arabah into the Negev of later Israel
and attacked both En Mishpat (Genesis 14:7) (most likely Kadesh Barnea), and the
area later inhabited by the Amalekites which was westward of Kadesh Barnea. Having
completed that, they then headed northwards again along the Jordan valley and attacked
the Amorites in Hazezon-tamar. Continuing further north, they met in battle the
kings of the five cities of the plain, defeated them, took captives and headed north.
They were then pursued by Abram with his own private army allied with Aner, Eshcol
and Mamre, the Amorite chieftains (Genesis 14;24). They overtook the Mesopotamian
kings in Syria defeated them, and returned with the spoils to Canaan.
Figure 5. Course of Chedorlaomer (as proposed).
|
As is often the case, the positive clue comes from the most insignificant portion
of this passage. In Genesis 14:7 we are told that the kings of Mesapotamia attacked
'the Amorites who dwelt in Hazezon-tamar'. Now 2 Chronicles 20:2 tells us that Hazezon-tamar
is En-gedi, the oasis mentioned in Scripture a number of times on the western shore
of the Dead Sea.
The passage in Genesis chapter 14, therefore, allows us to conclude that in the
days of Abraham there was a civilization in En-gedi on the western shore of the
Dead Sea, a civilization of Amorites, and that these were defeated by Chedorlaomer
in his passage northward.
Focus on En-gedi
Happily for us. En-gedi has been excavated.5,6 The excavations found only three
major periods of settlement at En-gedi:-.
- The Roman period - not relevant here
- During the Kingdom of Israel - not relevant here
- During the Chalcolithic of Palestine - the largest and most prolific settlement
period.
In fact, a building complex was discovered situated on a hill terrace above the
spring of En-gedi approximately 150 metres north. This appeared to be a sacred enclosure,
similar to the Chalcolithic sanctuary discovered in Stratum XIX at Megiddo. Notably,
the enclosure at En-gedi was not destroyed, but was abandoned with the people apparently
taking their cult furniture with them.
I believe it is more than coincidental that corresponding to our new match on the
archaeological table we find that there was in fact a civilization in En-gedi during
this archaeological period. The picture becomes even more illuminated when we are
led into the various caves around the En-gedi region, and particularly to one called
the Cave of the Treasure.
In 1960 an expedition of urgency into the Judean desert was conducted by the Hebrew
University, the Department of Antiquities, and the Israel Exploration Society with
help from the armed forces of Israel. The precipitating motive was to rescue antiquities,
such as finds like the Dead Sea Scrolls, from destruction, and to do a complete
search of the caves of the Judean desert to look for antiquities for preservation
(see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Significant Chalcolithic finds.
|
Many caves were found and finds were such that it was clear that the greatest time
of occupation was the Chalcolithic period. Although the caves themselves were apparently
occupied for only a brief period, they testified to prolific civilization and a
significant population density in this area greater than for any later one. The
conclusion can almost certainly be drawn that the sanctuary at En-gedi was the focal
point for their worship.
One of the most remarkable caves was the cave of the treasure in Nahal Mishmar.
Details have been fully published in 'The Cave of the Treasure' by Pessah Bar-Adon.7 A significant treasure of cult
artifacts and weapons was found, testifying to a wealth of culture at this period.
Bar-Adon comments:
‘It took us three hours to remove the articles, which were wrapped in a straw
mat, from their hiding place - four hundred and twenty nine in all. Apart from six
of haematite, six of ivory and one of stone, all the rest are of metal. They were
all of a surprisingly high technical standard of workmanship.’8
And he goes on:-
‘The hoard comprised the following: axes and chisels; hammers; 'mace heads';
hollow stands decorated with knobs, branches, birds, and animals such as deer, ibex,
buffalo, wild goats, and eagle; 'horns' (in one of which there was still a piece
of thread running through the perforations at the edge); smooth and elaborately
ornamented 'crowns', small baskets; a pot; a statuette with a human face; sceptres;
flag poles; an ivory box; perforated utensils made - as subsequently determined
by Prof. Haas - from hippopotamus tusks; and more.’8
They dated it to the Chalcolithic period.
Bar-Adon queried the reasons for the articles in this context as if somebody had
left them there and intended to return but was not able to. He continues on:-
‘What induced the owners of this treasure to hide it hurriedly away in the
cave? And what was the event that prevented them from taking the treasure out of
its concealment and restoring it to its proper place? And what caused the sudden
destruction of the Chalcolithic settlements in the Judean Desert and in other regions
of Palestine.’8:226
The remarkable thing about this culture also was that it was very similar, if not
the same culture, to that found at a place in the southern Jordan Valley called
Taleilat Ghassul (which is the type site of this culture), and also resembles the
culture of Beersheba. The culture can in fact be called 'Ghassul culture' and specifically
Ghassul IV.
The Ghassul IV culture disappeared from Trans Jordan, Taleilat Ghassul and Beersheba
and the rest of the Negev as well as from Hazezon-tamar or En-gedi apparently at
the same time. It is remarkable when looked at on the map that this disappearance
of the Ghassul IV culture corresponds exactly to the areas which were attacked by
the Mesopotamian confederate of kings. The fact that En-gedi specifically terminates
its culture at this point allows a very positive identification of this civilization,
Ghassul IV, with the Amorites of Hazezon-tamar.
If that be the case, then we can answer Bar Adon's question very positively. The
reason the people did not return to get their goods was that they had been destroyed
by the confederate kings of Mesopotamia, in approximately 1,870 B.C. in the days
of Abraham.
Now as far as Palestine is concerned, in an isolated context, this may be possible
to accept, but many might ask: What about the Mesopotamian kings themselves? Others
may ask: What does this do to Egyptian chronology? And still further questions need
to be asked concerning the origin of the Philistines in the days of Abraham, for
the Philistines were closely in touch with Abraham during this same period (Genesis
20). So we must search for evidence of Philistine origins or habitation at approximately
the end of the Chalcolithic (Ghassul IV) in Palestine. All these questions will
be faced.
The Mesopotamian complex of Chedor Laomer
Ghassul IV corresponds in Mesopotamia to the period known as the Jemdat-Nasr/ Uruk
period, otherwise called Protoliterate (because it was during this period that the
archaeologists found the first evidence of early writing). Ghassul IV also corresponds
to the last Chalcolithic period of Egypt, the Gerzean or pre-Dynastic period (see
Figure 7). Let us look, therefore, at both of these geographically and archaeologically,
and see what we find.
Figure 7. Correlation of national archaeological periods.
|
Uruk is so called because it refers to a culture associated with the archaeological
site called Warka (Uruk of Mesopotamian history or biblical Erech - Genesis 10:10)
in the land of Sumer or biblical Shinar (see Figure 8), and we note that one of
the kings of the Mesopotamian confederacy came from Shinar, namely Amraphel.
Jemdat Nasr is a site in northern Sumer, northeast of Babylon (see Figure 8). It
is a site that was found to have a pottery with similarities to the culture of Elam
and corresponding in time to the later phases of the Uruk culture.
We have in Mesopotamia, therefore, archaeological evidence that there was a period
in which the Uruk culture, and an Elamite culture typified by Jemdat Nasr, were
in some sort of combination, and this corresponds to the period in Palestine when
the Ghassul culture disappeared. The writing of this period does not allow us to
recognise at this point any particular kings from contemporary records for it is
undeciphered, but all that is known archaeologically is in agreement with the possibility
of a combine of nations of the description of Genesis 14 existing. Considering the
war-like attitudes of Sumer and Elam in later years this is all the more remarkable,
for no other period of Sumer/Elamite relationship accepts the possibility of such
a semi-benevolent relationship.
Figure 8. Location of Uruk, Jemdat Nasr and other important sities in Mesopotamian history.
|
Archaeology in Iran. in the plain of Susiana, has demonstrated a resurgent Elamite
culture contemporary with Jemdat Nasr in Mesopotamia,9
and this fits the biblical suggestion of a dominant Chedorlaomer (Genesis 14).
Considering the fact that the Bible allows the interpretation of Chedorlaomer being
the chief of the combine of kings, one could even theorise that Jemdat Nasr may
have been a site deliberately built by the Elamite king to assist control of the
region of Sumer, but that remains highly speculative.
We have then so far, in summary, the following evidence as a witness that the end
of the Chalcolithic in Palestine was during the days of Abraham:-
- A fit on the archaeological table previously presented that corresponds.
- Positive identification of a culture, corresponding exactly geographically to the
biblical story, which disappeared from the scene at that period of time in Palestine
and Trans Jordan.
- Archaeological evidence in Mesopotamia which is consistent with a combination of
Sumerian and Elamite kings, and which definitely allows the possibility of other
confederates.
But Egypt!
At this stage there will be many objections to the hypothesis here presented, for
it is totally contradictory to the presently held Egyptian chronology of the ancient
world. However, I would remind my reader that the Egyptian chronology is not established,
despite claims to the contrary. It has many speculative points within it. Let us
continue to see if there is any correspondence, for if Abraham was alive in the
days of the Ghassul IV culture, then he was alive in the days of the Gerzean culture
of pre-Dynastic Egypt, possibly living into the days of the first Dynasty of Egypt.
The correspondence between this period in Palestine and in Egypt is very clear,
and has been solidly established, particularly by the excavations at Arad by Ruth
Amiram10 and at Tel Areini by S.
Yeivin.11
Such a revised chronology as here presented would allow Abraham to be in contact
with the earliest kings of Dynasty I and the late pre-Dynastic kings, and this would
slice a thousand years off the presently held chronology of Egypt. To many the thought
would be too radical to contemplate. The author here insists that it must be contemplated.
Only so will the chronology of the ancient world be put into proper perspective.
Long as the task may take, and however difficult the road may be, it must be undertaken.
In order to support the present revised chronology here held, the author sites another
correspondence archaeologically, and this concerns both the Philistines and Egypt.
The Philistine Question
Genesis 20 makes it clear that Abraham was in contact with the Philistines, yet
the accepted chronological record presently held does not recognise Philistines
being in the land of Philistia at any time corresponding with the days of Abraham.
Yet the Bible is adamant.
The Scripture is clear that the Philistines were in Canaan by the time of Abraham,
approximately 1850 B.C., or at least around the area of Gerar between Kadesh and
Shur (Genesis 20:1), and Beersheba (Genesis 21:321) (see Figure 9). A king called
Abimelech was present, and his military chief was Phicol (Genesis 21:22).
The land was called the Land of the Philistines (Genesis 21:32). According to Genesis
10:14, the Philistines were descendants of one Egyptian ancestor, Casluhim, but
apparently they dwelt in the region occupied by Caphtor which was apparently the
coastlands around the delta region. Now many attempts have been made to associate
Caphtor with Crete, but the attempt is strained and unsubstantiated.
Figure 9. Proposed route of migration of the Philistines from Egypt ot Palistine.
|
The Philistines migrated out of Caphtor northeast to Canaan (Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah
47:4. Amos 9:7) (see Figure 9), dispossessing the ancient Canaanites, locally called
the Avims (Deuteronomy 2:23), some of whom were still in existence in the days of
Joshua (Joshua 13:3). This migration was Egyptian, but in fact the stock were the
later Philistines. It may have included more than just the Philistines, but the
Philistines apparently superseded the others. They are called the 'remnant of the
country of Caphtor' (Jeremiah 47:4).
We have placed the end of the Chalcolithic of the Negev, En-gedi, Trans Jordan and
Taleilat Ghassul at approximately 1870 B.C., being approximately at Abraham's 80th
year. Early Bronze I Palestine (EB I) would follow this, significantly for our discussions.
Stratum V therefore at early Arad (Chalcolithic) ends at 1870 B.C., and the next
stratum, Stratum IV (EB I), would begin after this.
Stratum IV begins therefore some time after 1870 B.C.. This is a new culture significantly
different from Stratum V.112
Belonging to Stratum IV, Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer (First Dynasty
of Egypt),10, 13 and
she dates Stratum IV to the early part of the Egyptian Dynasty I and the later part
of Canaan EB I. Amiram feels forced to conclude a chronological gap between Stratum
V (Chalcolithic) at Arad and Stratum IV EB I at Arad.12:116
However, this is based on the assumption of time periods on the accepted scale of
Canaan's history, long time periods which are here rejected.
The chronological conclusion is strong that Abraham's life-time corresponds to the
Chalcolithic in Egypt, through at least a portion of Dynasty I of Egypt, which equals
Ghassul IV through to EB I in Palestine. The possibilites for the Egyptian king
of the Abrahamic narrative are therefore:-
- A late northern Chalcolithic king of Egypt, or
- Menes or Narmer, be they separate or the same king (Genesis 12:10-20).
Of these, the chronological scheme would favour a late Chalcolithic (Gerzean) king
of northern Egypt, just before the unification under Menes.
Thus the Egyptian Dynastic period would start approximately 1860 B.C..
Clearly, if this were the case, by this scheme the Philistines were in Canaan already,
and must therefore have at least begun their migration in the late Chalcolithic
of Egypt and Palestine.
Therefore, we need to look in southwest Canaan for evidence of Egyptian (cum Philistine)
migration, beginning in the late Chalcolithic and possibly reaching into EB I (depending
on the cause and rapidity of migration), in order to define the earliest Philistine
settlement of Canaan from Egyptian stock. Is there such evidence? The answer is
a clear and categorical YES.
Amiram, Beit-Ariah and Glass14 discussed
the same period in relationship between Canaan and Egypt. So did Oren.15
Of the period Oren says:
‘Canaanite Early Bronze I-II and Egyptian late pre-Dynastic and early Dynastic
periods’15:200
He says of the findings in Canaan:
‘The majority of Egyptian vessels belong to the First Dynasty
repertoire while a few sherds can be assigned with certainty to the late pre-Dynastic
period.’15:203(emphasis
mine)
He continues:
‘The occurrence of Egyptian material which is not later than the First Dynasty
alongside EB A I-II pottery types has been noted in surface collections and especially
in controlled excavations in southern Canaan. This indicates that the appearance
and distinction of the material of First Dynasty in northern Sinai and southern
Canaan should be viewed as one related historical phenomenon.’15:203(emphasis
mine)
The area surveyed was between Suez and Wadi El-Arish. ED I-II had intensive settlement
in this area.
He continues further:
‘Furthermore, the wide distribution of Egyptian material and the somewhat
permanent nature of the sites in Sinai and southern Canaan can no longer be
viewed as the results of trade relations only. In all likelihood Egypt
used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result
that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain and its resources were exploited
on a large scale.’15:204(emphasis mine)
And again:
‘The contacts which began in pre-Dynastic times, were most intensive during
the First Dynasty period’15:204(emphasis mine)
Ram Gopha16 is bolder about this
event or phenomenon, insisting on it being a migration:
‘Today we seem to be justified in assuming some kind of immigration of people
from Egypt to southern Canaan...’16:31
Further:
‘the Egyptian migration during the First Dynasty period may be seen as an
intensification of previously existing relationships between the two countries.
These relations had already begun in the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period but
reached sizable proportions only in the Late Pre-Dynastic period’
(first phases of Palestinian EB I).16:35(emphasis
mine)
The testimony is clear. Excavation at Tel Areini identifies such an Egyptian migration
and settlement starting in the Chalcolithic period.17
There was definitely a migration of Egyptian people of some sort from northern Egypt
into southern Palestine, and particularly the region that was later known as Philistia.16:32
The testimony of Scripture is clear that there were Philistines who came from Egypt
into Palestine in the days of Abraham. This revised chronology identifies such a
migration in the days of the Ghassulians, who I insist, perished during the early
days of Abraham's sojourn in Canaan. This period must then be grossly redated in
accordance with biblical expectations, instead of evolutionary assumptions.
Further details of the Philistines
Although in this discussion we are concerning ourselves with the days of Abraham,
it is pertinent that we also elaborate on the question of the Phiistines at a later
period, in order that the overall perspective of these people be understood. Modern
archaeological interpretation first allows the Philistines in the days of Ramesses
III of the 20th Dynasty, dated 1182 to 1151 B.C.18
An inscription of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu reports an attack made by the peoples
of the sea, among whom are a group called the Peleset. Ramesses
claims to have defeated these in a sea battle. The Peleset are said to have settled
in the area of the Philistines at approximately this time, and naturally it is assumed
that the Philistines therefore first settled in Palestine at this period, and that
they originated from the Aegean area as the peoples of the sea.
The Scripture, however, gives no credibility to such an interpretation. Thus, there
is a conflict?
It is clear, from what has been said before of the narratives of Abraham and Isaac,
that the Philistines were already in Palestine at approximately 1850 B.C., some
700 years before present archaeological interpretation accepts them as there. The
Scripture also seems to indicate that they originated from Egypt, and not from the
Aegean area. Is there any way to satisfy both the biblical claims, and the artifactual
archaeological evidence? I believe there is. But first we must accept the biblical
statements at face value and scan the Scriptures for anything that might fit at
approximately 1100 to 1000 B.C., and for a people who could in fact be identified
with the Peleset 'of the relief of Ramesses III' Indeed, we do meet a people, first
in 2 Samuel 8:18, and then subsequently in 2 Samuel 15:18 and 27:23, 1 Kings 1:38
and 44, 1 Chronicles 18:17, Ezekiel 25:16, and Zephaniah 2:5. They are called the
Pelethites, and they are associated with the Cherethites
and also, in at least one passage, the Gittites who were indeed
a group of Philistines from the city of Gath.
Now it does not take much to realise that the word 'Pelethite' is an even better
match with the word 'Peleset' in the Egyptian reliefs than is the word 'Philistine'.
So if the Bible allows a group of people by the name of Pelethites who clearly were
associated in some way with the Philistine region, and who also were associated
with the Cherethites (whom many believe to be the Cretians, who in one text, namely
Ezekiel 25:16, are called the remnant of the sea coast), then we have all the conditions
necessary to solve an apparent conflict. We have no need to reject the Philistines
of Egyptian descent in Palestine at 1850 B.C., and we can accept a second wave of
people known as the Pelethites and Cherethites, who settled on the sea coast before
the days of Saul and David, who are evidenced by the archaeological record, and
who apparently had an Aegean origin. There would still be some difficulty in this
revised chronology in associating the initial settlement of the Pelethites and the
Cherethites with the same event as recorded by Ramesses III. Rather, they would
need to be seen as allies to the other peoples of the sea when they themselves were
already settled in a land base in Philistia prior to the days of Ramesses III, but
I will leave this to be detailed at another time. Sufficient to conclude here that
the Pelethites and Cherethites of Scripture were first able to be identified at
approximately 1012 B.C. in the later years of Saul, king of Israel. Contingents
from these groups formed part of the guard of David, yet the true Philistines were
of Egyptian descent and were already in the land of Palestine by 1850 B.C. in the
days of Abraham. This narrative we should be able to accept literally as a direct
statement of history, and to see it as most likely being the written correlation
of the late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze I settlement of Egyptian stock in southern
Palestine, as the archaeological record testifies.
Summary
In summary, Abraham entered the land of Canaan at approximately 1875 B.C.. In his
days there was a settlement of Amorites in En-gedi, identified here with the Ghassul
IV people. This civilization was ended by the attack of four Mesopotamian monarchs
in a combined confederation of nations, here placed in the Uruk-Jemdat Nasr period
in Mesopotamia. They were a significant force in ending the Chalcolithic of Palestine
as we understand it archaeologically, and Abraham and his army were a significant
force in ending the Jemdat Nasr domination of Mesopotamia, and thus the Chalcolithic
of Mesopotamia, by their attack on these four Mesopotamian monarchs as they were
returning home. Egypt was just about to enter its great dynastic period, and was
beginning to consolidate into a united kingdom, when from northern Egypt a surge
of Egyptian stock, including the Philistines, moved north into southern Palestine
to settle, as well as to trade, identified in a number of sites in that region (most
notably in the strata of Tel Areini, Level VI then V) as the Philistines with whom
Abraham was able to talk face to face. The biblical narrative demands a redating
of the whole of ancient history, as currently recognised, by something like a one
thousand year shortening - a formidable claim and a formidable investigation, but
one that must be undertaken.
References
- Bright. J., 1972. A History of Israel, The Westminster
Press and SCM Press Ltd., p.66.Return.
- Glueck, N.. 1958. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, 152: 20.Return.
- Albright W.F.. 1961. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research, 163: 44.Return.
- Harrison, R.K., 1970. Old Testament Times, Eerdmans Publishing
Co.. p.86.Return.
- Maser et al., 1966. En-gedi Excavations, Jerusalem.Return.
- Avi-Yonah, M., 1976. Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations
in the Holy Land. VII, Jerusalem and London. pp.370-380.Return.
- Bar-Adon, P., 1980. The Cave of the Treasure, Israel Exploration
Society, Jerusalem.Return.
- Bar-Adon, P., 1962. Israel Exploration Journal,
12: 218-226.Return.
- Ghirshman, H.. 1954. Iran, Middlesex. England, p.45.Return.
- Amiram, R.. 1974. Israel Exploration Journal.
24: 4-12.Return.
- Yolvin, S.. 1960. Israel Exploration Journal
10: 193-203.Return.
- Amiram, R., 1978. Early Arad I, Jerusalem.Return.
- Amiram, R.. 1976. Israel Exploration Journal,
26: 45.Return.
- Amiram, Beit Arieh, and Glass, 1973. Israel Exploration Journal.
23: 193.Return.
- Oren, E.D.. 1973. Israel Exploration Journal,
23: 198-205.Return.
- Gophna, Ram, 1976. Tel Aviv, 3(1): 31-37.Return.
- Weinstein. J., 1984. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research, 256:61-69.Return.
- Gardiner, A.. 1961. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford.Return.
