Top Banner
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age Edited by Juan Manuel TEBES PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA. 2014 SUPPLEMENT 45
63

UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

Aug 20, 2020

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESSStudies on the History and Archaeology of

the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age

Edited by

Juan Manuel TEBES

PEETERSLEUVEN – PARIS – WALPOLE, MA.

2014

SUPPLEMENT 45

Page 2: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

WILDERNESS AND BEYOND

Socio-Economic Fluctuations and Chiefdom Formation in Edom, the Negev and the Hejaz during the First Millennium BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Juan Manuel TEBES

From Bandit to King: David’s Time in the Negev and the Transformation of a Tribal Entity into a Nation State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

John S. HOLLADAY Jr. and Stanley KLASSEN

TIMNA RECONSIDERED

Timna Site 2 Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Tali ERICKSON-GINI

Appendix: XRF Study of Archaeological and Metallurgical Material from Copper Smelting Sites in Timna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Sana SHILSTEIN, Sariel SHALEV and Yuval YEKUTIELI

Egyptian Timna – Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Uzi AVNER

STUDIES ARISING

The Symbolic and Social World of the Qurayyah Pottery Iconography . . . . . . 163Juan Manuel TEBES

Arabian and Arabizing Epigraphic Finds from the Iron Age Southern Levant . . . 203Pieter Gert VAN DER VEEN and François BRON

Page 3: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

vi CONTENTS

EDOM OVER THE BORDER

The Judean Desert Frontier in the Seventh Century BCE: A View from {Aroer . . 227Yifat THAREANI

Edomite Pottery in Judah in the Eighth Century BCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267Lily SINGER-AVITZ

Local Production of Edomite Cooking Pots in the Beersheba Valley: Petrographic Analyses from Tel Malhata, Horvat {Uza and Horvat Qitmit . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Liora FREUD

Page 4: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

1 I am grateful to Sy Gitin and Juan Manuel Tebes for urging me to write this paper, to Pierre Tallet, Erez Ben-Yosef, Naama Yahalom-Mack and Rachel Ben-Dov for sharing with me their in-print publications and for the vital information they offered. I am also thankful to Rina Avner for preparing the bibliography list and to Marjorie Strom and Rina Avner for the English correction. Besides Fig. 1, photos and drawings are my own; aerial photos were taken with Rami Bar, an ultralight pilot.

1 Rothenberg et al. 2004. 2 Levy et al. 2003; 2004; 2005; Levy and Najjar 2005; Levy 2009; Hauptmann 2007. 3 Petherick (1861, p. 37), during his visit in 1845, described two sites with piles of copper slag. He did not

mention the Arabic name of the valley, “Wadi Men{iyeh”, known to later explorers, but two locations: Rignel Hadid and Wadi il Mahait, unknown from other sources. However, his description undoubtedly addresses Timna Sites 30 and 34, as numbered later by Rothenberg.

4 Musil 1908, pp. 186–190. 5 Frank 1934, pp. 233–234, 241–244. 6 Glueck 1935, pp. 42–45. 7 Glueck 1938a; 1938b; 1940a; 1942; 1970, Ch. 4. 8 Glueck 1956; 1957; 1960; 1961; 1965. For a summary and analysis of Glueck’s exploration in the

Negev, see Baron 1978; 1981. 9 Rothenberg 1962.

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED*

Uzi AVNER

INTRODUCTION

The Arabah Valley is well known as a major source of copper ore in ancient times, prob-ably beginning in the Late Neolithic period.1 The Faynan area, in the northeastern Arabah, was the largest copper deposit,2 Timna Valley in the southwestern Arabah was the second largest and Nahal {Amram, south of Timna, was the third.

Ancient remains of the copper industry in Timna were first briefly published by J. Petherick3, followed by A. Musil,4 F. Frank,5 and N. Glueck.6 In 1933, C. Phythian-Adams published the first historical-biblical scenario of copper production in the Arabah, based on an unpublished report by G. Horsfield, who visited the valley earlier. This biblical view was later extended by N. Glueck following his survey along the Arabah and his excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh, near the head of the Gulf of Aqaba. In Glueck’s view, the copper mines along the Arabah were exploited by King Solomon and later Judaean kings, utilising slaves and forced labour. The copper ore was first roasted in the mining centres and then refined and cast into products in the large-scale metallurgic plant at Tell el-Kheleifeh. This site was the location of both biblical Eilat and Ezion Geber, which also served as a seaport. The copper products were traded for gold and other exotic goods brought from Ophir and Sheba.7

Glueck continued his research in the Negev during the 1950s,8 but in 1959 his team’s photographer, B. Rothenberg, commenced his own research at Timna, adding a great deal of information as to the extent and nature of the copper industry. Rothenberg9 offered a totally different technological picture of both the mining and smelting. He also argued that

uzi
Text Box
In. J. Tebes (ed). Unearthing the Wilderness: Studies on the History and Archaeology of the Negev and Edom in the Iron Age. Leuven. 103-163.
Page 5: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

104 U. AVNER

10 Rothenberg 1962, pp. 44–56; 1967, pp. 191–206. 11 Rothenberg 1962, pp. 40–44. 12 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 51–61. 13 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 53–56. 14 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 7*–28*; 1972a, pp. 63–117; 1990, pp. 16–74; Lupu and Rothenberg 1970. 15 The site is termed “temple” in all publications, but due to its small size and characteristics, I prefer here

the term “sanctuary”. 16 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980. 17 For example, Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 19–26. 18 Rothenberg 1984; 1988a; 1992; 1993; 1995; 1999b.

Tell el-Kheleifeh could not have been a large, industrial copper smelter.10 At first he fol-lowed Glueck in dating the main copper production to Solomon’s time,11 but he later sug-gested an earlier date, when the copper work was undertaken not by Israelites but by the desert tribes.12 He also argued that the copper plant was operated by skilled, professional workers rather than by slaves.13

Rothenberg’s survey revealed a variety of mines, smelting camps, installations and other features. During the 1960s he conducted excavations in Site 2, a smelting camp in which he uncovered an industrial unit (Area D-K), four smelting furnaces (Fu I, II, IV and, later, Fu Z) and a shrine (Area A).14

In 1969 Rothenberg excavated a probe within Site 200 at Timna (discovered by A. Nuss-baumer in 1964), identified as a possible cult place. The probe developed into two seasons of excavations—1969 and 1974—of the site known today as the “Egyptian Temple” or the “Hathor Temple”.15 Some 11,000 artefacts were found at this small site, among them a number of Egyptian objects bearing cartouches of pharaohs from Seti I or Ramses II to Ramses V, ca. 1280–1145 BCE. These objects served as proof that dating the copper indus-try prior to Solomon was justified.

During the 1970s Rothenberg conducted a renewed study of the mines in cooperation with the Mining Museum at Bochum, Germany, as well as excavations in Smelting Camp 30.16 These studies greatly emphasised the Egyptian nature of the plant. Timna Valley is now considered the best example of New Kingdom Egyptian copper mining and smelting technologies (see below).

Rothenberg’s work was certainly pioneering. Today, however, we see reasons to re-exam-ine several issues. The first is the role of both the Egyptians and the desert people in the large-scale copper industry of the Arabah Valley, focusing here on Timna. We begin with discussion on the Egyptian sanctuary, continue with the mines and smelters and then dis-cuss the general historical-social scenario.

THE EGYPTIAN SANCTUARY

Since 1969, the Egyptian sanctuary has been described in 14 different publications, including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic and meticulous, fully supported by post-excavation analysis of the stratigraphy and the finds.17 Here is a brief, general description of the site according to the later publications.18

Page 6: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 105

19 Rothenberg 1972a, pls. 77, 81; 1988a, pl. 117, fig. 25. 20 Rothenberg 1972a, pl. 78; 1988a, fig. 23:1.2. 21 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 131; 1984, p. 94. 22 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 48, 277, 275. 23 Rothenberg 1971, p. 19. 24 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 212; Rothenberg 1999b, p. 162. 25 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 151, fig. 44.

Three stages were distinguished in the temple itself (excluding an earlier, Chalcolithic stage below and the later Roman penetration into the site). In the initial stage (Stratum IV), the first temple was constructed in the time of Seti I or Ramses II (see below). It consisted of a courtyard, 7 ≈ 9 m, of which Walls 1 and 3 have been preserved (Fig. 1). Attached to the sandstone cliff, a naos, 1.7 ≈ 2.7 m, was built of a low frame of ashlar sandstone blocks with two square pillar bases in the front corners (Fig. 2a). In the naos, a vertical niche was cut for a statue of the goddess Hathor, whose head was found during the dig.19 Based on several remains and parallels, Rothenberg offered a reconstruction of the naos with two square-sectioned pillars set on the front pillar bases, bearing the face of Hathor in relief. One pillar was found in a later, secondary use; the other was broken.20 Additional ashlar sandstone beams (architraves) were laid on top of the pillars, leaning into two rectangular recesses cut in the rock face (Fig. 2a). This first stage was destroyed by an act of violence21 or by an earthquake and rock fall22 during the reign of Seti II or Twosret.23

The second stage was a reconstruction of the sanctuary by Ramses II or III (see below). The courtyard was now enlarged to 9 ≈ 9 m by moving the front wall (W. 2) outward. The naos was rebuilt as a closed cell using ashlar sandstone blocks and architectural remains from the first sanctuary, the first course of which remained on top of the older base (Fig. 2b). In front of the naos an ashlar pavement, termed pronaos, was laid, 3 ≈ 3 m, while the courtyard area was paved with crushed and beaten white sandstone. Three stone basins were placed in the courtyard, but due to their secondary use in the later stage, their origi-nal location remains unknown. The second stage fell into ruin due to an earthquake in the time of Ramses V, abandoned and covered by a thin layer of wind-blown sand. After that, the Egyptians did not return to Timna (excluding a short period, some 250 years later24).

In the third stage, occupation of the sanctuary was renewed by the Midianites, who con-tinued to produce copper in the valley for some time. They erected a line of standing stones (masseboth) on the western side of the courtyard, incorporating older Egyptian architectural elements for some of them. They built offering benches next to Wall 2, added a cell outside Wall 1 (L. 112) and covered the courtyard with a tent.25 This local shrine was abandoned after a while and was gradually covered by sand. Following a later earthquake, large sand-stone blocks fell onto the sanctuary from the overhanging cliff.

The description of the sanctuary’s stratigraphy and history seems consistent. However, if one reads all the publications, many difficulties and discrepancies arise between the different accounts, both in terms of factual reporting and interpretation. Ample details require criti-cal examination, but here only a few will be addressed.

Page 7: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

106 U. AVNER

Fig. 1. Plan of the Timna sanctuary, from Rothenberg 1972a, p. 128, with the addition of the exca-vated loci and the writer’s probes (grey rectangles, P. 1–P. 3). Dotted areas indicate the white floor. With kind permission of the Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, University College London

Fig. 2. Sketch of the two phases of the naos, drawn by the writer following Rothenberg’s text (e.g. 1972a, pp. 130–132; 1984, pp. 93–96. For a fragment of the restored architrave in Fig. 2b see

Rothenberg 1972a, fig. 74; 1988a, pl. 110:1)

Page 8: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 107

26 Rothenberg 1969; 1970a; 1970b; 1970c. 27 Rothenberg 1971, p. 17. 28 Rothenberg 1972a; 1978; 1984; 1988a; 1992; 1993; 1995; 1999b. 29 Rothenberg 1970a, p. 32; 1970c, p. 23; 1972a, p. 131. 30 Rothenberg 1984, p. 94; 1988a, p. 274. 31 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 132; 1984, p. 95. 32 Rothenberg 1978, p. 1193; 1992, p. 1596. 33 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 131; 1984, p. 91. 34 Rothenberg 1999b, p. 170.

The sanctuary’s general stratigraphy

In the first four publications26 the stratigraphy of the sanctuary itself (ignoring here the Chalcolithic and Roman phases) appears quite clear, divided into only two strata by the white floor. The two layers related well to two groups of pharaohs’ names found inscribed on offering objects and architectural remains: the first group from Seti I to Merneptah (Nineteenth Dynasty); the second, after some gap, from Ramses III to Ramses V (Twentieth Dynasty). Only Walls 1 and 3 and the first stage of the naos were attributed to the first sanctuary. Most remains were ascribed to the second sanctuary: the enlargement of the courtyard, the white floor, the new naos and pronaos, the line of standing stones, the offer-ing benches, the three basins and the cell of L. 112. The standing stones and the offering benches were related to the Midianites, within the Egyptian sanctuary. Thousands of arte-facts, both Egyptian and Midianite, found together in both strata, signified cooperation between the two peoples in the cult of Hathor as well as in copper production.

In the fifth publication,27 the sanctuary’s stratigraphy is still divided into two layers, but the text actually describes two phases in the upper stratum. The later phase is the Midianite, following the abandonment of the site by the Egyptians.

From the sixth publication on,28 the sanctuary is divided into three individual strata, IV–II, but now the stratigraphy is described as very difficult, because of the white floor. On the one hand, the white floor was described as being laid over the wind-blown sand which covered the remains of the first sanctuary.29 In this case, the remains of Stratum IV were supposed to have been found separated and protected from later activity. On the other hand, the white floor was also described as being laid over the massive deliberate destruction of the first sanctuary, which included levelling the architectural remains and rock falls of Stratum IV and crushing the white sandstone remains to make the floor.30

Until 1984, the stratigraphic origin of only one inscribed object was reported: an arrow-head bearing the name of Ramses III found on top of the white floor.31 This helped to relate the two Egyptian levels of the temple to the two groups of kings’ names.32 However, it was also stated that no inscribed, dated object could be related to the first sanctuary.33 This means that all inscribed objects were actually found above the white floor, in Stratum III. The latest publication attempts to bridge these differences, saying that cartouches of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, from Seti I to Ramses V were found in Layers III and IV.34

The relationship between the sanctuary walls and the white floor is also questionable. In the first nine publications, no relations between the two were addressed, but in the final

Page 9: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

108 U. AVNER

35 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 273–274. 36 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 62, 274. 37 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 59, 274. 38 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 34. 39 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 58. 40 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 126; 1984, p. 92. 41 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 25. 42 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 25. 43 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 25. 44 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 32, 35–36, 274, 38 and ill. 11, and here Fig. 1. 45 Rothenberg 1970a, pp. 31–32; 1971, p. 17, 19. 46 Giveon 1969, p. 50. 47 Schulman 1988, p. 145. 48 Rothenberg 1978, p. 1190; 1984, pp. 93, 95. In the list of pharaoh names represented at the site there

is a gap of four absent kings—from Amenmesses to Setnakhte—over some 20 years. Within this time, the name of Twosret is represented, but due to her short reign (1187–1185 BCE) and the weakness of the phar-aohs before and after her, it is not clear if she ever had the power to send expeditions abroad (see Clayton 1995, pp. 156–168). For a possible occurrence of Seti II at the site see n. 122.

49 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 271, 277; 1992, p. 1596; 1993, p. 1483; 1995, p. 41. 50 Rothenberg 1999b, p. 170. 51 Rothenberg 1970a, p. 32; 1972a, p. 132; 1978, p. 1192; 1984, p. 95, and here Fig. 2a. 52 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 132, and here Fig. 2b.

report they were discussed extensively. For example, most remains of the sanctuary were related to Stratum III, built simultaneously with the laying of the white floor.35 The white floor was described as abutting most of Wall 1 (in L. 109),36 and therefore built later. The southeast section of Wall 1 and all of Wall 2 are described as built into the while floor37 but also above it.38 The white floor was also described as running towards and underneath Wall 239 despite being only 1–2 cm thick. One published section of the site40 shows the white floor running just below Wall 2, while another shows an ash layer separating the two.41 Additional sections42 show no contact between the white floor and Walls 1 and 3.43 In any case, it is interesting to note here that the white floor covers quite a large area outside Wall 2 and outside parts of Walls 1 and 3.44

Another question is: Who built the first and the second sanctuaries? The early publica-tions ascribed the founding of the first sanctuary to Seti I and the second to Ramses III.45 This was based on the first reading of the Egyptian inscriptions by Giveon.46 Then his read-ing of Seti I was annulled by Schulman,47 and the construction of the first sanctuary was transferred to Ramses II;48 nevertheless, later publications still name Ramses II as the builder of the second sanctuary.49 The last article50 restores Seti I as the founder of the first sanctu-ary, while Ramses II remains the builder of the second, not Ramses III, whose inscribed arrowhead was found lying on the white floor.

Stratigraphy of the naos

In the earlier publications, two phases were distinguished in the naos, related to the two levels of the sanctuary. The first included the rectangular base frame of long ashlar sand-stones and the pillar bases associated with Rothenberg’s reconstruction of the two Hathor pillars in the front.51 The second was built of ashlar sandstone blocks as a closed “kiosk” with the addition of the paved pronaos.52 In the final report, the naos and pronaos are

Page 10: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 109

53 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 72–83, esp. p. 82. 54 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 271. 55 Rothenberg 1988a, ill. 27, pls. 96–98. 56 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 83. 57 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 73, 82. 58 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 152; 1988a, p. 272; 1993, p. 1483. 59 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 75–83. 60 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 131. 61 Rothenberg 1984, p. 94. 62 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 77–78. 63 For example, Rothenberg 1972a, pls. XIX, XX; 1988a, pls. 11, 12. 64 Rothenberg 1971, p. 19; 1972a, pp. 127, 152; 1993, p. 1483; 1999b, p. 170. 65 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 147. 66 Rothenberg 1999b, p. 172. 67 Rothenberg 1993, p. 1483.

described as one unit, attributed to Stratum III only.53 This means that no remains of the naos are now ascribed to the first sanctuary (Stratum IV). Also, the excavator states that he refrains from reconstruction of the naos due to insufficient information;54 however, he cor-rectly describes the white sandstone blocks of the second course of the naos overriding the plaster lines remaining on top of the first course with the pillar bases,55 which are still visible today. Also, within this unified description he still mentions “the second building phase of the naos.”56 So, unavoidably we return to the division of the naos into two phases, most probably related to Strata IV and III. This can also be seen in the relation between the naos and the white floor, which runs underneath the pronaos and abuts the first course (first phase) of the naos.57 Hence, the white floor was at least technically later than the first naos while the pronaos (second phase) was later than both.

The later situation in the naos is also unclear. On one hand, according to the excavator, it was reused by the Midianites in Stratum II,58 which contained the copper serpent as a Midianite cult object. On the other hand, the detailed description of the naos59 does not provide any indication of a reuse or construction phase by the Midianites.

As to the interior of the naos, the first four publications mention no stratigraphy or floors. The fifth, however, states that inside the naos the existence of three hard, superim-posed surfaces was clearly established.60 A later article61 returns to the first view, saying that no convincing stratigraphy was found inside the naos and it seems that no floor was ever built there. The final report describes a mixture of Roman and New Kingdom finds in the naos, resulting from a deep Roman robbery penetration, with a later refill. Still, artefacts were found lying on three hard interfaces in different levels.62

Confusion also arises around the origin of the small, beautiful copper serpent.63 It was found in situ in the upper layer of the naos (Locus 111),64 but in another publication it was found in Locus 110;65 that is, outside and in front of the naos. Two later publications offer additional descriptions of the serpent’s origin; it is described as the only votive object found inside the Midianite naos,66 or the only votive object in the area of the naos.67

Metallurgic installation

The metallurgic installation in the eastern side of the courtyard (L. 109) contained the remains of two furnaces, a pit for storage of charcoal, a 50 kg pile of copper and iron oxide

Page 11: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

110 U. AVNER

68 For example, Rothenberg 1970a, pp. 33–34. 69 Rothenberg 1971, p. 22. 70 Rothenberg 1978, p. 1190. 71 Rothenberg 1984, p. 118; 1988a, pp. 60–66, 192–203, 273; 1993, p. 1483; 1999b, p. 171. The instal-

lation was interpreted first as intended for smelting copper, but later studies explained it as a melting and cast-ing installation (Rothenberg 1999c). For metal works inside temples see, for example, Dothan 1981, pp. 76–77; Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, p. 140; Artzy 1999; Blakely-Westover 1999; Ben-Dov 2011a, pp. 349–361; Ben-Dov 2011b, with further references.

72 Rothenberg 1984, p. 121. 73 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 278; 1999b, p. 172. 74 For example, Rothenberg 1969, p. 29; 1970a, pp. 33–34. 75 Rothenberg 1971, p. 19; 1972a, pp. 151–152. 76 Rothenberg 1984, pp. 99, 111. 77 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 152. 78 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 29–32, 273. 79 Reasons for the confusion can be learned from the publications, mainly from the final report. The site

was excavated following a grid of 1 ≈ 1 m, but also in 32 probes and sections across the grid lines, while some probes are marked overlapping each other (Rothernberg 1988a, Ill. 10b). The loci were determined after the dig, with no vertical division; each locus includes all strata (Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 19–26). Also, loci are com-monly crossed by the probes. Levels were measured from some high benchmark downward, but never trans-lated to absolute levels, and errors in the levels occur in the site plans (when examined in the site). Artefacts were separated into 606 find boxes (Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 287–290), but many of them include finds from different loci and various strata. In many other find boxes, strata are not indicated (Rothenberg 1988a,

ores mixed with copper offering objects, and 2–3 kg of copper slag. It was described as a Byzantine smelting and casting installation penetrating into the temple’s ruins in the third century CE (sic). Interestingly, the metalworkers refrained from reusing the old metal offer-ings for their own purposes.68 In other publications these smiths were also identified as Nabataeans, who damaged the site and left behind their distinctive Nabataean pottery.69 Elsewhere, they were also identified as Romans of the first century CE.70 From 1984 on, the metallurgic installation was ascribed to Stratum III, the second Egyptian sanctuary, safely related to the white floor and built to serve the needs of worshipers.71 Penetration into the site is attributed now to Roman treasure hunters in the second century CE,72 or from the first to third centuries CE.73

A hoard of offerings

Over the eastern wall (W. 1, L. 101), a rich hoard of copper and other offering objects was found. According to the earlier publications this was carefully concealed by the Byzan-tine (!) smiths who penetrated the site in the third century CE, but, as mentioned, they refrained from disturbing the sacred objects or reusing them.74 The hoard was also related to the Midianites, having rearranged the temple for their own needs.75 Later, it was attrib-uted to both the Midianites and the Romans of the Third Legion,76 although it was found in one layer.77 In the final report, the hoard is actually divided into three interfaces and suggested as a source of metal for an adjacent small Midianite casting workshop.78

Although many stratigraphic and interpretive points remain to be reviewed, those noted here are enough to show that the published results of the excavations cannot serve as a base for reconstructing the site’s history.79 Nevertheless, an attempt to reach some understanding of the site’s significance is still required.

Page 12: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 111

pp. 278–290). For some reason, these problems—the stratigraphic disruption and discrepancy between differ-ent publications—escaped the attention of most reviewers of the final report (Muhly 1989; Snape 1991; Weinstein 1992; Goodway 1993; but see criticisms in Knauf 1993). They also escaped the attention of schol-ars who addressed the site in their studies (Wimmer 1998; Pinch 1993, pp. 59–70; Tebes 2007; Bimson and Tebes 2009).

80 The work was done on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities (today, the Israel Antiquities Authority). Against the advice of superiors and colleagues, I did not publish the finds but handed them to Rothenberg, with photographs and a detailed text report, to be included in his expected final report. I did, however, publish a short report on the work (Avner 1984a).

81 See sections of the site in Rothenberg (1988a, pp. 24, 25), which are very different from those in Roth-enberg (1972a, p. 126; 1984, p. 92).

RESTORATION AND PROBES IN THE SANCTUARY

In 1984 the team at the Timna Park asked me to conduct a preservation-restoration project at the sites excavated by Rothenberg in Smelting Camp 2 and the sanctuary. Before that, I re-read all available publications and met twice with the excavator to discuss strati-graphic and other archaeological issues. Before beginning work, I also selected three points for small probes (Fig. 1), in an attempt to clarify some stratigraphic questions, and invited Rothenberg to observe the probes as we dug. The results were quite illuminating, but we differed in their interpretation.80

Probe 1 – Next to Wall 2, west of the gateway and below the offering bench (Fig. 3). The probe, 30 ≈ 60 cm, was dug to the bedrock, 50 cm below the base of Wall 2. It revealed the following details, from bottom to top: 1) A living level, 35 cm thick, of finely laminated, undisturbed red sand, with some spots of ash and many finds: two Chalcolithic-Early Bronze pottery sherds; Negebite, Midianite and “normal”, wheel-made pottery sherds of the late second millennium BCE; fragments of decorated faience; several beads of different types; fragments of bones, ostrich eggshells and seashells. 2) A white level 1–2 cm thick, obviously the remains of the white floor. 3) A living level of light grey-coloured sand and ash, 7–15 cm thick, containing artefacts: two faience fragments; “normal”, Negebite and Midianite pottery sherds; fragments of bones and ostrich eggshells; two globular hematite nodules; and small pieces of charcoal. 4) The base of Wall 2.

The probe confirmed that the “white floor”, very thin in this section, marked a separa-tion between the two living levels. The relation between the white floor and Wall 2 became clear now. The wall was built some time later than the white floor, after accumulations of sand, ash, dust and artefacts settled over it. From Rothenberg’s final report it is clear that the upper living level (or levels) continued to accumulate after the construction of the walls.81 Clearly, Wall 2 was the latest construction phase in this section. The lack of contact between the walls and the white floor explains why the white floor was found outside the site perimeter.

Probe 2 – Between Wall 3 and the line of masseboth (Fig. 4). Since the masseboth remained on a deteriorating balk they were removed before restoration and the excavation of the probe. According to the excavator, Wall 3, as well as Wall 1, was extended southward when

Page 13: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

112 U. AVNER

Fig. 4. Probe 2. Wall 3 with a massebah concealed in it

Fig. 3. Probe 1: 1. Lower living level; 2. White floor; 3. Remains of upper living level; 4. Wall 2

Page 14: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 113

82 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 131; 1988a, pp. 38–39, 49. 83 See in Rothenberg 1988a, fig. 31:8. On the left side there is a small fragment of the sign n, most prob-

ably the beginning of nbt- “the mistress of…”; see Schulman 1988, cat. 55, fig. 35:4. 84 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 49. 85 Concealment of masseboth in a wall is known from several sites of different periods. For example, two

masseboth were covered by plaster in the holy of holies of the Israelite temple at Tel Arad, while one was left exposed (Aharoni 1968, p. 19). An alignment of masseboth was concealed in a wall in the Early Bronze I site of Hartuv (Mazar and Miroschedji 1996, pp. 7–9). Those who did it actually refrained from discarding a sacred object, even if it went out of use, much like sacred scripts.

86 For example, Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 131, 149; 1984, p. 94.

the courtyard was enlarged in Stratum III.82 Since these extensions were not clearly visible to us, the dig could help clarify this question. The southern section of the wall had been exposed since the first dig at the site (1969); now we exposed the base of the central part of the wall and dug down to the bedrock. As a result, it was observed that the wall was built on one even level, in one stage, on top of a layer of grey-to-red sand and some fallen rocks. The only reason for the different look of the two sections under the wall in Fig. 4 is that the left (southern) part experienced 15 years of gradual deterioration, while the right side is a fresh section. The conclusion is that Wall 3, as well as Walls 1 and 2, was built in one stage. The base of Wall 3 was ca. 10 cm above the base of the masseboth, 40–50 cm above bedrock. Finds from this probe were similar to those of Probe 1, but in a lower density. One faience fragment, however, bore the complete name of Hathor.83

Another result of this dig was the opportunity to observe a large limestone incorporated in Wall 3 and described as a “pinning stone, obviously for wall repair.”84 The stone, 108 cm tall, was set vertically and perpendicularly to the wall’s axis; its base was 3 cm above the bed-rock, 37 cm below the base of Wall 3 (Fig. 4). I suggest that this is another, older massebah, concealed in the wall when it was built.85

Probe 3 – 50 ≈ 120 cm, excavated into a layer of red sandstones next to a large flat rock (Fig. 5). In early publications the remains of a floor were briefly mentioned here (L. 106, 107, covered by the white floor).86 In oral discussions, Rothenberg asserted that these were only the result of a rock fall. The probe was made to clarify the nature of the red stone’s level and especially that of the large rock, which seemed important. The rock is 2.2 ≈ 1.3 m, with a chisel-cut circular depression in its centre, 32 cm across and 7 cm deep. The probe showed that the rock was 25–35 cm thick and intentionally laid horizontally, supported and stabilised by several stones underneath (Fig. 5). Furthermore, three elements clearly indicate that this large stone was actually an altar: the circular depression, the adjacent bro-ken basin, and a drainage channel behind it (Fig. 6 and see details below). The probe also showed that the adjacent “mass of red rock fall” was actually a pavement, laid on laminated red sand, containing artefacts and some rock debris.

The probe was quite rich with finds of both local and Egyptian origin (Fig. 7), among them a fragment of a faience ring base bearing parts of cartouches of Seti I, with a short formula written below. This is actually the only inscribed, datable object safely originat-ing from the first sanctuary (Stratum IV), 7 cm below the base of the red pavement. As

Page 15: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

114 U. AVNER

Fig. 6. Details next to the altar stone: 1. Red pavement; 2. Altar; 3. Remains of a large basin; 4. Drainage channel; 5. First stage of the naos; 6. Second stage of the naos; 7. Pronaos

Fig. 5. Probe 3: The altar stone stabilised by smaller rocks underneath

Page 16: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 115

Fig. 7. Finds from Probe 3: 1. Bone fragments; 2. Ostrich eggshells; 3. Seashell fragments; 4. Hem-atite nodules and quartz pebbles; 5. Base-ring fragment bearing the cartouches of Seti I; 6. Copper-ore nodules; 7. Copper ring; 8. Faience, glass and seashell beads; 9. Burnished Egyptian pottery

sherds; 10. Midianite, Negebite and “normal” pottery sherds; 11. Faience fragments

Page 17: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

116 U. AVNER

87 The first identification of Seti I in the inscription was made by myself, confirmed later by B. Brandl and B. Sass, who also read the formula below: “(granted with) life and good fortune like Re{”. Together with the other finds, I handed it to Rothenberg (see n. 80), who published it with Schulman in the final report (Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 86 n. 3, 125, cat. 83a, 145, pl. 125:3, fig. 31:7).

88 Schulman 1988, p. 145. 89 Rothenberg 1984, p. 99; 1988a, p. 42, pl. 31. 90 Avner 1984b; 1993a; 2001; 2002, with references. 91 Rothenberg 1972a, pls. 110, 112.

mentioned above, the name of Seti I was first identified on another fragment by Giveon, but the reading was later annulled by Schulman. Now Seti I again became the first phar-aoh mentioned at the site.87

ALTERNATIVE STRATIGRAPHY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE

With careful adoption of principal elements from the excavator’s reports, combined with the remains at the site and the results of the three small probes, an alternative stratigraphy may be offered, with eight phases. Following is the bottom to top sequence (Fig. 8):

Phase 1 – The lower living level, 35 cm thick in Probe 1 and 50 cm in Probe 3 (from bed-rock to the top of the red pavement). This living level contained artefacts of both local and Egyptian origin (Chalcolithic finds are ignored here). The depth of this layer indicates a long period of gradual accumulation, with some rock debris. The finding of Seti I in Phase 1 is certainly significant, but the level in which the fragment was found (38 cm above bedrock in Probe 3) is not necessarily informative as to the time when the Egyptians first arrived in Timna, nor the time span of this phase. Following Schulman,88 Ramses II is a better candi-date as the pharaoh who initiated the Egyptian activity in Timna (see further below). Unfortunately, today no architectural remains can be related to this phase; however, two masseboth can. One is set into a depression cut 25 cm into the bedrock,89 75 cm below the red pavement, and therefore must be very old. The other is the massebah concealed in Wall 3 with its base just above the bedrock (Fig. 4).

Phase 2 – The first architectural remains that can be identified today are the red pavement, the large altar rock, the two basins and part of the row of standing stones. The red pave-ment connects all the other elements together into one unit—a shrine of clearly local nature (Fig. 9). Ample examples from the ancient Levant, especially from the desert, demonstrate the connection between these elements. Each one deserves a detailed discussion, but here they will be briefly addressed:

Masseboth are common in the Near East and very common in the desert. To date, over 450 masseboth sites have been recorded in the Negev, from the Neolithic period to the Iron Age.90 Besides those in the Timna sanctuary, two additional masseboth sites in the valley were published by Rothenberg,91 and more sites were recorded by the writer. From later

Page 18: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 117

Fig. 8. Stratigraphic order in the sanctuary: 1. Lower living level; 2. Local shrine; 3. First stage of the naos; 4. White floor; 5. Second stage of the naos plus pronaos; 6. Lower part of upper living

level; 7. Wall 2

Fig. 9. The local shrine after restoration: 1. Masseboth alignment (the black stone was found in the basin); 2. Smaller basin; 3. Red pavement; 4. Larger basin; 5. Altar stone; 6. White floor; 7. Pronaos

Page 19: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

118 U. AVNER

92 Avner 2000. 93 Avni 2007. 94 Only four masseboth are known to me from three sites in Egypt: one at Saqara (Lauer 1936a, p. 190,

fig. 212; 1936b, pl. 103), and two at Medum (Petrie 1892, p. 8; Rowe 1930, pls. 26, 27, 31) and one from Abidos (Quirke 1992, p. 63).

95 Rothenberg 1972a, fig. 78; 1988a, fig. 23:1. 96 Avner 1993a, fig 7; 2002, Table 11, 9:1–6. 97 Rothenberg 1969; 1970a; 1971. 98 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 132; 1984, p. 94. 99 Rothenberg 1972a, pl. 69; 1984, fig. 14; 1988a, pl. 54. 100 Rothenberg 1984. 101 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 47–8, 53–57, 88 n. 61, 247, 275. 102 Rothenberg 1995, p. 40. 103 Rothenberg 1988a, Loci 106, 107, ill. 10b, no. 6. 104 Examples for pavements in cult installations, from north to south: Biblos, high place (Dunand 1958,

pp. 646, 648, 657, pls. 31:1, 32:1); Hazor XI, Area B (the Bull Site: Mazar 1982, p. 34); Benei Braq (Kaplan 1963, p. 302); Givataim (Zusman and Beit-Arieh 1966, p. 32); Arad (Aharoni 1968, p. 19); Rosh Zin (Marks 1976, p. 318); Beidha (Kirkbride 1968, p. 92). Desert sites: (Avner 2002, Table 11: 1:1, 1:9, 1:12, 1:23 and fifteen others); in Sinai: Wadi Fugeia (Rothenberg 1974, pl. 13), {Ein Yarqa (Rothenberg 1979, p. 11).

periods, many hundreds of groups of small Nabataean masseboth are found in the Negev,92 and they even continued into the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods.93 The number of recorded masseboth of all periods continues to grow with every excursion into the field and they demonstrate the persistence of masseboth worship, especially in the desert. In Egypt, on the other hand, masseboth (unlike stelae) are extremely rare.94 Masseboth had several different roles in ancient Near Eastern religions, but in the desert they were primarily an abstract representation of deities. Four of the masseboth in the Timna alignment are unshaped, including the black boulder, much like the vast majority of masseboth in the desert. Four others are combined with Egyptian offering stands in a secondary use, and one was origi-nally one of the Hathor pillars, adopted as a massebah after being defaced.95 These were added to the row in a later stage, after the destruction of the Egyptian naos. Altogether the row comprises nine masseboth (excluding the concealed one), a number recurring at other sites.96

The red pavement, 6.5 ≈ 4.5 m, was either not mentioned in Rothenberg’s early publica-tions,97 or just noted briefly with no description.98 In the site plans, the red pavement and the large stone appear in two different ways. In the publications of 1970, 1978, 1992, and 1993, the pavement is shown as more solid and consistent, closer to reality and to published photos.99 Following our work at the site and the report given to Rothenberg,100 he exten-sively discussed the red pavement and the large rock,101 concluding that they were only the result of rock falls from the overhanging cliff, occurring first in the Chalcolithic period.102 The resemblance of the “rock fall” to a pavement was explained in terms of its having being levelled before the white floor was laid over it. Fortunately, most of this area was not exca-vated below the level of the red rocks,103 so the connection between all elements remained clear and visible. Association of these elements with pavements is significant since it is paral-leled in cult installations of various periods.104

Page 20: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 119

105 Examples for depressions in altars, from north to south: Hazor (Yadin 1975, pl. 124, 128, 129; 1972, pp. 86, 100; 1975, pp. 86–87); Megiddo VII (Loud 1948, p. 105, figs. 254, 257); Megiddo, masseboth hall (Schumacher 1908, pp. 48, 112, 117, 156–157, abb. 169, Taf. 35, 37b); Ta{anach (Sellin 1905, pp. 29–30, figs. 48, 49); Beth-Shean (Rowe 1930, p. 11, pl. 18:2); Tell Kitan (Eisenberg 1977, p. 80); Shechem (Wright 1965, p. 89, pl. 42); Beit Shemesh (Grant 1929, p. 48; 1939, p. 77); Lachish (Aharoni 1975, p. 31, pl. 17:9); Ader (Cleveland 1960, p. 82, pl. 19a); Arad (Aharoni 1968, p. 20).

106 Examples of basins next to masseboth from north to south: Byblos (Dunand 1958, pp. 646, 648); Tell Dan (Biran 2001); Megiddo, masseboth hall (Schumacher 1908 I, pp. 105–106); Megiddo, VII (Loud 1948, p. 105, figs. 254, 257); Ta{anach (Lapp 1964, pp. 30–32, figs. 16, 19; 1967, pp. 19–20, figs. 11, 12); Beth-Shan (Rowe 1930, pls. 21, 22); Tell Far{ah (north) (de Vaux 1951, p. 428, pl. 11:1; Chambon 1984, pp. 30, 40, pls. 7–9, 27); Benei-Braq (Kaplan 1963, p. 302); Gezer (Macalister 1906, pp. 54–57; 1912, pp. 377–406; Dever 1971, pp. 120–124; 1972, pp. 68–70); Beit Shemesh (Grant 1931, p. 41, pl. 30); desert sites (Avner 1984b, p. 115, pls. 15:1, 16:3; 2002, Table 11: 1:6, 7:14, M:10; Anati 2001, figs. 114, 161, 162); Timna (Rothenberg 1972a, pl. 110).

107 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 149; 1988a, pp. 43, 53. 108 For additional references to ritual use of blood, see Leviticus 4:7–34; 7:27; 9:9; 2 Kings 17:12, 15 etc.;

Herodotus III:8. See also Robertson Smith 1889, pp. 337–345; Grant 1929, p. 48; Aharoni 1968, p. 19; Herzog et al. 1984, p. 11; Lewis 2006.

109 Petrie 1906, pp. 105–107, 190. 110 Badawy 1968, p. 321. 111 For example, Badawy 1968, pp. 491–496. The term “basin” occurs several times in Badawy’s books

in connection with gardens, villa houses and temples, but the text and illustrations clearly indicate ponds (e.g., Badawy 1968, pp. 133, 138, 167, 354). In an extensive work on purification in Egypt (Blackman 1918), basins in temples are never mentioned, only pools, tanks and specific types of jars. See also Helck and Otto 1984.

The altar is the large rock with the chisel-cut circular depression, placed horizontally and stabilised ca. 15 cm above the red pavement. The depression is similar to many examples of various forms and sizes from different periods.105 Common to all are the context and the depression itself, logically made to hold the sacrificial blood for a later ritual use (see below).

Basins are often found with masseboth.106 Here at Timna, both basins were originally lime plastered107 to contain liquid, but their dimensions are very different. The calculated vol-ume of the smaller basin, between the masseboth, is ca. 35 L while the volume of the larger, broken basin is calculated at ca. 150 L. Their roles may be interpreted as follows: The smaller basin was designed to contain the sacrificial blood for ritual use. The best-known biblical example for this custom is the ritual conducted by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exodus 24: 6–8) in which he put half of the blood in the basins, Hebrew “ אגנות” (plural), and then sprinkled it on the attendants.108 The larger basin is the biblical “כיור”, placed next to the altar (Exodus 30:18; 31:9; 35:17). It contained larger amounts of water (cf. 1 Kings 7:38; 2 Chron. 6:13), for the priest’s ablution (Exodus 30:18–21, 40:30–32; 2 Chron. 4:6), for the wash of the sacrificed animals (Exodus 29:17, Leviticus 9:14) and for rinsing the altar following the sacrifice. The functions of the larger basin are well connected to the drainage channel behind the altar (see below).

Basins, however, are very rare in Egyptian temples and are not part of the Egyptian cultic paraphernalia. When Petrie excavated the temple of Serabit al-Khadem, southwest Sinai, the discovery of basins indicated to him that Semitic cult was practised in the temple,109 an observation followed later by Badawy.110 Instead of basins, rectangular or T-shaped ponds were built for cultic purposes.111 Another indication for the local nature of the basins is the

Page 21: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

120 U. AVNER

112 Gourdin and Kingery 1975, pp. 148, 150. 113 Garfinkel 1987; Kingery et al. 1988; Hauptmann 2000. 114 Lucas and Harris 1962, pp. 74–75, 78; Kemp 2000, pp. 92–93. 115 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 54. 116 Examples of channels in cult installations, from north to south: Byblos (Dunand 1958, p. 648,

fig. 1007); Hazor, Area H (Yadin 1975, p. 81); Hazor, Area F (Yadin 1975, p. 100); Megiddo, Northern Fort (Schumacher 1908, p. 139); Megiddo XII (Loud 1948, pp. 87–92); Megiddo, VIII (Loud 1948, p. 113); Megiddo, VII (Loud 1948, p. 104, fig. 251); Beth-Shan, IX (Rowe 1930, p. 11); Arad temple (Aharoni 1968, p. 19)—two channels on the altar’s top, but their continuations were not preserved.

117 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 75–83, pls. 93, 96, 97. 118 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 151, fig. 44; 1988a, pp. 55, 60; Sheffer and Tidhar 1988.

lime plaster with which they were lined.112 Lime plaster was common in the Levant as early as the Pre-Pottery Neolithic,113 while in Egypt gypsum plaster was used.114

The drainage channel (Fig. 6) was not mentioned in Rothenberg’s publications before our work at the site, but it was later mentioned as a “trench-like space” or “rock-bench”.115 Drainage channels associated with altars are known both from the Bible (1 Kings 18:32, 35) and from archaeological remains at sites of various periods, next to altars and in temples or other cult installations for the same purposes.116

Based on the above brief discussion, the elements mentioned should be seen as one unit: a shrine of a local, non-Egyptian nature (Fig. 9). As stated, this is the earliest architectural, cultic element now possible to identify at the site. Although the base of the red pavement is ca. 45 cm above the bedrock, it should be seen as a continuation from an older shrine with masseboth, of which two survived from Phase 1 (see above). Since some of the masseboth were set on top of the red pavement and were combined with Egyptian elements in a secondary use, it is clear that the masseboth alignment changed through time, but their older roots are significant.

Phase 3 is the first stage of the Egyptian naos. As described, it was a rectangular base frame of elongated ashlar white sandstones and pillars in the front corners (Fig. 2a). Lines of plas-ter indicating the position of the two square-sectioned pillars117 are still visible today. One of the pillars with a relief portrait of Hathor was found in a secondary use in a later phase as a massebah, after being defaced (see above). The western side of this naos clearly overrides the edge of the large altar stone and the red pavement (Figs. 1, 6) and therefore it was obviously built later than the local shrine. Another point demonstrates this order of phases—the gradient of the drainage channel behind the altar runs under the naos (Fig. 6).

Phase 4 is the white floor. It covered the red pavement and abutted the first stage of the naos (see above). Two sockets lined with small flagstones and built into the white floor are explained as supporting the poles for a tent, of which many pieces of thick wool were found in the courtyard.118 Here, another stratigraphic question arises. The tent remains were related by Rothenberg to Stratum II, the latest, Midianite phase, but the white floor is related to Stratum III. In any case, the white floor was laid after the construction of the first naos, on a larger area than that surrounded later by the sanctuary walls (see above).

Page 22: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 121

119 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 149; 1984, p. 96.

Phase 5 is the second stage of the naos: a closed cell constructed of ashlar sandstone blocks and older architectural elements (Fig. 2b). As mentioned, the first course of these blocks overrides the plaster lines of the first naos. The pronaos ashlar pavement also belongs to this phase, since it was built on top of the white floor.

Phase 6 is the upper living level, Rothenberg’s Stratum III, which contained most of the finds. It was present only in our Probe 1, up to 15 cm thick but originally much thicker.

Phase 7 – The construction of Walls 1–3 surrounding the courtyard. According to my observations they were built in one stage, with the offering bench, after some time of accu-mulation of the upper living level. Before construction of the walls, the major elements of the site (the local shrine and the Egyptian naos) were in an open space for quite a long period of time. Walls 1–3 can be related now to Rothenberg’s Stratum II rather than IV and III. The upper living level, or levels, continued to accumulate, and included the “green-grey interface” rich with finds. The walls were built of fieldstones of different kinds and included some older Egyptian architectural elements. Rothenberg119 related these walls to the Egyptian architecture, based on the similarity to the temenos wall surrounding

Fig. 10. The sanctuary after restoration: 1. Local shrine; 2. White floor; 3. Egyptian naos and pronaos

Page 23: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

122 U. AVNER

120 Petrie 1906, pp. 63–71, 97–107. 121 See Rothenberg 1988a, p. 32, and see levels in all published plans. 122 In the cell, a faience fragment was found, bearing the remains of a cartouche (Rothenberg 1988a, p. 83).

It was identified as Seti II by Schulman (in Rothenberg 1988a, p. 119, cat. 26, fig. 31:3). Since only small parts of two hieroglyphs remained, the reading seems uncertain. The find-box and level of this object is not indicated so its relation to the cell is unknown. It could have been lying there long before construction of the cell.

123 A single 14C date cannot prove late use of the sanctuary; however, many additional similar dates from Timna (see below) indicate high activity of copper production into the ninth century BCE.

the temple of Serabit al-Khadem. However, as Petrie showed,120 there were strong local elements in this temple. While parallels to fieldstone masonry in temples in Egypt are unknown, fieldstone masonry in the desert is common in all periods. Therefore, in my opinion, the walls surrounding the sanctuary were built by the locals when the Egyptians were no longer in Timna. This is the stage in which one of the two oldest masseboth was concealed in Wall 3, and probably the time when Egyptian elements were adopted and added to the line of masseboth.

Phase 8 is the cell added outside the courtyard (L. 112). The base of Wall 4 creating the cell is 25–35 cm higher than that of Wall 1.121 This means that quite a long period of time passed from the construction of Walls 1–3 to the time of building the cell. It also means that the site continued to be used for a long period after the Egyptians left the area.122

Following the above description, several significant results come to light. One is that the site’s stratigraphy is more complex than the published versions, with more phases. Another is that the local component appears now as a well-established cult place, containing all necessary principal paraphernalia. Third, the Egyptian naos was built next to the existing local shrine—an opposite order of events than that presented by the excavator. The local complex existed long before the Egyptian naos, it functioned contemporaneously with the naos and it continued to be used long after the Egyptians left the area. Fourth, the history of the site was longer than that perceived by Rothenberg. One indication for its longevity is the accumula-tion of a 25–35 cm living level outside Wall 1 from the time it was built to the time when Wall 4 was added; another is the only retrieved 14C date from the site: ca. 960 cal. BCE (Table 1:72); that is, about 200 years after Ramses V, the last pharaoh in the site.123

The new observations of the sanctuary now require further discussion.

THE TIMNA SANCTUARY COMPARED TO EGYPTIAN TEMPLES

Sanctuary planning and design

When the Timna sanctuary is compared to Egyptian temples or other cult buildings, the differences are striking. The first conclusion is that the Timna site should be termed a sanc-tuary, not a temple. For most of its existence it was an open cult place, probably covered by a tent at some stage, and still later surrounded by a low wall. Even if the site is taken as one unit with the walls, it does not accord with the criteria of Egyptian temples.

Page 24: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 123

124 Badawy 1965, pp. 19–38; 1966, pp. 33–46; 1968, pp. 176–181; Wightman 2007, pp. 123–130. The principle of symmetry recurs frequently in all volumes of Badawy; see the index terms “axis” and “symmetry”, and in ample temple plans.

125 See Wimmer 1990, p. 1070. 126 Badawy 1968, passim; Helck 1980a; 1980b, with references. 127 Rowe 1930, pp. 19–21, 31–33, pls. 33, 48:2; James and McGovern 1993, pp. 239–244. 128 Tufnell et al. 1940, pp. 19–34. 129 Ussishkin 1978, pp. 1–25, 91–93; also see Giveon 1972; Kempinski 1978; Mazar 1987, pp. 148–152.

Egyptian temples, large and small alike, were built following rigid principles, especially during the New Kingdom: a longitudinal building with perfect symmetry, a high front, three or four courtyards descending towards the rear end, where the naos was located, dark and isolated.124 Nobles were permitted to enter into the first courtyard; priests entered into the inner courtyards according to their rank and to ritual needs. The high priest entered the naos every morning to serve the god, while the king entered during special events. Both architectural design and the temples’ regulations imply the aim of providing the god with maximum privacy.

In the Timna sanctuary, on the other hand, the naos with the goddess statue was easily approached and visible to all, even to those who, for some reason, were not permitted into the courtyard. No privacy at all was given to Hathor. In addition, the sanctuary is clearly asymmetric; the naos is 1.1 m away from Wall 1 but 4.6 m from Wall 3. The Egyptian mind could not have borne such disharmony. Indeed, the walls surrounding the courtyard were added late in the site’s history, but once they were built, no attempt was made to cre-ate any symmetry. If symmetry was desired, enough free space remained to the east. The walls were built of fieldstones by the locals, the same way they built everything else in the desert, but thicker, ignoring the Egyptian standard of ashlar blocks or mud bricks (for Rothenberg’s comparison of the Timna walls with the temenos wall at Serabit al-Khadem, see above).

The conclusion is that the Timna sanctuary did not obey any principle of the Egyptian temple. Instead, in the time of Egyptian presence in the site, a chapel can be seen here built against the rock face,125 in an open space, adjoining the existing local shrine. Chapels, or kiosks, were built in Egypt in a variety of forms and for different purposes. In some cases they were a small substitute for the real naos within the temple and the deity’s statue. They were built outside the temple for the commoners who were not permitted into the temple itself.126

Religious implications

When the Egyptians first decided to build a chapel for Hathor, they had unlimited space, with magnificent red cliffs surrounding the rock formation of the “Solomon’s Pillars” and other suitable locations. So, why did they choose to attach it to an existing local shrine?

Timna is not the only place where Egyptians and locals shared a sanctuary. This was also the case at Beth-Shean,127 at the Lachish Fosse Temple128 and at Lachish VI.129 Canaanite cult was not unknown to the Egyptian. Although Egypt conquered Canaan, it was deeply

Page 25: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

124 U. AVNER

130 Helck 1962, pp. 482–500; Stadelmann 1967. 131 Pritchard 1969b, nos. 470–476, 485. 132 Helck 1962, pp. 480–481; Giveon 1972, but see Wimmer (1998), who showed Egyptian cult elements

in a number of sites in Canaan. He argued that they do not indicate the existence of Egyptian temples. Excep-tional is a temple of Amun at Gaza, mentioned by Ramses III in Papyrus Harris I (9:1–3). In Wimmer’s view, the Egyptians in Canaan only supported syncretistic ambitions of the local population (1998, p. 111); how-ever, in light of the above data, and the fact that Egyptian temples were built in Nubia, the Egyptian elements in Canaanite temples may indeed reflect their joining the Canaanite cult.

133 Pritchard 1969a, pp. 249–250; and see many examples in the Lexikon der Ägyptologie (Helck and Otto 1986) of entries with the gods’ names.

134 Petrie 1906, pp. 71, 191–192. 135 Gardiner 1916, p.15. 136 Gardiner et al. (1955, p. 41) accepted Petrie’s idea about the local goddess at Serabit al-Khadem, despite

criticising his general view of the dominance of Semitic cult at the site (1955, pp. 41–51). 137 Giveon 1975; Schulman 1988, p. 123, cat. 55; and see also above, Probe 2 and n. 83. 138 At Byblos, already in the Middle Kingdom a high Egyptian official dedicated a stele to Reshef (Dunand

1958, p. 646, pl. 22). An Egyptian official under Thutmosis III gave offerings to the “[Ba{alat] of Byblos” (Pritchard 1969a, p. 243). At Beth-Shan, Ramses III and several officials dedicated stelae to Mekal, {Anat and {Ashtart (Rowe 1930, pp. 14–15, 19, 21, 32–33, pls. 33, 50:2; 1940, pls. 49a:1, 65a:1; Pritchard 1969b, no. 487). At Ugarit, an Egyptian scribe worshiped Ba{al Zafon (=North): Schaeffer 1939, pp. 39–41; Pritchard 1969b, no. 485). Ramses II worshiped El Kan Zafon in the Bashan (Giveon 1965, pp. 197–199).

139 Rowe 1930, p. 11.

influenced by the Canaanite culture. Partly this involved the adoption of the defeated Canaanite gods into the Egyptians’ own pantheon (Ba{al, Reshef, Ba{alat, {Anat, {Ashtart, }Asherah, Qudshu). Canaanite deities were worshiped in Egypt130 and were presented on stelae, sometimes alongside Egyptian gods.131 Temples were built for them in both Egypt and Canaan.132 Egyptian children, including those of royal families, were named after Canaanite gods.133

When Petrie excavated the temple complex of Serabit al-Khadem in 1904, he obviously saw the wealth of Egyptian materials, stelae, sculptures and inscriptions, but he also noticed local “Semitic” cultic elements: basins, animal sacrifice, “beit-el stones” (masseboth). With the support of biblical passages (1 Kings 20:23; 2 Kings 17:27) he argued that due to the ancients’ territorial perception of deities, Egyptians sought the protection of the local, for-eign gods when they left Egypt. At Serabit he saw the Egyptians worshiping a local goddess, equivalent to Hathor, and predicted that when discovered, her name would be Semitic.134 This proved true when Gardiner135 deciphered her name, Ba{alat, in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.136 In fact, Hathor’s title as “Ba{alat” = “the mistress of” (turquoise) was found in several Egyptian inscriptions, in Sinai, in Egypt and in Timna.137 In Canaan, Egyptian officials worshipped Canaanite gods while residing outside Egypt.138 A good example of a temple shared by both peoples is that of Beth-Shean, as described by Rowe:139 the local population worshiped the god Mekal represented by massebah, while in an adjacent cult room the Egyptians worshiped the same local god through an Egyptian stele, representing him in a human form.

A similar situation can be seen at Timna. The Egyptians built their chapel just next to the local shrine since they needed the protection of the local gods, and their Hathor was anyway the equivalent of the local Ba{alat. But there is another interesting point here. When one stands in front of both cult focuses, one sees the Hathor chapel on the right side and the

Page 26: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 125

140 Avner 1993a, n. 37 with references. 141 Avner 1993a, pp. 174–175, figs. 19–29; 2000, pp. 102–103; 2002, Table 11: 2:1–41, excluding 2:3,

2:30, 2:37. 142 Needham 1973. 143 Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 63, 65, 101, 162; 1984, p. 121; 1999b, pp. 150–151; Conrad and Rothenberg

1980, pp. 183–418. 144 Rothenberg 1984, p. 121. 145 Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 122–124; 2001. 146 Rothenberg 1984, pp. 104; 1988a, pp. 95–96. 147 For example: “Our best example of ancient Egyptian copper exploitation comes from the Timna Mines

and smelting sites which have now been excavated and studied in considerable detail” (Ogden 2000, p. 150); “The Egyptian miner was the master of producing the circular shaft” (Shaw 1996, p. 10, referring to Timna).

local shrine, with the masseboth, on the left. However, from the point of view of the gods in the masseboth and in the chapel, Hathor stands to the left of the local gods. In the ancient world, and still today in traditional societies, right and left bear clear and profound sym-bolic meaning. A senior person stands on the right side while the secondary stands to his left. In a random collection of 150 examples of pairs of deities or nobles in Near Eastern sculptures, in 75 per cent the male figure stands on the right side (cf. Song of Songs 2:6, 8:3). In most of the other 25 per cent, a mother was the senior and a son or a daughter was the secondary, on her left side.140 In tens of pairs of masseboth in the desert, of different types and from different periods, the right side stone is almost always the larger.141 Eighteen articles collected in one volume discuss the symbolism of right and left in anthropological and historical studies; they all show this universal symbolic notion.142

For the Timna sanctuary this means that the Egyptian Hathor was not the “owner of the house” but a “guest”. She joined the local gods, in their territory, on their left side as a sec-ondary figure.

EGYPTIAN MINES AND SMELTERS IN TIMNA VALLEY

Since the discovery of the sanctuary, much emphasis has been credited to the Egyptian masters. They were seen as those who introduced their new, advanced technologies into the Arabah Valley, and their ability to organise the work on a large scale.143 Other specific ele-ments were also ascribed to the Egyptians, such as bell-shaped storage pits,144 rock art,145 and much of the “normal” wheel-made pottery.146 Following the above analysis of the sanc-tuary, the relative weight of each ethnic entity in the copper plant also requires a new examination.

The mines

Following Rothenberg’s publications, Timna became the key site for studying New King-dom Egyptian copper mining technology.147

Three main types of mines at Timna, of different periods, are relevant to the discussion. One, represented by Mine T, consists of a cluster of broad vertical penetrations into the white sandstone, with a system of horizontal galleries connecting them at a depth of ca. 4 m (Fig. 11).

Page 27: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

126 U. AVNER

Fig. 11. Mine T, fourth millennium BCE: wide, irregular dig connected by galleries with similar entrances

Page 28: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 127

148 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 148–166, 181–183; Rothenberg 1999a, p. 79; Drenka 2003. 149 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 130, abb. 140. 150 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 8–10, 44–46; 1972a, pp. 63, pls. 17, 18. 151 Cohen 1976. 152 Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 63–65; 1995, pp. 18–22; 1999b, pp. 149–151; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980,

pp. 69–167, 183–184. 153 See n. 147. 154 Badawy 1968, p. 383, fig. 201; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 78, abb. 61. 155 Perrot 1955, p. 27, fig. 7. 156 In 1995, Rothenberg himself conducted an expedition with other experts to the Eastern Desert of

Egypt in an attempt to locate mines and furnaces of the Timna types, but only found horizontal penetra-tion into the hillsides (Rothenberg 1998, and pers. comm. 1999). Only two shafts were reported from the Eastern Desert. One was from the Bakari gold mine (Rothenberg et al. 1998, p. 7) but no description or date was suggested and no similarity to the Timna shafts was mentioned. The second was at Abu Swayel (Garenne-Marot 1984, p. 99) in a schist rock, also with no description or date that can be compared to Timna.

The mine is dated to the fourth millennium BCE.148 Since any penetration into the rock is at first a prospection dig, this early mine was not very efficient, for it required digging up a large volume of rock in order to discover whether there were greenish levels underneath containing the copper nodules. Another type of mine is based on a cylindrical shaft, 1.1 m in diameter, which is much more efficient than the first (Mines S10, S28149) (Fig. 12). Two 14C dates on charcoal from galleries connecting this type of shaft indicated their use in the third millennium BCE (Table 1:37, 38). Both types of mines were cut using a digging axe or hammer, held with two hands and therefore not allowing the digging of narrower shafts. The third and most advanced type of mine has a narrower shaft, ca. 80 cm in diameter, cut by means of a chisel, with two rows of steps for comfortable decent and accent. The deepest shaft of this type known to me in Timna is 42 m (Fig. 13). Over 200 of these advanced, efficient shafts were initially found during Rothenberg’s survey in the valley; they were identified first as water cisterns.150 Later, however, it was found by Cohen in 1974 that these shafts and over 8000 “plates” (shal-low depressions on the surface) are actually covered mining shafts.151 These advanced shafts were safely identified as Egyptian by Rothenberg,152 and they were commonly accepted as such.153 The basis for this identification was a drawing on a potsherd from the Eighteenth Dynasty, showing a shaft tomb with steps.154

Several comments contradict this argument: First, the steps in the Egyptian drawing are protruding into the shafts, while in Timna almost all shafts have steps cut as recesses (Fig. 13). Second, identical shafts with recessed steps were already known in the Negev, at the Chalcolithic site of Tell Abu Matar, leading from an underground space into a silo.155 Third and most important is the question how many similar mining shafts are known in Egypt or in the mining centres of the Eastern Desert? After extensive literature search and questioning of researchers well acquainted with Egyptian archaeology, the answer is none.156 Therefore, before any similar shaft is found in Egypt, the thousands of advanced shafts at Timna cannot be coined “Egyptian”. On the other hand, one can see a direct line of local development in the technology and strategy of mining from the fourth millennium BCE Mine T to the shafts of Mines S10 and then to the efficient, narrow shaft. What enabled the later development was the coming of tin bronze, around 2000 BCE, from which hard

Page 29: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

128 U. AVNER

Fig. 12. Mine S10, third millennium BCE, cylindrical shaft (partially excavated by Conrad and Rothenberg)

Page 30: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 129

157 Two bronze digging picks were published from Timna (Conrad and Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 72–73), but the same objects were previously published as copper spear-butts (Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 105–106). No chemical analysis was published to justify the switch in interpretation of the objects.

158 For example, Rothenberg 1990, pp. 16–38. Publications on the Timna Furnaces greatly differ in details and interpretations. In order to make the discussion on the furnaces short, only the final publication on metal-lurgy (Rothenberg 1990) is referred to in this paper. For other related publications see Rothenberg 1971, pp. 15–16; 1972a, pp. 67–78; 1983; 1985; 1999b, pp. 153–155; 1999b; Rothenberg et al. 1986; 1988a.

159 Lupu and Rothenberg 1970; Merkel 1983; 1990, Bamberger 1985; Bamberger et al. 1986; 1988; Rehren 1996; Ogden 2000, pp. 149–150. In some of these publications the furnaces are not termed “Egyp-tian” but “Late Bronze-Early Iron Age”.

enough chisels could be produced.157 Cutting the rock by means of a chisel and a hammer requires a shorter hand movement, which allows digging a narrower shaft. In sum, the advanced mining shafts at Timna and in other mines along the Arabah, were not Egyptian but local.

Smelting furnaces

In Timna Site 2, Rothenberg excavated four smelting furnaces. With several colleagues he conducted chemical analyses on copper slag, copper ores and metallic copper, as well as undertaking smelting experiments. All four were “tapping furnaces”, ca. 45 cm in both diameter and depth, excluding the upper part which was not preserved (Fig. 14). These furnaces produced a plano-convex ingot at the bottom, while most of the slag was tapped out, creating a heavy slag “cake” or “ring” (in different publications). The furnaces were confidently identified by Rothenberg as Egyptian,158 followed by others.159

Fig. 13. Mine 25, an advanced shaft, second millennium BCE, with chisel marks and steps, 42 m deep

Page 31: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

130 U. AVNER

Fig. 14. Furnace I in Site 2, dated by 14C to the Early Islamic Period

Fig. 15. Timna Site 2, an aerial photo from west; white ovals indicate habitation units, marked areas excavated by Rothenberg

Page 32: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 131

160 Pouit and Castel 1999. I am grateful to P. Tallet who referred me to this article and sent me a copy. 161 The dates of Fu1, FuZ were first published in footnotes in 1988 (Rothenberg 1988b, p. 4, n. 7; 1990,

p. 71, n. 23) but in later publications the furnaces were still presented as Ramesside (Rothenberg 1995, pp. 24–26; 1999b, pp. 153–155) with no mention of the 14C dates.

162 Erickson-Gini 2014. 163 The smelting camp of Beer Ora, with large piles of slag “cakes”, was dated first by Rothenberg to

the Roman period (Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 212–223). Later it was changed to Roman and Early Islamic (Rothenberg 1992; 1993; 1990, pp. 54–63; 1995, pp. 37–39; 1999b, pp. 166–168), based on a 14C date of the seventh century CE (Table 1:80). My own excavation at Beer Ora (with M. Sharon and D. Nahlieli) added five 14C dates of the Early Islamic period, two Fatimid and two Mamlukean dates (see Table 1:81–88).

164 Davies 1943, pp. 53–54, pl. 52. The title given by Davies to the scene is “Smelting” (1943, p. 53) but all details actually show melting and casting. This is also implied from the inscription in the lower register, saying that the copper was “Asiatic”, brought by the king (Thutmosis III) from Retenu (= Canaan). For more information on copper melting in Egypt, see Garenne-Marot 1985.

165 For example, Pusch 1990; 1996. 166 Tallet et al. 2011. The main work on the Middle Kingdom metallurgy was published in a detailed book

on {Ain Sukhna, on the western coast of the Gulf of Suez, an extension of the western Sinai industry (Abu al Razeq et al. 2012). I am grateful to P. Tallet who sent to me a copy of the book.

167 Rothenberg described small furnaces, 25–35 cm in diameter, from Timna Site 30, Strata III and II, but interpreted them as non-tapping furnaces (Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 223; Rothenberg 1990, pp. 8–13). Important clay remains of the upper part of a furnace were also found in Stratum I, dated to the Twenty-Second Dynasty (late tenth century BCE; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 221–222, abb. 242), which actu-ally contained Early Islamic slag “rings”. Therefore, the date of this furnace is not secure.

Here again, the question is how do we know that these furnaces are indeed Egyptian? How many similar furnaces were excavated in Egypt? After a long search, the answer is that one iron-smelting furnace, dated to the Late Roman Period, is somewhat similar to the Timna furnaces.160 Furthermore, two 14C dates sampled from inside the Timna furnaces Fu I and Fu Z were of the Early Islamic period (Table 1:76, 77).161 One date, retrieved next to Fu IV, was of the thirteenth century BCE (Table 1:49), but it actually dated the layers of metallurgic refuse into which the furnace was built. Another date from the remains of a furnace excavated by Erickson-Gini (here Table 1:52) was 100 years earlier than the Egyptian arrival in Timna.162 Additional 14C dates were received from two smelting sites south of Timna, one from the interior of an identical furnace at Nahal {Amram (Table 1:89), the others from the smelting camp of Beer Ora, where three such furnaces were excavated. These furnaces were not dated directly, but all dates from this site were Early Islamic or later (Table 1:80–88).163

Currently, not one tapping furnace in the southern Arabah can be identified as Egyptian or be dated to the New Kingdom, and no copper smelting furnace from this period is even known from Egypt itself. There is enough information from Egypt for copper melting and casting; for example, the famous wall painting from the Tomb of Rekhmire{164 and an elaborate New Kingdom installation at Qantir.165 Melting, however, is a simple task, requir-ing a temperature of less than 1,085°C. Smelting—that is, extracting metallic copper from rock—is a much more complex, sophisticated operation. It requires profound knowledge of the copper minerals and fluxes, other skills and a temperature above 1,200°C. In western Sinai, a French team recently discovered some 3,000 Old and Middle Kingdom Egyptian furnaces; all are totally different from those of the Arabah. Briefly, they are rectangular, built in long batteries, and their method of operation was very different.166 After 50 years of met-allurgic studies at Timna, we are still in the dark in many aspects. Several different types of slag are found in the smelting camps, but the technology behind them is still unclear.167

Page 33: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

132 U. AVNER

Fig 16. Themilat Radadi, a rock engraving of Ramses III (95 cm high)

Page 34: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 133

Fig. 17. An outline for a rock stele of Ramses III above the Timna sanctuary

Page 35: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

134 U. AVNER

168 Timna Site 39 is dated to the Chalcolithic or even Late Neolithic (Rothenberg and Merkel 1998), as well as the metallurgic remains on the Yotvata Hill (Rothenberg et al. 2004). Mine T is dated to the Chalco-lithic-Early Bronze Age (see above). Other sites in Timna dated to the Chalcolithic-Late Neolithic are ques-tionable (see references and discussion in Avner 2002, Ch. 3). The main information for the early copper production comes from two Chalcolithic-EB I villages near Aqaba (Khalil and Schmidt 2009).

169 Avner 1993b. 170 For large scale Early Islamic copper mines at Nahal {Amram, south of Timna, see Willies 1990; 1991.

Nahal {Amram is currently under a new survey conducted by U. Avner, H. Ginat and S. Shalev, with many more mines discovered. For the settlement pattern of the Early Islamic Period in the Arabah see Avner and Magness 1998. For the general settlement pattern of the region see Avner (2006; 2008), with references.

171 See n. 48. 172 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 192–198. 173 Ben-Yosef 2010, pp. 567–569; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012, Table 4; and see here Table 1:61–70. 174 Levy et al. 2005; 2008. 175 One exception to this scenario should be mentioned: the late tenth and early ninth century BCE. Dur-

ing this short period, a new technology has been identified by Ben-Yosef through chemical analyses of slag from Timna Site 30, Stratum I. Slag now indicates the use of manganese flux and the copper content is very low, due to a more efficient smelting process. The source of the new technology was probably Egypt, following the invasion of Pharaoh Shishaq into the Negev, 926 BCE (Ben-Yosef 2010, pp. 830–831, 901–903, 973–977, 986).

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE TIMNA COPPER PLANT

A collection of currently available 14C dates from Timna and related sites in the southern Arabah indicate a long sequence of activity, from the fifth millennium BCE on. Table 1 and Fig. 18 illuminate four principal points: 1) Extensive copper production activity in the Chalcolithic Period;168 2) Copper mining and smelting in the Middle Bronze II,169 a period commonly considered vacant in the Negev; 3) Extensive activity during the Late Bronze and Iron Age, also considered vacant in the rest of the Negev (besides Iron Age II); 4) High activity in the Early Islamic Period.170 One period of copper mining and production is not represented in the table, the Nabataean period, from which mines and smelting installations are known in the region.

Thirty-one dates fall within the Late Bronze and Iron Age, but only six of them roughly fit into the period of Egyptian presence at Timna, (ca. 1280–1145 BCE with a gap, ca. 1200–1180 BCE171). Most interesting is a series of eleven new dates from Site 30. Here, Conrad and Rothenberg172 excavated a section in a 2 metre-high slagheap, ascribed to Egyp-tian smelting. However, recently received dates from the same heap, by Ben-Yosef and Sha{ar, were all between ca. 1070 and 860 BCE.173 All these dates, in addition to five previ-ously received from other sites, are later than the abandonment of the area by the Egyptians. Therefore, this large pile of slag does not represent an Egyptian metallurgy, but a local one. The dates are contemporary with tens of 14C dates from the Faynan area and even include the time of Kings David and Solomon.174

The unequivocal conclusion is that copper mining and smelting took place in the south-ern Arabah long before the coming of the Egyptians, while the most intensive production period was after they left. Since no indication is found for Egyptian mining or smelting technology, the operation of the Timna plant must be credited to the desert people, using their own experience and technologies, developed through millennia.175

Page 36: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 135

176 A more neutral term for this type of pottery is “Qurayya Ware”, but it is often referred to as Midianite. For publications see: Parr et al. 1970; Dayton 1972; Kalsbeek and London 1978; Rothenberg and Glass 1983; Brandl 1984; Bawden and Edens 1988.

177 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 92, figs. 4–13; Tebes 2007; 2013. 178 This is my own impression based on long-term acquaintance with the Timna sites, and from the current

survey at Nahal {Amram. For previous surveys at Nahal {Amram see Rothenberg 1967, pp. 41–50; Willies 1990; 1991.

179 Kisnawi et al. 1983, pp. 76, 80.

DESERT PEOPLE AND EGYPTIANS

Pottery types and peoples

Four types of pottery found at Timna may represent different ethnic groups involved in the copper mining and production. One distinctive type is the decorated pottery from northern Hejaz, probably representing the Midianites.176 In the sanctuary, this type com-prised 20 per cent of the total pottery sherds,177 but in the mines and smelting camps its proportion is much lower.178 In Rothenberg’s publications, the Midianites gain much emphasis as expert coppersmiths. However, the archaeological surveyors of northern Hejaz argued that copper mining and smelting operations in the region were of small scale, only “off-shoots” of other production centres in the Near East (that is, the Arabah Valley). In their view, it is hard to see the Midianites as coppersmiths; rather, they were goldsmiths.179

Fig. 18. Histogram of calibrated 14C dates from copper mines and production sites, southern Arabah

Page 37: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

136 U. AVNER

180 Rothenberg dedicated an article (1998) to the Midianites, suggesting that they were originally “Sea People” of Aegean origin. If correct, one should wonder how these people drastically altered their environment, successfully adapted to a harsh, remote desert region and quickly developed the knowledge necessary to survive there.

181 For the Negev Ware see Aharoni et al. 1960, pp. 98–102; Haiman and Goren 1992; Meshel 2002; Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004, pp. 135–140.

182 Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 92, 95, figs 14–15; Glass 1988, pp. 108–111. 183 Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 153–154. 184 On the Shasu, see Giveon 1967; 1971; Ward 1972; Redford 1992, pp. 269–280; Levy et al. 2005;

Vassiliev 2006; Rainey 2008. 185 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 95, figs. 16–20; Glass 1988, pp. 101–108. 186 See n. 178. 187 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 163, Glass 1988. 188 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 153; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 194–195. 189 The pottery from the Yotvata Fortress is as yet unpublished, but it was exhibited for several years in the

visitor’s centre of Yotvata. For the fortress’ excavation see Meshel 1993. 190 Rothenberg 1984, p. 104; Glass 1988, p. 108. 191 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 162. 192 Lernau 1988. 193 Lernau (1988, p. 245) suggests that Mediterranean fish were brought from the Mediterranean coast of

Egypt. However, if fish were brought from Egypt, Nilotic species would be expected to dominate; this expec-tation is based on the finding of Nile fish bones in many Late Bronze-Iron Age sites in Israel and in other

In this light, it would be more realistic to see the Midianites at Timna as one among several desert tribes participating in the copper production.180

Another type of pottery is the coarse, handmade “Negev Ware”, found all over the Negev, Edom and eastern Sinai.181 In the Timna sanctuary this type comprised 10 per cent of the pottery, but in the smelting camps it occurs in larger quantities.182 Rothenberg relates this pottery to the Amalekites,183 but it could well be also the pottery of other desert groups, generally, the Shasu, the desert tribes.184

A third type is the “normal”, wheel-made pottery. It comprised 65 per cent of the pottery in the sanctuary,185 but in the smelting camps it is even more dominant.186 There is some confusion about this group. Based on petrographic analyses, this pottery was made locally near Beer Ora (south of Timna; that is, from the “Ora Clay”); it includes magmatic parti-cles and some crushed copper slag as a temper.187 The assemblage of “normal” pottery from the sanctuary is well supplemented by the pottery from Timna Sites 2 and 30,188 and by an important collection from the Yotvata fortress, excavated by Meshel, where complete jars and other pots were recovered.189 Together they form a distinctive repertoire.

The wheel-made pottery is ascribed to Egyptian and Midianite potters in the mining centres, using local materials.190 However, the forms are very different from both Midianite and Egyptian pottery. Indeed, they are very close to the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age pottery of Canaan, as Rothenberg also admitted;191 for example, handles are very common in this group but absent in Egyptian pottery and rare in the Midianite. It seems, therefore, that this type of pottery represents the population of southern Canaan or Canaan in general. The possible presence of Canaanites at Timna is supported by fish bones from excavations at Sites 2, 30 and 200. Out of 95 fish bones in total, 92 were of Mediterranean species, one was from the Red Sea and two were from the Nile.192 Mediterranean fish were most prob-ably brought in by Canaanites.193 Olive pits found in the sanctuary194 were also probably brought from Canaan.

Page 38: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 137

neighbouring countries (Van Neer et al. 2004, esp. pp. 119–125), indicating intensive trade with Nile fish in these periods. I thank Irit Zohar for passing this article on to me.

194 Kislev 1988, p. 239. 195 Rothenberg 1988a, p. 95, fig. 21, and see two burnished sherds here in Fig. 7. 196 Fifteen Egyptian sherds were presented (Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, abb. 211), divided between

Strata III and II, and different periods. However, on different pages (pp. 192, 197), sherds nos. 7, 8, 9, and 13 are attributed to both layers.

197 Rothenberg 1972a, pl. 47. 198 Ibrahim and Tallet 2009; Tallet and Laisney 2012; Tallet 2013. 199 Petrie 1906. 200 Gardiner et al. 1955. 201 Tallet et al. 2011; Abd el-Raziq et al. 2012. 202 Finkelstein 1995, pp. 120–122; Jasmin 2006; Tebes 2007. For the antiquity and intensity of the desert

road network see Avner 2002, Ch. 6.

The fourth group is the Egyptian pottery. Only a number of decorated sherds and a few undecorated ones were found in the sanctuary. Some originated in the Nile Valley, others were locally made.195 The only other site in Timna from which Egyptian pottery has been reported is Site 30, and no such pottery has as yet been found at Nahal {Amram.196 So, the distribution of Egyptian pottery is currently very limited. The Egyptian presence, however, is well attested by other finds in the sanctuary, by two rock inscriptions—one in Timna and one on the way to Timna (see below)—and by a scarab from Site 2.197

The ceramic evidence can now be integrated with additional archaeological and historical data for the purpose of discussing the two general ethnic groups.

SOCIAL-HISTORICAL SCENARIO

Following the above discussion, here is a suggested historical-social scenario addressing the role of each ethnic group and their interrelations.

The Egyptians

The earliest indications of Egyptian interest in western Sinai are several inscriptions of the First Dynasty (late fourth to early third millennia BCE) from Wadi el-Hummur and Wadi {Ameyra.198 Their interest increased through the Old Kingdom, reached its peak in the Middle Kingdom and continued into the New Kingdom. The desire of the Egyptians for turquoise from western Sinai is well known through the studies of Petrie,199 Gardiner et al.,200 and others, but new research in recent years also demonstrates large-scale copper pro-duction during the Old and Middle Kingdom.201 Still, the Egyptian activity in Sinai was limited to the southwest, to the area of Serabit al-Khadem, Wadi Maghara and Wadi Nasib.

Following the establishment of the Egyptian province of Canaan, under Thutmosis III (ca. 1500 BCE), the Egyptians reached the Arabah and southern Jordan. Their interest in this remote, hyper-arid zone was most probably twofold: taking control of the copper mines of the Arabah, and of the trade routes connecting southern Arabia with the rest of the Near East, crossing southern Jordan, the Negev and northeastern Sinai.202 Three inscriptions

Page 39: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

138 U. AVNER

203 Altogether, seven districts are mentioned in the inscriptions. Most names are known from the Bible; one of them is “the land of the Shasu Yahw” (Giveon 1964; 1971, pp. 24–29, 74–76; Kitchen 1964, p. 66; Mazar 1981; Redford 1992, pp. 272–273).

204 Giveon 1971, pp. 60–65; Pritchard 1969a, p. 254; Pritchard 1969b, no. 326; Vassiliev 2006. 205 Kitchen 1964, pp. 66–69; Giveon 1971, pp. 134–137; Pritchard 1969a, p. 262. 206 Giveon 1971, pp. 65–130. 207 Schulman 1988, p. 145. 208 Petrie 1906, pp. 39–40; Giveon 1978, pp. 60–62. 209 Petrie 1906, pp. 41–45; Gardiner and Peet 1917, pls. 1–6; Giveon 1978, pp. 67–68. According to

Giveon (1978, pp. 67–68), the rock stele presenting the kings killing the Asiatics did not necessarily reflect enmity between the two, but were mainly intended to magically prevent enmity.

210 Weinstein 1981, pp. 14–16. 211 See Gardiner et al. 1955, stelae 296, 211, 247. On Stele 90, the expedition chief announced that he

managed to fulfil his mission despite reaching the mines in the third month of the winter which was not the “right season”.

from Nubia and Egypt, of Amenhotep III, Ramses II and Ramses III, mentioned the con-quest of the Shasu territories in the Land of Seir (that is, Edom, the Negev and Sinai as one geographic unit).203 Seti I defeated the Shasu in northern Sinai,204 while Ramses II and III announced victories over the Shasu of Seir.205 Ramses II mentioned the Shasu of Seir in his inscriptions many times, more than all the other pharaohs together.206 This may mean that he was intensively active in the desert. Seti I, on the other hand, mentioned only one victory over the Shasu, far from the Arabah. Therefore, Ramses II appears to be the better candidate to have established the Egyptian activity at Timna. According to Schulman, the occurrence of Seti’s name at the site is better understood as the consequence of his co-reigning with his son, Ramses II.207

When the Egyptians first tried to exploit the copper sources, they most probably faced uprisings and guerrilla attacks from the desert tribes, the Shasu, trying to defend their pre-cious resources. Such a scenario at Timna can be illuminated by reference to the situation in western Sinai. In Wadi Megharah, the Egyptians built a fortress on a steep hilltop in the heart of the turquoise mine.208 Several Egyptian stelae and rock reliefs at both Wadi Megharah and Serabit al-Khadem present various Pharaohs defeating the locals.209 Although they conquered the southern Arabah and the surrounding desert, the Egyptians found it too difficult, if not impossible, to extract the copper at Timna on their own. It would have required the transportation of thousands of workers from Egypt, supplying them with water and food, both limited resources in the region, running the mines and the smelting camps as well as the charcoal industry and other facilities. All this in a hostile environment ruled by foreign gods, and with persistent guerrilla attacks by the desert tribes. Instead, an agreement with the local population was essential. The presumed inter-est of the Egyptians in such an agreement with the local population finds support in their general policy in Canaan; namely, minimal friction and focusing on securing the main international roads.210

An arrangement between the Egyptians and the desert tribes is actually indicated by the fact that they shared the sanctuary. The agreement could have worked as follows: Before each mining season (winter)211 Egyptian officials met with the chiefs of the desert tribes to negotiate the amount of copper to be produced by the locals for the Egyptians during the season. Whatever the locals produced beyond the agreed amount was their own profit. The

Page 40: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 139

212 See Gardiner et al. 1955, stelae 90, 137, 140. On Stele 141, the amount of 25 hkt (ca. 49 L) is the daily portion for a team of 15 miners. On several stelae, the chief of expedition announces his success in reaching the amount of turquoise assigned for him, or even beyond (Gardiner et al. 1955, p. 140).

213 Petrie 1906, pp. 110–121; Gardiner et al. 1955, pp. 14–20; Ventura 1980. 214 Translated by Breasted 1927, p. 204. I thank A. Ofel for reading the original text of the papyrus

(Erichsen 1933, p. 95) and discussing the meaning of key words. 215 The name {Ataka is mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:30 as one of the Shimeonite towns to which David

distributed the booty of Amalek. Since the tribe of Shimeon dwelt in the Negev, the connection between the names is possible, despite the distance from the southern Arabah to the other mentioned towns of Shimeon. Interestingly, the name preceding {Ataka is “כור עשן”, i.e. “Smoking Crucible”.

216 Somaglino and Tallet 2012. 217 Avner 1972; Rothenberg 1972a, p. 201; 1988a, p. 85; Schulman 1988, pp. 143–144. 218 Avner 2002, Ch. 6, fig. 6:1. 219 Glueck 1940a, pp. 9–10. 220 Mussell 2000, p. 6. 221 Glueck 1970, p. 132; 1967, pp. 8–15. Glueck related the Egyptian artefacts to the Twenty-Second

Dynasty, but in light of the finds from the Timna sanctuary, their date should be re-examined. Some of the pottery Glueck identified as Edomite is known today as Midianite, following the survey of Parr (1970) in northern Hejaz.

recurrence of the term “portion” in Egyptian inscriptions from Serabit al-Khadem may sup-port the “norm/premium” basis for such theoretical agreement.212

Following the signing of the agreement, the Egyptians sent expeditions to the Arabah, similar to those described on the stelae of Serabit al-Khadem, including several high officials, scribes and others, and an army unit.213 The nature and the outcome of these expeditions are well illustrated in the historical section of Papyrus Harris I from the time of Ramses III:

I sent forth my messengers to the country of {Atika ({-ty-ka), to the great copper (Ìmt) mines which are in this place. Their galleys carried them; others on their land-journey were upon their asses. It has not been heard before, since kings’ reign. Their mines were found abounding in copper; it was loaded by ten thousands into their galleys. They were sent forward to Egypt and arrived safely. It was carried and made into a heap under the balcony, in many bars of copper, like hundred-thousands, being the color of gold of three times. I allowed all the people to see them, like wonders.214

According to the text, the expeditions came by both land and sea to “the land of {Ataka” (or {Atika), which may be identified with the southern Arabah Valley.215 The land road was naturally “Darb al-Shawi”, also known as “Darb al-Hajj”, crossing Sinai from the head of the Gulf of Suez to the head of the Gulf of Eilat (Aqaba). Two inscriptions of Ramses III were found on this route, one in Wadi Abu Gada, western Sinai216 and the other at the small water source of Themilat Radadi, close to Eilat, just over the Egypt-Israel border (Fig. 16).217 The inscriptions indicate the dominion of Ramses III over the road and water sources. Near Themilat Radadi is a Chalcolithic habitation sites, where “normal” pottery sherds were also collected (by the writer), probably signifying a reuse of the site as a guard station. Several trails split off from Darb al-Shawi, descending into the Arabah Valley.218

Finds from two sites are probably connected to the marine route. One is Tell el-Kheleifeh, close to the Red Sea shore between Aqaba and Eilat, where a mastabah tomb was excavated by Glueck219 and another mastabah partially excavated by Mussell.220 Egyptian artefacts, similar to those from the Timna sanctuary, were found by Glueck in the tell, as well as Midianite pottery.221 Second is the “Coral Island” (Jezirat Fara}un), 13 km south of Eilat,

Page 41: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

140 U. AVNER

222 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 211–213; 1972a, p. 203. 223 The low foundation of this wall (the rest removed for medieval construction) was first observed by

T. E. Lawrence, who noted that it was 4 feet thick (Woolley and Lawrence 1915, p. 145). Indeed, this is a much thicker casement wall. According to my own measurement, the outer wall is 2.2–2.5 m thick, the casements are 2.5 m deep and the inner wall is 0.8 m thick—altogether ca. 6 m. The outer foundation of the wall, facing the water, is built of large granite and metamorphic rocks. In 1971 I participated in an excavation and water sonar survey around the island, headed by A. Flinder, E. Linder and A. Raban. In a dig inside a casement room of the wall separating the harbour from the sea, we found two sherds of Negev ware. The floor of the room was never reached since the debris was petrified like concrete and the water level was too high. Based on the physical posi-tion of the island, several scholars suggested identifying it with the Biblical Ezion Geber (Rothenberg 1967, pp. 212–213, with references to nineteenth-century explorers; Flinder 1977, 1989; Raban 1997, pp. 13–15).

224 Announced by Dr {Ali Ibrahim Ghaban in Nov. 2010; see Estimo 2010; Somaglino and Tallet 2012. 225 The rock stele was first discovered by A. Nussbaumer in 1972, shortly after the discovery of the

Ramses III inscription at Themilat Radadi. It was published by Lipschitz and Nussbaumer (1972) and then by Rothenberg (1972a, fig. 43; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, abb 230; 1988a, fig. 52); Schulman (1988, pp. 143–144); and Ventura (1974).

226 Schulman 1976. 227 Schulman 1976, p. 125. 228 Two Egyptian seals were found at two different sites at Faynan: one is dated to the Twenty-First

Dynasty (Levy et al. 2005, pp. 471, 485); the other is dated to the Twenty-Second Dynasty (Ben-Yosef 2010, fig. 5.44). Both are later than the Egyptian presence at Timna and do not reflect Egyptian domination.

where “normal”, Midianite and Negev pottery sherds were found by Rothenberg222 and by the writer. On the western side of the island is a small harbour, 35 ≈ 65 m, well protected from the sudden southern storms that mainly occur in autumn and spring. A casemate wall with towers surrounding the entire island also protected the harbour, but its date is still unclear.223 Possibly at Jezirat Fara}un Egyptian galleys were provisioned with tens or hun-dreds of thousands of copper talents to be transported to Egypt as stated in the papyrus.

The time of Ramses III appears to have been quite important at Timna. In addition to his two inscriptions on the way to the Arabah, another inscription of his was recently dis-covered near Tayma, almost 400 km southeast of Aqabah.224 This means that Ramses III, or his army, even penetrated deep into northern Hejaz (Midian). Another rock stele, situ-ated on a sandstone cliff 30 m above the Timna sanctuary (Fig. 17), presents Ramses III handing offerings to Hathor.225 The inscription below mentions “…Ramsesempere{, the King’s Butler…”. This high official is also known from nine stelae from Egypt. He was Canaanite in origin and named Benazen; that is, Ben-Adon, “son of master/ruler”, from Zor of Bashan.226 After being educated in Egypt, his career began in the palace in the seventh year of Merneptah, and he gained many key positions in the Pharaoh’s administration (quite similar to biblical Josef). According to Schulman’s calculation,227 he arrived in Timna in the time of Ramses III, at the age of about 70. The time of his arrival is interesting. Ramses III had resumed the Egyptian activity in the desert and in copper production after a break of some twenty years, and Ramsesempere{ was the right person to conduct this mission for him. Besides his high position, he was well acquainted with the Semitic language and men-tality, and he had the proficiency to negotiate with the desert tribes on renewing the agree-ment with the Pharaohs, with all its implications.

Despite the solid information on the Egyptians, the number of sites in the Arabah with Egyptian finds is very limited. No indication of Ramesside presence has been found to date at Nahal {Amram or in other mines in the Eilat region, nor at the major source of copper, the Faynan area in the northeast Arabah.228

Page 42: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 141

229 Petrie 1906, pp. 118; Cerny 1935. 230 For Horma see Num. 21:3, Deut. 1:41 etc.; Ahituv 1984, pp. 113–114 with references. 231 Cerny 1935, figs. 1–5. 232 Stadelmann 2006. 233 According to Cerny (1935), the Asiatics were the citizens of Sinai and Canaan. Giveon (1978, p. 133)

suggested that they came from Egypt where they were employed in various professions and ranks. 234 Beit-Arieh 1985. 235 Gardiner 1916; Albright 1969; Sass 1988 with further bibliography. 236 Rothenberg 1967, pp. 17*–20*; 1972a, pp. 81–101. 237 For example, Haiman 1993; 1999; Cohen 1999; Avner 1998; 2002, Ch. 2.

The desert people

As noted, three out of the four major groups of pottery were found in all smelting camps and on the surface of the mining areas, both at Timna and Nahal {Amram. This indicates that during the mining seasons people gathered there from a large geographic area, from the Negev Highlands, Canaan, Edom, Sinai and northern Hejaz. A similar picture of seasonal work migration can be seen at Serabit al-Khadem, western Sinai, from which ample written and pictorial material has been found and published. There, mainly during the Middle Kingdom, Asiatics were mentioned and depicted on several stelae.229 Twenty men from Retenu (Canaan) are listed on Stele 120, twenty Asiatics from hmi (Hami/Hrmi), probably Horma in the Negev,230 are mentioned on Stele 110, and smaller numbers appear on other stelae. Asiatics are depicted as well dressed, carrying weapons and riding on asses.231 One of them was Hebded, “brother of the ruler of Retenu”, mentioned several times (Stelae 85, 87, 92, 112). Riding on an ass might be seen as humiliating, but in the Ancient Near East it was actually a sign of nobility.232 Some Asiatic names are interesting; one is Qni (Qeni), the name of a biblical desert clan (see below) and another is Lua, probably synonymous with the biblical Levi. Since the stelae usually mention persons of high status, in reality the small figures may actually represent larger groups of Asiatic workers in the turquoise and copper mines of western Sinai.233 Further indications for Canaanites in western Sinai are Late Bronze Canaanite pottery from the turquoise mines of Serabit al-Khadem, and bellows par-alleled in Canaan and Syria.234 Asiatics are also known from the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions of western Sinai. Although there are difficulties in reading them, it is clear that the inscrip-tions’ language is West Semitic, very close to Biblical Hebrew, with Canaanite/Hebrew personal names such as Shafan, }Aviv, Ben-Tzur, and deities’ names, Ba{alat, Ba{al and El.235

As discussed above, copper mining and smelting were conducted according to the tech-nological tradition of the desert tribes. Most probably, the work organisation was also in the hands of the desert people. In the smelting camps, habitation units were built with clusters of rooms around central courtyards. In Site 2, one unit was partially excavated by Rothen-berg236 and others, unexcavated, are seen in an aerial photo of the site (Fig. 15). This is a common type of habitation unit in the desert, known since the fifth millennium BCE in hundreds of examples, usually accommodating one extended family.237 Therefore, the archi-tectural design of habitations hints at a family-based organisation. One can imagine some hierarchy within the tribes, in which the smith families were at the top. If the technology of mining and smelting, and organisation of work were all local, then what was the role of the

Page 43: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

142 U. AVNER

238 See Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 92–94 for a calculation of numbers of miners per mine. 239 For the Egyptian personnel, see Ventura 1980.240 Avner 1998, 2002; Avner et al. 2003. 241 Meshel 1993. 242 Rothenberg 1972a, p. 84. See also the caravans of 200, 500 and 600 asses mentioned on Stelae 100,

112, 114 at Serabit al-Khadem (Gardiner et al. 1955, p. 11). 243 Knauf and Lenzen 1987, p. 86. 244 Yahalom-Mack 2009, esp. pp. 253–273; Yahalom-Mack and Segal 2011; Yahalom-Mack and Segal in

press. Also see Ben-Dov 2011b, p. 90. 245 Yahalom-Mack, Segal and Galilli lecture at the Israel Archaeological conference, Jerusalem 2 April 2012. 246 Ben-Yosef 2012.

Egyptians? In my view they were mainly important customers, who needed large amounts of copper for weaponry, monumental construction and so forth.

For the work seasons many people, probably thousands,238 moved to the mining centres from the Negev, Sinai, Edom, Midian and Canaan. They included professionals such as geologists, mining engineers, chiefs of mining teams (“נקבנם in the Proto-Sinaitic ”רב inscriptions), miners, smiths, charcoal makers, transportation teams, and others.239 The division and organisation of the work was based on tradition and experience developed through millennia, and on agreements between the different tribes. Large quantities of cereal grains where brought to the mines, mainly from {Uvda Valley, a half-day walk from Timna, where an extensive area was cultivated as early as 6000 BCE, including in the Late Bronze-Iron Ages and in later periods.240 Water, dates and vegetables were brought mainly from the Yotvata oasis, 15 km north of Timna, where a hilltop fortress protected the oasis and a road junction.241 Meat and milk products were supplied by the pastoralists all around, who anyway participated the operation. Charcoal was prepared mainly from Acacia trees in the savanna around the Yotvata oasis, where large spots of ash were observed (by the writer), and along the rest of the Arabah Valley. Transportation teams carried all these supplies to the mining and smelting centres by means of ass caravans, as is indicated by large amounts of donkey dung found in the smelting camp of Timna Site 2.242

Besides the Egyptian share of copper, the question arises—where was the remainder of the produced metal marketed? Knauf suggested that Assyria, as a rising power, was the main customer for the Arabah copper;243 however, the rise of Assyria actually occurred later than the climax of copper production in the Arabah. More pertinent are the studies of Yahalom-Mack and Segal,244 demonstrating through chemical analyses and lead isotopes that Timna and Faynan were the main source of copper for the metal industry in a num-ber of sites in Canaan dated to the thirteenth to eleventh centuries BCE. Furthermore, a recent study showed that tens of submerged plano-convex copper ingots discovered along the shores of Mount Carmel, Israel, also originated at Timna and Faynan.245 This means that the Arabah copper was even distributed through marine trade. A fragment of a mould in the shape of an oxhide ingot, found at Timna Site 30, may also indicate that copper from Timna was circulated as part of the Mediterranean marine trade.246 Since the time-span of the copper objects from terrestrial and marine sites includes the period of the Egyptian presence at Timna and later, it is possible that part of the Arabah copper that reached Canaan/Israel and beyond was actually the “premium” which the desert tribes gained through their cooperation with the Egyptians, and the mass of copper they contin-ued to produce after the Egyptians left.

Page 44: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 143

247 Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004, p. 121. 248 Bruins and van der Plicht 2007, p. 491. Rothenberg (1967, pp. 92–97) was the first to suggest

that the Negev fortresses were earlier than the Israelite United Monarchy and it seems that for part of them, he was right. The ongoing debate on the date and social-historical context of the Iron Age settlement in the Negev Highlands is fascinating but out of the scope of this paper. For a recent summary, with references, see Faust 2006.

249 Martin and Finkelstein 2013; Martin et al. 2013.250 Na}aman (1992, pp. 86–88) and Finkelstein (1995, pp. 103–126; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006,

pp. 24–26) refer to Tel Masos as centre of a “tribal chiefdom”. Tebes (2003) sees Tel Masos as a chiefdom created by the southern coastal Canaanite population.

251 Levy 2009; Levy et al. 2004; 2005; 2012. Levy (2009, p. 154) mentions 7,000 graves in the cemetery of Fidan 4, but in Levy at al. (2012) only 1,500–3,000 graves are mentioned.

252 Axelsson 1987; Giveon 1971, pp. 267–271; Ward 1972; Ahituv 1998; Herzog and Bar Yosef 2002, pp. 172–174; Rainey 2008.

253 Kitchen 2003, pp. 121–125. 254 Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, p. 26.255 See n. 228, and the following notes respectively.

It seems that the large scale of copper production left much revenue in the hands of the desert tribes. They apparently grew in economic strength, and consequently also in political power. In addition to the Iron Age IIA pottery which is dominant in the Negev Highlands fortresses (63.3 per cent),247 one cannot ignore 14C dates from three important sites, earlier than the Israelite Monarchy: cultivated terraces next to the Haluqim Fortress (six dates, ca.1250–1000 BCE), the lower fortress of Kadesh Barnea (destroyed ca. 1150 BCE) and the Nahal Elah Fortress (ca. 1010 BCE).248 So, these sites, and probably others not yet dated by 14C, actually reflect an investment of resources in construction at a time when there was apparently no outside political power around to initiate this activity. The connection between the Iron Age Negev sites and the copper production centres in the Arabah is now illuminated through a new study which demonstrates that pottery of the Negev sites con-tains crushed copper slag as a temper.249 Possibly, the desert tribes reached the organisa-tional level of a “tribal chiefdom”.250

A similar scenario can be seen in the Faynan area, mainly at Khirbet en-Nahas and Khirbet al-Jariya, where very large-scale copper production was conducted by the desert tribes, the Shasu, who left behind some 70,000 tons of copper slag and a cemetery of thou-sands of graves. The significant extent of work here gave rise to an economical-political elite, which may have led to the rise of the Edomite kingdom.251

Some desert tribes and clans also joined the emerging political framework of Israel.252 The wealth they accumulated from both copper production and international trade may explain the later campaign of Pharaoh Shishaq (926 BCE) who listed eighty-five settlements conquered by his army in the Negev. According to Kitchen, the main goal of the campaign was booty, in an attempt to resume monumental building in Egypt and revive the empire.253 According to Fantalkin and Finkelstein254 the campaign’s goal was to resume the Egyptian political and economical grip on the region. If these interpretations are correct, the justifica-tion for the campaign into the Negev was the accumulated wealth of the desert people, which continued to grow during the United Monarchy of Israel. This wealth may also explain why so many settlements existed in the desert and why Twenty-Second Dynasty scarabs were found at Khirbet en-Nahas.255

Page 45: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

144 U. AVNER

256 Gen. 4:22; 1 Chron. 4:13–14. Mazar 1965; Glueck 1940b; 1970; Abramski 1954. 257 Petrie 1906, p. 118, fig. 121; Cerny 1935, p. 385. 258 Negev 1991, pp. 9, 83, 160. 259 Wensinck 1978; Lecker 1994. 260 See the divine title “אל עליון קונה שמים וארץ” (“God most high, creator of heaven and earth”, Gen.

14:19, 22) and the same title in three different inscriptions (KAI # 26; Hoffner 1965, pp. 5–16; Avigad 1972, pp. 195–196).

261 Forbes 1950, pp. 62–69; Eliade 1956; 1978, pp. 52–55; Blakely-Westover 1999.

SUMMARY

Unlike many studies in the past, it now seems that more attention should be paid to the indigenous, desert people. They were involved in developing the disciplines of mining and metallurgy from the very beginning, in the mid-fifth millennium BCE; they were the geol-ogists, the mining engineers and the physicists behind this industry through the ages. Min-ing, smelting and trade in copper formed an integral part of their material culture long before the coming of the Egyptians and long after. They organised the work on a large scale on their own, not as cheap manpower but for their own economic interest. Most relevant to this point is the period from 1150 to 1000 BCE, the heyday of copper production in the Arabah Valley, a time when no “big power” existed nearby to initiate this industry.

The connection of the desert tribes to copper production brings to mind a name that runs through history: the Qenites, the biblical desert tribe, who were expert smiths.256 The name Qeni appeared in the early second millennium BCE on Stele 163 at Serabit al-Kha-dem.257 Later, the private name, Qini/Qinu, appears in the same region in sixty-eight Nabataean inscriptions,258 and the Kinuka (Qainuqa), a Jewish tribe of metal smiths lived in the northern Hejaz until the early seventh century CE.259 Besides the desert origin, com-mon to all is the root “קנה”, Hebrew “create”260 and “smith” in Western Semitic languages. The smith was actually a magician,261 creating a new substance, a metal from a rock.

Today, however, ancient Egypt has returned to Timna Valley. All direction and explana-tion signs in the park are designed in an Egyptian artistic style. Visitors are instructed about the Egyptian mines, furnaces and temple, and a sophisticated presentation demonstrates the glory and achievements of the ancient Egyptians. The Egyptian pharaohs and gods have now been recruited for marketing the Timna Park.

POST SCRIPT

This paper was submitted shortly before the death of Beno Rothenberg (13 March 2012) at age of 98. Although his work is criticised here, he will be remembered as a pioneer in the study of archaeometallurgy of the Negev and Sinai. Unfortunately, he passed away before having the opportunity to respond to this article.

Before publication, new 14C dates were received, giving additional support to the main arguments in this article. Ten dates from Timna Site 34 are all between 1050 and 900 BCE (to be published by Ben-Yosef); again, all are later than the Egyptian presence. Three dates were retrieved from three different copper mines at Nahal Amram, and all are ca. 240 CE—the Late Roman period but with no Roman presence in the southern Negev (Avner et al. in press). Hence the mines were operated by the Nabataeans, the contemporary desert popula-tion, more than a century after the cessation of their kingdom.

Page 46: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 145

No Site Site Type Lab No. B.P. Cal Date (2v) Mean Value Reference

1 Timna S27 Mine Bonn2538 7680±120 6908–6248 6450 Rothenberg pers. comm. 2000

2 Yotvata Hill Rampart RT1548 5468±55 4451–4177 4350 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98

3 Yotvata Hill Smelting Camp RT1546/7 4650±70 3637–3120 3500 c

4 Timna 39a Habitation OxA7632 5485±45 4430–4250 4340 Rothenberg and Merkel 1998

5 Tell Magass Industrial Village Bln5075 4881±32 3712–3634 3650 Görsdorf 2002

6 Tell Magass c Bln5076 5186±39 4040–3800 3950 c

7 Tell Magass c Bln5119 5111±37 3980–3790 3890 Klimscha 2009, pp. 364–368

8 Tell Magass c Bln5126 5026±34 3950–3700 3830 c

9 Tell Magass c Bln5152 5405±31 4120–4110 4120 c

10 Tell Magass c Bln5174 4879±32 3560–3540 3550 c

11 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5047 4879±32 3711–3543 3650 Görsdorf 2002

12 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5121 4863±39 3713–3532 3640 c

13 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5118 5026±34 3945–3712 3880 c

14 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5119 5111±37 3978–3799 3940 c

15 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5120 5290±33 3243–4001 3140 c

16 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27709 5235±25 4255–3971 4110 Klimscha 2009, pp. 364–368

17 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27710 5049±26 3949–3783 3670 c

18 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27708 5425±25 4337–4245 4291 c

19 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5892 4939±40 3800–3640 3770 c

20 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5076 5185±34 4051–3946 4000 c

21 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5250 5025±29 3944–3712 3830 c

22 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5253 5004±31 2942–3702 3320 c

23 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5075 4881±32 3712–3634 3670 c

24 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5246 4850±33 3703–3535 3620 c

25 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5249 4879±30 3709–3636 3670 c

26 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5254 4669±30 3620–3367 3490 c

27 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5247A 4709±80 3655–3342 3500 c

28 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5247 4849±31 3702–3536 3620 c

29 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5273 4667±60 3635–3348 3500 c

30 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5248 4709±80 3655–3342 3500 c

31 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5274 4867±30 3706–3542 3620 c

32 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5251 4820±30 3556–3526 3540 c

33 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5274 4859±31 3706–3537 3670 c

34 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5893 4939±40 3800–3640 3720 c

35 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Ham215 4020±100 2865–2293 2260 Scharpenseel et al. 1976, p. 287

36 Shehoret Hill Furnace Remains Rt591 4010±150 2910–2063 2550 Avner et al. 1994

37 Timna S28/2 Mine Bonn2363 4000±90 2871–2235 2460 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179

38 Timna S28 c Bonn2362 3890±70 2570–2146 2380 c

39 Beer Ora Hill Mine and Smelting Rt1440 3470±60 1939–1635 1800 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98

40 Beer Ora Hill c Rt1437 3430±50 1884–1622 1670 c

41 Beer Ora Hill c Rt2547 3455±40 1889–1669 1740 Segal and Carmi 2004, p. 146

42 Beer Ora Hill c Rt2548 3495±40 1923–1695 1790 c

43 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Ham216 3340±60 1771–1461 1640 Scharpenseel et al. 1976, p. 287

44 Timna 2 Smelting Camp Bm2382 3220±50 1615–1414 1480 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 71–72

45 Timna 2 (FuZ) Smelting Camp Pta4121 3090±60 1496–1135 1380 c

46 Timna S18 Mine Bonn2359 3050±70 1491–1058 1360 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179

47 Timna F2 Furnace Remains Bm1368 3030±50 1412–1129 1290 Merkel and Rothenberg 1999, p. 152

Page 47: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

146 U. AVNER

No Site Site Type Lab No. B.P. Cal Date (2v) Mean Value Reference

48 Timna 2 c Grn4493 3000±50 1399–157 1250 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 71–72

49 Timna 2, Fu4 Furnace H3625(2782) 2940±50 1367–1002 1170 c

50 Timna 2 Smelting Camp Pta4123 2880±60 1261–910 1060 c

51 Timna 2 c Bm1115 2840±51 1192–849 1050 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349

52 Timna 2 c Rt5276 3125±35 1440–1320 (1v) 1380 Erickson-Gini 2014, Table 1

53 Timna 2 c Rt5277 2920±35 1120–1040 (1v) 1120 c

54 Timna 2 c Rt5278 2965±35 1260–1130 (1v) 1190 c

55 Timna 2 c Rt5279 2965±40 1270–1120 (1v) 1190 c

56 N. {Amram Miners camp Pta4127 2920±60 1310–933 1110 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 71–72

57 Timna S27 Mine Bonn2357 2910±60 1296–927 1080 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179

58 Timna S27 c Bonn2356 2910±70 1260–916 1080 c

59 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Bm1598 2785±50 1056–815 940 Burleigh and Matthews 1982, p. 165

60 Timna 30 c Bm1162 2480±35 770–416 580 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349

61 Timna 30 c AA86521 2872±34 1116–1003 1070 Ben-Yosef 2010, p. 567

62 Timna 30 c AA86517 2893±39 1129–1008 1070 c

63 Timna 30 c AA86522 2858±34 1111–943 1030 c

64 Timna 30 c AA84741 2855±39 1111–939 1030 c

65 Timna 30 c AA84739 2852±50 1112–934 1020 c

66 Timna 30 c AA86518 2819±35 1101–921 1010 c

67 Timna 30 c AA86516 2859±34 1111–946 1010 c

68 Timna 30 c AA84740 2882±38 1124–1006 1010 c

69 Timna 30 c AA86519 2814±34 1006–921 910 c

70 Timna 30 c AA86520 2705±35 895–816 860 c

71 Timna S28 Mine Bm2361 2780±90 1209–797 890 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179

72 Timna 200 Sanctuary Bm1117 2779±55 1108–811 960 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349

73 Timna 2 Tomb Grn938 2655±65 979–568 810 Not found

74 Timna S19 Mine Bonn2360 2640±60 968–555 800 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179

75 Yotvata Hill Fortress Rt1550 2580±50 835–539 790 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98

76 Yotvata Hill c Rt1549 2420±50 753–339 520 c

77 Timna 39b Furnace Bm1116 1945±309 753BC–640AD 50 AD Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349

78 Timna 2, Fu1 Furnace Grn4381 1350±50 640–720 AD 670 AD Rothenberg 1990, pp. 71–72

79 Timna 2, FuZ Furnace Bm2242 (?)1400±100 425–867 AD 650 AD

80 Beer Ora Smelting Camp Pta4117 1390±50 638–677 AD 660 AD Rothenberg 1998, p. 4

81 Beer Ora c Pta6158 1370±20 648–672 AD 660 AD Sharon et al. 1996, p. 112

82 Beer Ora c Rt1741 1270±55 662–869 AD 730 AD c

83 Beer Ora c Pta6159 1210±40 687–973 810 c

84 Beer Ora c Rt1742 1115±45 782–1017 AD 970 c

85 Beer Ora c Rt1825 730±55 1186–1392 1290 Avner and Magness 1998, p. 57

86 Beer Ora c Rt1949 1150±45 773–990 890 c

87 Beer Ora c Rt1740 915±50 1024–1215 1090 c

88 Beer Ora c Rt1825 730±55 1186–1392 1290 c

89 N. {Amram Furnace Bm1163 1240±36 683–879 780 Scharpenseel et al. 1976, p. 287

Table 1. Calibrated 14C Dates of Southern Arabah copper mines and production sites (rough chronological order). Calibration based on OxCal 4.10 (Bronk Ramsey 2008). Mean values were calculated for preparation of the histogram

(Fig. 18) only. All dates are Cal Date (2v) unless noted

Page 48: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 147

ABBREVIATIONS

KAI =DONNER, H. and ROLLIG, W.

1964 Kanaanische und aramaische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

REFERENCES

ABD EL-RAZIQ, M., CASTEL, G., TALLET, P. and FLUZIN, P. 2012 Ayn Soukhna II: Les ateliers métallurgiques du Moyen Empire. Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale.ABRAMSKI, S.

1954 “The Qenites,” Eretz Israel 3: 116–124.ADAMS, R.

2000 “Cult and Recycling of Metal at the End of the Bronze,” in Periplus: Festschrift für Hans-Gunter Buchholz (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127), edited by P. Astrom and D. Surenhagen, pp. 27–32. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag.

AHARONI, Y. 1968 “Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple,” Biblical Archaeologist 31: 2–32.

AHARONI, Y.1975 Lachish V: Investigations at Lachish: The Sanctuary and the Residency (Publications of

the Institute of Archaeology 4). Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv Univer-sity.

AHARONI, Y., EVENARI, M., SHANAN, L. and TADMOR, N. 1960 “The Ancient Desert Agriculture of the Negev,” Israel Exploration Journal 10: 23–37,

98–111.AHITUV, S.

1984 Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.1998 “The Origins of Ancient Israel – The Documentary Evidence,” in The Origin of

Early Israel—Current Debate, Irene Levi-Sala Seminar 1997 (Beer-sheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 12), edited by S. Ahituv and E. D. Oren, pp. 135–140. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1969 The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment (Harvard Theological Studies

22). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.ANATI, E.

2001 The Riddle of Mount Sinai. Capo di Ponte: Edizioni Del Centro.ARTZY, M.

1994 “Incense, Camels and Collared Rim Jars: Desert Trade Routes and Maritime Outlets in the Second Millennium,” Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13: 121–147.

1995 “Nami, A Second Millennium International Maritime Trading Center in the Medi-terranean,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West: Reports on Kabri, Nami, Miqne-Ekron, Dor, and Ashkelon (Archaeological Institute of America Colloquia & Conference Papers 1), edited by S. Gitin, pp. 17–41. Dubuque, IA: Kendall.

1999 “Cult and Recycling of Metal at the End of the Late Bronze Age,” in Periplus: Festschrift für Hans-Gunter Buchholz (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127), edited by P. Astrom and D. Surenhagen, pp. 27–31. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag.

2006 The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context (Cuad-ernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 14). Barcelona: Laboratorio de Arqueología de la Universidad Pompeu Fabra.

AVIGAD, N. 1972 “Excavations in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, 1971: Third Pre-

liminary Report,” Israel Exploration Journal 22: 193–200.

Page 49: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

148 U. AVNER

AVNER, U. 1972 “W. Radadi, an Inscription of Ramses III,” Israel Exploration Journal 22: 158.1984a “Timna, Restoration of the Temple,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 3: 103–104.1984b “Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts,” Tel Aviv 11: 115–131.1993a “Masseboth Sites in the Negev and Sinai and Their Significance,” in Biblical Archae-

ology Today, 1990: Proceedings f the Second International Congress on Biblical Archae-ology, Jerusalem, June - July 1990, edited by J. Aviram, pp. 166–181. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1993b “Be}er Ora, Copper Production Site,” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 12: 115.1998 “Settlement, Agriculture, and Paleoclimate in {Uvda Valley, Southern Negev Desert,

6th–3rd Millennia BC,” in Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change, edited by A. Issar and N. Brown, pp. 147–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

2000 “Nabataean Standing Stones and Their Interpretation,” ARAM 11–12: 95–120.2001 “Sacred Stones in the Desert,” Biblical Archaeology Review 27, no. 3: 30–41.2002 Studies in the Material and Spiritual Culture of the Negev and Sinai Populations,

During the 6th-3rd Millennia BC. Unpublished PhD diss. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem.

2006 “Settlement Patterns in the {Araba Valley and the Adjacent Desert Areas: A View from the Eilat Region,” in Crossing the Rift: Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi {Arabah (Levant Supplementary Series 3), edited by P. Bienkowski and K. Galor, pp. 51–74. Oxford: Oxbow.

2008 “Eilat Region,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 5 (Supplementary), pp. 1704–1711. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

AVNER, U., ANDERSON, P., MAI, B.-T., CHABOT, J. and CUMMINGS, L.2003 “Ancient Threshing Floors, Threshing Tools and Plant Remains in {Uvda Valley,

Southern Negev Desert, Israel, a Preliminary Report,” in Le traitement des récoltes: un regard sur la diversité du néolitique au présent. XXIII Reconteres Internationales d’Archéologie et d’Historie d’Antibes, edited by P. Anderson, L. Cummings, T. Schip-pers and B. Simonel, pp. 455–475. Antibes: APDCA.

AVNER, U., CARMI, I. and SEGAL, D. 1994 “Neolithic to Bronze Age Settlement of the Negev and Sinai in Light of Radiocar-

bon Dating, a View from the Southern Region,” in Late Quaternary Chronology and Paleoclimates of the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov, pp. 265–300. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.

AVNER, U., GINAT, H., LANGFORD, S. B., SHALEV, S., SHILSTEIN, S., SHEM-TOV, R., PHLIN, S., ARAV, R. and BASSON, U.

In press “Ancient Copper Mining at Nahal Amram, Southern Israel: A New Research,” in Mining for Copper: Essays in Memory of Professor Beno Rothenberg, edited by E. Ben-Yosef and Y. Goren. Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University.

AVNER, U. and MAGNESS, J. 1998 “Early Islamic Settlement in the Southern Negev,” Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 310: 39–57.AVNI, G.

2007 “From Standing Stones to Open Mosques in the Negev Desert: The Archaeology of Religious Transformation,” Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 124–135.

AXELSSON, L. 1987 The Lord Rose up from Seir: Studies in the History and Traditions of the Negev and

Southern Judah. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.BADAWY, A.

1965 Ancient Egyptian Architectural Design. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.1966 Architecture in Ancient Egypt and the Near East. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.1968 A History of Egyptian Architecture. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

BAMBERGER, M.1985 “The Working Conditions of the Ancient Copper Smelting Process,” in Furnaces

and Smelting Technology in Antiquity, edited by P. Craddock and M. Hughes, pp. 151–157. London: British Museum.

Page 50: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 149

BAMBERGER, M., WINCIERZ, P., BACHMANN, H. G. and ROTHENBERG, B.1986 “Ancient Smelting of Oxide Copper Ore,” Metall 40: 2–10.1988 “Mathematical Modeling of Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Smelting of Oxide Copper

Ore,” Metall 42: 3–11.BARON, A.

1978 The Glueck Survey: Issues and Problems in the Archaeology of the Negev. Unpublished PhD diss. University of California, Riverside.

1981 “Adaptive Strategies in the Archaeology of the Negev,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 242: 51–81.

BARTLETT, J.1989 Edom and Edomites (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

77). Sheffield: JSOT Press.BAWDEN, D. and EDENS, C.

1988 “Tayma Painted Pottery and the Hejaz Iron Age Ceramic Tradition,” Levant 20: 197–213.

BEIT-ARIEH, Y. 1985 “Serabit El-Khadim: New Metallurgical and Chronological Aspects,” Levant 17:

89–116.BEN-DOV, R.

2011a Dan III: Avraham Biran Excavations 1966-1999: The Late Bronze Age. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

2011b “Craft Workshops at Tel Dan,” Eretz Israel 30: 77–94. (In Hebrew.)BENNETT, A.

1989 “The Contribution of Metallurgical Studies to the South-East Asian Archaeology,” World Archaeology 20: 329–351.

BEN-YOSEF, E. 2010 Technology and Social Process: Oscillations in Iron Age Copper Production and Power in

Southern Jordan. Unpublished PhD diss. University of California, San Diego.2012 “A Unique Casting Mold from the New Excavations at Timna Site 30 (Israel): Evi-

dence of Western Influence?,” in Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC. A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly, Nicosia, October 2009, edited by V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas, pp. 188–196. Oxford: Oxbow.

BEN-YOSEF, E., SHAAR, R., TAUXE, L. and RON, H. 2012 “A New Chronological Framework for Iron Age Copper Production at Timna

(Israel),” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 367: 31–71.BIMSON, J. and TEBES, J. M.

2009 “Timna Revisited: Egyptian Chronology and the Copper Mines of the Southern Ara-bah,” Antiguo Oriente 7: 75–118.

BIRAN, A.1998 “Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan,”

Biblical Archaeology Review 24, no. 5: 38–45, 70.2001 “The High Places of Biblical Dan,” in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in

Israel and Jordan (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 331), edited by A. Mazar, pp. 148–155. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

BLACKMAN, A. 1918 “Purification (Egypt),” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 10, edited by

J. Hastings, p. 480. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.BLAKELY-WESTOVER, S.

1999 “Smelting and Sacrifice: Comparative Analysis of Greek and Near Eastern Cult Sites from the Late Bronze through the Classical Periods,” in Metals in Antiquity (British Archaeological Reports International Series 792), edited by S. Young, A. Pollard, P. Budd and R. A. Ixer, pp. 86–90. Oxford: Archaeopress.

BRANDL, B. 1984 “A Midianite Bowl from Gezer,” Levant 16: 171–172.

BREASTED, J. H.1927 Ancient Records of Egypt. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Page 51: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

150 U. AVNER

BRONK RAMSEY, C. 2008 “Deposition Model for Chronological Records,” Quaternary Science Review 27:

42–60.BRUINS, H. and VAN DER PLICHT, J.

2007 “Radiocarbon Dating the ‘Wilderness of Zin’,” Radiocarbon 49: 481–497.BURLEIGH, R. and HEWSON, A.

1979 “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements VI,” Radiocarbon 21: 339–352.

BURLEIGH, R. and MATTHEWS, K. 1982 “British Museum Natural Radiocarbon Measurements XIII,” Radiocarbon 24: 151–

170.CASTEL, G., MATHIEU, B., POUIT, G., EL HAWARI, M., SHAABAN, G., HELLAL, H., ABDALLAH, T. and OSSAMA, A.

1996 “Wadi Dara Copper Mines,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 15–31. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

CERNY, J. 1935 “Semites in Egyptian Mining Expeditions to Sinai,” Archiv Orientální 7: 384–387.

CHAMBON, A. 1984 Tell el Far{ah I. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations.

CLAYTON, P. 1995 Chronicle of the Pharaohs. London: Thames and Hudson. Original edition, London:

Thames and Hudson, 1994. CLEVELAND, R. L.

1960 “Soundings at Khirbet Ader,” Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 34–35: 79–97.

COHEN, E. 1976 “The Mystery of ‘Plates’ in the Timna Crater,” Israel Land and Nature 19, no. 4:

15–19. (In Hebrew.) COHEN, R.

1999 Ancient Settlement of the Central Negev, Vol. 1. The Chalcolithic Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. (In Hebrew.)

COHEN, R. and COHEN-AMIN, R.2004 Ancient Settlements of the Negev Highlands. Vol. 2. The Iron Age and the Persian Period

(Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 20). Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. COLLESS, B.

2010 “Proto-Alphabetic Inscriptions from the Wadi {Arabah,” Antiguo Oriente 8: 75–96.CONRAD, H. and ROTHENBERG, B.

1980 Antikes Kupfer im Timna-Tal: 4000 Jahre Bergbau und Verhüttung in der Arabah (Israel). Bochum: Bergbau-Museum.

DAVEY, C. 1979 “Some Ancient Near Eastern Pot Bellows,” Levant 11: 101–111.

DAVIES, N. DE GARIS

1943 The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art.DAY, J.

2009 “Cain and the Kenites,” in Homeland and Exile, edited by G. Galil, M. Geller and A. Millard, pp. 335–346. Leiden: Brill.

DAYTON, J.1972 “Midianite and Edomite Pottery,” Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 2:

25–33. DE VAUX, R.

1951 “La troisième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far‘ah près de Naplouse,” Revue Biblique 58: 557–592.

DEVER, W.1971 “Further Excavations at Gezer 1967–1971,” Biblical Archaeologist 34: 94–132.

Page 52: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 151

1972 “The Gezer Fortifications and the ‘High Place’: An Illustration of Stratigraphic Methods and Problems,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105: 61–70.

1986 Gezer IV: The 1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the “Acropolis”. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College.

DONNER, H. and RÖLIG, H1962–1964 Kanaanäische und Aramaische Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

DOTHAN, M. 1981 “Sanctuaries Along the Coast of Canaan in the M.B. Period: Nahariya,” in

Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, edited by A. Biran, pp. 74–81. Jeru-salem: Hebrew Union College.

DOTHAN, T. and BEN-TOR, A. 1983 Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus, 1971–1972 (Qedem 16). Jerusalem: Institute

of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.DRENKA, A.

2003 “New Excavations in the Chalcolithic Mine T of Timna: Preliminary Report of the Excavations March–May 2001,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 23: 21–26.

DUNAND, M. 1958 Fouille de Byblos. Vol. 2. 1933–1938. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.

EISENBERG, E. 1977 “The Temples at Tel Kittan,” Biblical Archaeology 40: 77–81.

ELIADE, M.1956 The Forge and the Crucible. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1978 A History of Religious Ideas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

ERICHSEN, A. 1933 Papyrus Harris I. Brussels: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth.

ERICKSON-GINI, T.2014 “Timna Site 2 Revisited,” in this volume.

ESTIMO, R. C. 2010 “Pharaonic Inscription Found in Saudi {Arabia,” Arabnews.com website.

http://www2.arabnews.com/node/359886FAUST A.

2006 “The Negev ‘Fortresses’ in Context: Reexamining the ‘Fortress’ Phenomenon in Light of General Settlement Processes of the Eleven-Tenth centuries B.C.E.,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 126: 135–160.

FINKELSTEIN, I. 1995 Living on the Fringe. The Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neigh-

bouring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 6). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

FLINDER, A. 1977 “The Island of Jezirat Fara}un: Its Ancient Harbour, Anchorage and Marine

Defence Installations,” International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Under-water Exploration 6, no. 2: 127–139.

1989 “Is This Solomon’s Seaport?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 4: 30–43.FORBES, R.

1950 Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists and Technologists. Leiden: Brill.

FRANK, F. 1934 “Aus der Araba I,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 57: 191–280.

FUCHS, G., HASEK, V. and PRICHYSTAL, A.1996 “Application of Geophysics in the Research of Ancient Mining in Egypt,” in

Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 33–53. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

Page 53: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

152 U. AVNER

GARDINER, A.1916 “The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3:

1–16.GARDINER, A. and PEET, T. E.

1917 The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part I. Introduction and Plates. London: Egypt Exploration Society.

GARDINER, A. H., PEET, T. E. and CERNY, J. 1955 The Inscriptions of Sinai. Part II. Translations and Commentary, edited by J. Cerny.

London: Oxford University Press. GARENNE-MAROT, L.

1984 “Le cuivre en Égypte pharaonique: sources et métallurgie,” Paléorient 10, no. 1: 97–129.

1985 “Le travail du cuivre dans l’Égypte pharaonique d’après les peintures et les bas-reliefs,” Paléorient 11, no. 1: 85–100.

GARFINKEL, J. 1987 “Burnt Lime Products and Social Implications in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Villages

of the Near East,” Paléorient 13, no. 1: 68–75.GIVEON, R.

1964 “Toponymes ouest-asiatiques à Soleb,” Vetus Testamentum 14: 239–255.1965 “Two Egyptian Documents Concerning Bashan from the Time of Ramses II,” Rivista

degli Studi Orientali 40: 197–202.1967 “The Shosu of Egyptian Sources and the Exodus,” in Proceedings of the Fourth World

Congress of Jewish Studies, pp. 193–196. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.1969 “Egyptian Inscriptions and Finds From a Temple in the Timna Area,” in Proceedings

of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, pp. 50–53. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.

1971 Les Bédouins Shosou des documents égyptiens (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 18). Leiden: Brill.

1972 “Egyptian Temples in Canaan,” Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14: 23–27. (In Hebrew.)1975 “‘Lady of the Turquoise’ – Hathor at Serabit al Khadim and Timna,” Eretz Israel 12:

24–26. (In Hebrew.)1978 The Stones of Sinai Speak. Tokyo: Gakuseisha Publishing Company.

GLASS, J. 1988 “Petrographic Investigations of the Pottery,” in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna

(Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 96–113. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity College London.

GLUECK, N. 1935 Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II (Annual of the American School of Oriental

Research 15). New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research.1938a “The First Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber),” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 71: 3–17.1938b “The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber and Elath,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 72: 2–13.1939 “The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber: Elath),” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 75: 8–22.1940a “The Third Season of Excavation at Tell el-Kheleifeh,” Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 79: 3–18.1940b “Kenites and Kenizzites,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 73: 22–24.1942 “The Excavations of Solomon’s Seaport: Ezion-Geber,” The Smithsonian Report for

1941: 453–476.1956 “The Fourth Season of Exploration in the Negeb,” Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 142: 17–35.1957 “The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb,” Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 145: 11–25.1960 “Archaeological Exploration of the Negev in 1959,” Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 159: 3–14.

Page 54: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 153

1961 “The Archaeological History of the Negev,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32: 11–18.1965 “Further Explorations in the Negev,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 179: 6–29.1967 “Some Edomite Pottery from Tell el-Kheleifeh” Bulletin of American Schools of Orien-

tal Research 188: 8–38.1970 The Other Side of the Jordan. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research.

GOODWAY, M.1993 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–

1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Biblical Archaeology Review 19, no. 1: 8–12.

GÖRSDORF, J. 2002 “New 14C Datings of Prehistoric Settlements in the South of Jordan,” in Ausgrabun-

gen und Surveys im Vorderen Orient I, edited by R. Eichmann, pp. 333–339. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.

GOURDIN, W. and KINGERY, W. D.1975 “The Beginnings of Pyrothechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster,” Journal

of Field Archaeology 2: 133–150.GRANT, E.

1929 Beth Shemesh. Haverford, PA: Biblical and Kindred Studies.1931 Ain Shems excavations (Palestine) 1928–1929–1930–1931. Part 1. Haverford, PA:

Haverford College.1939 Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine). Vol. 5. Text (Biblical and Kindred Studies 8).

Haverford, PA: Haverford College.HAIMAN, M.

1993 Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Har Hamran - Southeast (199). Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums; Archaeological Survey of Israel.

1999 Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Har Ramon (203). Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities and Museums; Archaeological Survey of Israel.

HAIMAN, M. and GOREN, Y. 1992 “‘Negebite’ Pottery: New Aspects and Interpretations and the Role of Pastoralism in

Designating Ceramic Technology,” in Pastoralism in the Levant: Archaeological Mate-rials in Anthropological Perspectives (Monographs in World Archaeology 10), edited by O. Bar-Yosef and A. Khazanov, pp. 143–151. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.

HAUPTMANN, A. 2000 “Lime Plaster, Cement and the First Puzzolanic Reaction,” Paléorient 26, no. 2: 61–68.2007 The Archaeometallurgy of Copper. Berlin: Springer.

HELCK, W.1962 Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.1980a “Kapellen,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto, col. 322–

323. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.1980b “Kiosk,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto, col. 442.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. HELCK, W. and OTTO, E.

1984 “Reinigungsgefaße,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie V, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto, col. 214–220. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

HELCK, W. and OTTO, E., eds.1986 Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 6 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

HERODOTUS

1988 The History. Translated by D. Grene. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. HERZOG, Z. and BAR YOSEF, O.

2002 “Different Views on Ethnicity in the Archaeology of the Negev,” in Aharon Kempin-ski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines, edited by E. D. Oren and S. Ahituv, pp. 151–181. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

Page 55: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

154 U. AVNER

HERZOG, Z., AHARONI, M., RAINEY, A. F. and MOSHKOVITZ, S. 1984 “The Israelite Fortress at Arad,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

254: 1–34.HOFFNER, H.

1965 “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered,” Revue Hittite et Asianique 23: 5–16.IBRAHIM, M. and TALLET, P.

2009 “King Den in South-Sinai: The Earliest Monumental Rock Inscriptions of the Pharaonic Period,” Archeo-Nil 19: 179–183.

JAMES, F. W. and MCGOVERN, P. E.1993 The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and VIII.

Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: University Museum.JASMIN, M.

2006 “The Emergence and First development of the Arabian Trade across the Wadi Arabah,” in Crossing the Rift. Resources, Routes, Settlement Patterns and Interaction in the Wadi {Arabah (Levant Supplementary Series 3), edited by P. Bienkowski and K. Galor, pp. 143–150. Oxford: Oxbow.

KALSBEEK, J. and LONDON, G. 1978 “A Late Second Millennium BC Potting Puzzle,” Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 232: 47–56.KAPLAN, J.

1963 “Excavations at Benei Beraq, 1951,” Israel Exploration Journal 13: 300–312.KEMP, B.

2000 “Soil (Including Mud-Brick Architecture),” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Tech-nology, edited by P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, pp. 78–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

KEMPINSKI, A. 1978 “On the Architectural Characterization of the Canaanite Temple at Lachish,”

Qadmoniot 10: 95–96. (In Hebrew.)KHALIL, L. and SCHMIDT, K.

2009 Prehistoric {Aqaba I. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.KINGERY, W., VANDIVER, P. B. and PRICKETT, M.

1988 “The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, Part II: Production and Use of Lime and Gyp-sum Plaster in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Near East,” Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 219–244.

KIRKBRIDE, D. 1968 “Beida 1967, An Interim Report,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100: 90–96.

KISLEV, M. E. 1988 “Fruit Remains,” in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the

{Arabah 1959–1984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 236–241. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

KISNAWI, A., DE JESUS, P. and RIHANI, B.1983 “Preliminary Report on the Mining Survey, Northwest Hijaz, 1982,” Atlal 7: 76–83.

KITCHEN, K.1964 “Some New Light on the Asiatic War of Ramsses II,” Orientalia 40: 47–70.1976 “A Pre-Ramesside Cartouche at Timna,” Orientalia 45: 263–264.2003 “Egyptian Intervention in the Levant in Iron Age II,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the

Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina: Proceedings of the Centennial Symposium W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and American Schools of Oriental Research: Jerusa-lem, May 29–31, 2000, edited by W. Dever and S. Gitin, pp. 113–132. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

KLIMSCHA, F. 2009 “Radiocarbon dates from Prehistoric Aqaba and other Chalcolithic Sites,” in Prehis-

toric {Aqaba I (Orient-Archäologie), edited by L. Khalil and K. Schmidt, pp. 363–401. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.

Page 56: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 155

KNAUF, E.1993 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah

1959–1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Levant 25: 226–228.

KNAUF, E. and LENZEN, C.1987 “Edomite Copper Industry,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III,

edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 83–87. Amman: Department of Antiquities; London; Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul.

LAPP, P. 1964 “The 1963 Excavation at Ta’annek,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 173: 4–41.1967 “Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo,” Biblical Archaeologist 30: 2–27.

LAUER, J. 1936a La Pyramide à Degrés. Vol. 1. L’Architecture: Texte. Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale.1936b La Pyramide à Degrés. Vol. 2. L’Architecture: Planches. Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale.LECKER, M.

1994 “Qainuqa},” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by C. Roth, Vol. 16, p. 760. New York, NY: Macmillan.

LERNAU, H. 1988 “Fish Remains,” in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the

{Arabah 1959–1984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 241–246. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

LEVENE, D.1998 “Expedition to {Atika,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies: 20: 10–13.

LEVY, T. E.2009 “Pastoral Nomads and Iron Age Metal Production in Ancient Edom,” in Nomads,

Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Oriental Institute Seminars 5), edited by J. Szuchman, pp. 147–176. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

LEVY, T. E., ADAMS, R. B., ANDERSON, J., NAJJAR, M., SMITH, N., ARBEL Y., SODERBAUM, L. and MUNIZ, A.

2003 “An Iron Age Landscape in the Edomite Lowlands: Archaeological Surveys Along Wadi al-Ghuwayb and Wadi al-Jariya, Jabel Hamrat Fidan, Jordan 2002,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 47: 247–277.

LEVY, T. E., ADAMS, R. B. and MUNIZ, A. 2004 “Archaeology and the Shasu Nomads: Recent Excavations in the Jabal Hamrat Fidan,

Jordan,” in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute to David Noel Freedman, edited by W. Propp and R. Friedman, pp. 63–89. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

LEVY, T. E., BEN-YOSEF, E. and NAJJAR, M.2012 “New Perspectives on Iron Age Copper Production and Society in the Faynan

Region, Jordan,” in Eastern Mediterranean Metallurgy and Metalwork in the Second Millennium BC: A Conference in Honour of James D. Muhly: Nicosia, October 2009, edited by V. Kassianidou and G. Papasavvas, pp. 197–214. Oxford: Oxbow.

LEVY, T. E., HIGHAM, T., BRONK RAMSEY, C., SMITH, N., BEN-YOSEF, E., ROBINSON, M., MÜNGER, S., KNABB, K., SCHULZE, P., NAJJAR, M. and TAUXE, L.

2008 “High Precision Radiocarbon Dating and Historical Biblical Archaeology in Southern Jordan,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 16460–16465.

LEVY, T. E. and NAJJAR, M. 2005 “Wadi Fidan,” in “Archaeology in Jordan, 2004 Season”, edited by S. H. Savage,

K. A. Zamora and D. R. Keller, American Journal of Archaeology 109: 546–550.LEVY, T. E., NAJJAR, M., MUNIZ, A., MALENA, S., MONROE, E., BEHEREC, M., SMITH, N., HIGHAM, T., MÜNGER, S. and MAES, K.

2005 “Iron Age Burial in the Lowland of Edom. The 2004 Excavations at Wadi Fidan 40, Jordan,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 49: 443–487.

Page 57: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

156 U. AVNER

LEVY, T. E., NAJJAR, M., VAN DER PLICHT, J., SMITH, N., BRUINS, H. and HIGHAM, T. 2005 “Lowland Edom and the High and Low Chronologies,” in The Bible and Radiocarbon

Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science, edited by T. Levy and T. Higham, pp. 129–163. London: Equinox.

LEWIS, T. 2006 “Covenant and Blood Rituals: Understanding Exodus 24:3–8 in Its Ancient Near

Eastern Context,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William Dever, edited by S. Gitin, pp. 342–350. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

LIPSCHITZ, O. and NUSSBAUMER, A.1972 “Egyptian Rock Engraving Discovered in Timna Valley,” Teva Vaaretz 14: 218–221.

(In Hebrew.)LOUD, G.

1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 1935–39. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Oriental Insti-tute Publications.

LUCAS, A. and HARRIS, J. R.1962 Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. London: Dover.

LUPU, A. and ROTHENBERG, B. 1970 “The Extractive Metallurgy of the Early Iron Age Copper Industry in the {Arabah,

Israel,” Archaeologia Austriaca 47: 91–130.MACALISTER, R. A. S.

1906 Bible Side-Lights from the Mound of Gezer: A Record of Excavation and Discovery in Palestine. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

1912 The Excavation of Gezer 2. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.MARKS, A.

1976 Prehistory and Paleoenviroments in the Central Negev, Israel. Vol 1. Dallas, TX: South-ern Methodist University Press.

MARTIN, M. and FINKELSTEIN, I.2013 “Iron IIA Pottery from the Negev Highlands: Petrographic Investigation and

Historical Implications,” Tel Aviv 40: 6–45.MARTIN, M., ELIAHU, A., ANENBURG, M., GOREN, Y. and FINKELSTEIN, I.

2013 “Iron IIA Slag-Tempered Pottery in the Negev Highlands, Israel,” Journal of Archae-ological Science 40: 3777–3792.

MAZAR, A. 1982 “The ‘Bull Site’: An Iron Age I Open Cult Place,” Bulletin of the American Schools of

Oriental Research 247: 27–42.1987 “Temples of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages and the Iron Age,” in The Architecture

of Ancient Israel: From the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, edited by A. Kempinski and R. Reich, pp. 136–159. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

MAZAR, A. and DE MIROSCHEDJI, P. 1996 “Hartuv, an Aspect of the Early Bronze I Culture of Southern Israel,” Bulletin of the

American Schools of Oriental Research 302: 1–40.MAZAR, B.

1965 “The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24: 297–303.

1981 “Yahweh Came Out from Sinai,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, edited by A. Biran, pp. 5–9. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeol-ogy, Jewish Institute of Religion.

1982 “Ba{al Samem and El Qoneh,” Eretz Israel 16: 135–133. (In Hebrew.)MERKEL, J.

1983 “A Laboratory Reconstruction of Late Bronze-Early Iron Age Copper Smelting in the Arabah,” in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testa-ment Supplement 24), edited by J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A. Clines, pp. 125–128. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Page 58: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 157

1985 “Ore Beneficiation During the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age at Timna, Israel,” Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Journal 3: 164–169.

1990 “Experimental Reconstruction of Bronze Age Copper Smelting based on Archaeo-logical Evidence from Timna,” in The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper: Archaeology-Experiment-Theory (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 2), edited by B. Rothen-berg, pp. 78–122. London: Institute of Archaeometallurgical Studies, University College of London.

1996 “Simulation Experiments on Egyptian New Kingdom Copper Smelting,” in Proceed-ings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 79–87. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

MERKEL, J. and ROTHENBERG, B.1999 “The Earliest Steps to Copper Metallurgy in the Western Arabah,” in The Beginnings

of Metallurgy (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 9), edited by A. Hauptmann, E. Pernicka, Th. Rehren and U. Yalcin, pp. 149–165. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.

MESHEL, Z. 1993 “Yotvata,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,

Vol. 4, edited by E. Stern, pp. 1517–1520. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.2002 “Does Negevite Ware Reflect the Character of Negev Society in the Israelite Period?”

in Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines (Beer-sheva: Studies by the Department of Bible and Ancient Near East 15), edited by S. Ahituv and E. D. Oren, pp. 283–300. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press.

MUHLY, J.1989 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the Arabah 1959–

1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Antiquity 63: 858–859.

MUSIL, A. 1908 Arabia Petraea, Vol. 2. Vienna: A. Hoelder.

MUSSELL, M.-L.2000 “Tell el-Kheleifeh,” American Journal of Archaeology 104: 5–6.

NA’AMAN, N.1992 “Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E.,” Tel Aviv 19: 71–93.

NEEDHAM, R., ed.1973 Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.NEGEV, A.

1991 Personal Names in the Nabataean Realm (Qedem 32). Jerusalem: Institute of Archae-ology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

OGDEN, J. 2000 “Metals,” in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, edited by P. T. Nicholson

and I. Shaw, pp. 149–176. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.PARR, P., HARDING, G. and DAYTON J.

1970 “Preliminary Survey in N. W. Arabia, 1968,” Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology, University of London 8, no. 9: 193–242.

PERROT, J. 1955 “The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, Near Beersheba,” Israel Exploration Journal 5:

17–40, 73–84, 167–189.PETHERICK, J.

1861 Egypt, the Sudan and Central Africa. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons. PETRIE, W. M. F.

1892 Medum. London: David Nutt.1906 Researches in Sinai. London: John Murray.

PHYTHIAN-ADAMS, C. 1933 “Israel in the {Arabah,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 66: 137–145.

Page 59: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

158 U. AVNER

PINCH, G. 1993 Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith Institute.

POUIT, G. and CASTEL, G. 1999 “Les exploitations pharaoniques, romaines et arabes de cuivre, fer et or: l’exemple de

Ouadi Dara (Désert Oriental d’Égypte),” in L’or dans l’Antiquité, de la mine à l’objet: Actes du Colloque International de Limoges 2004 (Aquitania, supplément 9), edited by B. Cauuet, pp. 131–144. Bordeaux: Éditions du CNRS.

PRITCHARD, J. B., ed. 1969a Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with supplement.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.1969b Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.PROFF, W. H. C.

1999 “Monotheism and ‘Moses’: The Problem of Early Israelite Religion,” Ugarit-Forschun-gen 31: 537–575.

PUSCH, E.1990 “Metalverarbeitende Werkstatten der Fruhen Ramessidenzeit in Qantir–Piramesse/

Nord,” Ägypten und Levante I: 75–113.1996 “High Temperature Industries in the Late Bronze Age Capital Piramesse-Qantir:

A Quasi-Industrial Bronze Factory Installation, Tools, and Artifacts,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 121–132. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

QUIRKE, S.1992 Ancient Egyptian Religion. London: The British Museum Press.1997 The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New Discoveries and Recent Research. London: The

British Museum Press.RABAN, A.

1997 “Phoenician Harbours in the Levant,” Michmanim 11: 7–27.RAINEY, A.

2008 “Shasu or Habiru: Who were the Early Israelites?,” Biblical Archaeology Review 34, no. 6: 51–56.

REDFORD, D. B.1982 “A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89–101 of Thutmose III List of Asiatic

Toponyms),” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 55–74.1992 Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

REHREN, T.1996 “High Temperature Industries in Piramesse – Bronze and Glass Production and

Processing,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 101–119. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

ROBERTSON SMITH, W.1889 The Religion of the Semites. London: Adam and Charles Black.

ROTHENBERG, B. 1962 “Ancient Copper Industries in the Western {Arabah,” Palestine Exploration Fund

Quarterly 94: 5–65.1967 Negev. Ramat Gan: Massada. (In Hebrew.)1969 “The Egyptian Temple of Timna,” Illustrated London News 255, no. 6800: 28–29.1970a “An Egyptian Temple of Hathor Discovered in the Southern {Arabah (Israel),”

Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 12: 28–35.1970b “An Egyptian Temple at the Solomon Pillars,” Israel Land and Nature 12: 83–89.

(In Hebrew.)1970c “An Egyptian Temple for the Goddess Hathor in the Southern {Arabah,” Bulletin

Museum Ha}aretz 12: 20–25. (In Hebrew.)1971 Midianite Timna: British Museum Catalogue of Exhibition. London: Thames and

Hudson and the British Museum.

Page 60: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 159

1972a Timna: Valley of Biblical Copper Mines. London: Thames and Hudson.1972b “Sinai, Exploration 1967–1972,” Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 14: 31–46.1974 “Sinai Exploration III,” Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 15–16: 16–34. 1978 “Timna,” in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4, edited

by M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern, pp. 1184–1203. Jerusalem: Massada Press. 1979 Sinai: Pharaohs, Miners, Pilgrims and Soldiers. Bern: Kümmerly and Frey.1983 “A Rock-Cut Copper Smelting Furnace in the Timna Valley,” Historical Metallurgy

17: 116–119.1984 “The Miner’s Temple in Timna Valley,” in Israel–People and Land, edited by R. Zeevi,

pp. 85–122. Tel Aviv: Haaretz Museum. (In Hebrew.)1985 “Copper Smelting Furnaces in the {Arabah, Israel: The Archaeological Evidence,” in

Furnaces and Smelting Technology in Antiquity (Occasional Paper 48), edited by P. T. Craddock and M. J. Hughes, pp. 123–149. London: British Museum. (In Hebrew.)

1987 “Pharaonic Copper Mines in South Sinai,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 10, no. 11: 1–7.

1988a ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity College London.

1988b “Early Islamic Copper Smelting—and Worship—at Beer Ora, Southern {Arabah (Israel),” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 12: 1–4.

1990 ed. The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper: Archaeology-Experiment-Theory (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 2). London: Institute of Archaeometallurgical Studies, University College of London.

1992 “Timna,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 4. pp. 1587–1599. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society (In Hebrew.)

1993 “Timna,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 4. pp. 1475–1486. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

1995 “A Summary of Thirty Years of Archaeological and Archaeometallurigical Field and Laboratory Research Concerning the Timna Valley and its Surroundings,” in Eilat: Studies in the Archaeology, History and Geography of Eilat and the {Aravah, edited by J. Aviram, pp. 1–45. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. (In Hebrew.)

1998 “Who Were the ‘Midianite’ Copper Miners of the {Arabah? About the ‘Midianite Enigma’,” in Metallurgica Antiqua. In Honour of Hans-Gert Bachmann and Robert Maddin (Der Anschnitt, Beiheft 8), edited by T. Rehren, A. Hauptmann and J. D. Muhly, pp. 197–212. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.

1999a “Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern {Arabah 1959–1990, Part 1: Late Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze Age IV,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131: 68–89.

1999b “Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern {Arabah 1959–1990, Part 2: Egyptian New Kingdom (Ramesside) to Early Islam,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131: 149–175.

1999c “Was Copper Smelted in Ancient Temples? – More About Crucible Smelting,” PALLAS 50: 161–172.

2001 “Rock Drawings in the Ancient Copper Mines of the {Arabah: New Aspects of the Region’s History,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 21: 4–9.

2003 “Egyptian Chariots, Midianites from Hijaz/Midian (Northwest Arabia) and Amale-kites from the Negev in the Timna Mines,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 23: 9–14.

ROTHENBERG, B. and GLASS, J.1983 “The Midianite Pottery,” in Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology

of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 24), edited by J. F. A. Sawyer and D. J. A Clines, pp. 65–124. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Page 61: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

160 U. AVNER

ROTHENBERG, B. and MERKEL, J. 1995 “Late Neolithic Copper Smelting in the {Arabah,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical

Studies 19: 1–7.1998 “Chalcolithic, 5th Millennium BC, Copper Smelting at Timna,” Institute for Archaeo-

Metallurgical Studies 20: 1–3.ROTHENBERG, B., SEGAL, I. and KHALAILY, H.

2004 “Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic Copper Smelting at the Yotvata Oasis (South-West {Arabah),” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 24: 17–28.

ROTHENBERG, B., SHAW, C. T., HASSAN, F. A., and HUSSEIN, A. A. A. 1998 “Reconnaissance Survey of Ancient Mining and Metallurgy in the Mersa Alam Region

Eastern Desert of Egypt,” Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 20: 4–9.ROWE, A.

1930 The Topography and History of Beth Shean. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylva-nia, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

1940 The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth Shean. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsyl-vania, Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

SASS, B.1988 The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium BC. Wies-

baden: Harrassowitz.SAWYER, J. and CLINES, D. J. A.

1983 Midian, Moab and Edom: The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supple-ment 24). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

SCHAEFFER, C. F.-A.1939 Ugaritica I. Paris: Geuthner.

SCHARPENSEEL, H., PIETIG, F and SCHIFFMANN, H. 1976 “Hamburg University Radiocarbon Dates I,” Radiocarbon 18: 268–289.

SCHEEL, B.1989 Egyptian Metalworking and Tools. Bucks: Shire Publications.

SCHULMAN, A. 1976 “The Royal Butler Ramessesemperre,” Journal of the American Research Center in

Egypt 13: 117–128.1988 “Catalogue of the Egyptian finds,” in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna

(Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 114–147. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, Uni-versity College London.

SCHUMACHER, G. 1908 Tell el Mutesellim I. Leipzig: Haupt.

SEGAL, D. and CARMI, I. 1996 “Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List V,” {Atiqot 29: 79–106.2004 “Rehovot Radiocarbon date List VI,” {Atiqot 48: 123–148.

SELLIN, E.1905 Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Ta‘annek (Palästina Denkschrift der Kaiserlichen Akade-

mie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Bd. 52, Abh. 3). Vienna: Holder.

SHARON, M., AVNER, U. and NAHLIELI, D. 1996 “An Early Islamic Mosque Near Be}er Ora in the Southern Negev: Possible Evidence

for an Early Eastern Qiblah?,” {Atiqot 30: 107–114. SHAW, C.

1996 “New Kingdom Mining Technology with Reference to Wadi {Arabah,” in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ancient Egyptian Mining and Metallurgy and Conservation of Metallic Artifacts, edited by F. A. Esmael, pp. 1–14. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.

SHEFFER, A. and TIDHAR, A. 1988 “Textiles and Textile Impressions on Pottery,” in The Egyptian Mining Temple at

Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–1984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 224–

Page 62: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

EGYPTIAN TIMNA – RECONSIDERED 161

231. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.

SNAPE, S.1991 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–

1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeol-ogy, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 77: 207–208.

SOMAGLINO, C. and TALLET, P.2011 “Une mystérieuse route sud-orientale sous le règne de Ramsès III,” Bulletin de l’Institut

français d’archéologie orientale 111: 361–369. 2013 “A Road to the Arabian Peninsula in the Reign of Ramesses III,” in Desert Road

Archaeology in Ancient Egypt and Beyond (Africa Praehistorica 27), edited by F. Förster and H. Riemer, pp. 511–518. Köln: Heinrich Barth Institut.

STADELMANN, R. 1967 Syrisch-Palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten. Leiden: Brill.2006 “Riding the Donkey: A Means of Transportation for Foreign Rulers,” in Timelines.

Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. 2, edited by E. Czerny, I. Hein, H. Hun-ger, D. Melman and A. Schwab, pp. 301–304. Leuven: Peeters.

TALLET, P.2013 La zone minière pharaonique du Sud-Sinaï – I. Catalogue complémentaire des inscrip-

tions du Sinaï (MIFAO 130). Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.TALLET, P., CASTEL, G. and FLUZIN, P.

2011 “Metallurgical sites of South Sinai (Egypt) in the Pharaonic Era: New Discoveries,” Paléorient 37, no. 2: 79–89.

TALLET, P. and LAISNEY, D.2012 “Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sinaï (Ouadi {Ameyra): un complément à la chronolo-

gie des expéditions minières égyptiennes,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale 112: 381–398.

TEBES, J. M.2003 “A New Analysis of the Iron Age I ‘Chiefdom’ of Tell Masos (Beersheba Valley),”

Aula Orientalis 21: 63–78.2007 “Pottery Makers and Premodern Exchange in the Fringe of Egypt: An Approximation

to the Distribution of Iron Age Pottery,” Buried History 43: 11–26.2013 “Investigating the Painted Pottery Traditions of the First Millennium BC Northwest-

ern Hejaz and Southern Levant: Chronological Data and Arabian Parallels,” Proceed-ings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 43: 317–336.

TUFNELL, O., INGE, C. and HARDING, G. L.1940 Lachish II. London: Oxford University Press.

USSISHKIN, D.1978 “Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1973–1977: Preliminary Report,” Tel Aviv 5: 1–97.

VAN NEER, W., LERNAU, O., FRIEDMAN, R., MUMFORD, G., POBLOME, J. and WAELKENS, M. 2004 “Fish Remains from Archaeological Sites as Indicators of Former Trade Connections

in the Eastern Mediterranean,” Paléorient 30, no. 1: 101–148.VASSILIEV, A.

2006 “The Localization of the Shasu-Land of Ramses II’s Rhetorical Texts,” in Current Research in Egyptology 2006: Proceedings of The Seventh Annual Symposium, edited by M. Cannata, pp. 162–168. Oxford: Oxbow.

VENTURA, R. 1974 “An Egyptian Rock Stela in Timna,” Tel Aviv 1: 60–63.1980 “The Organization of the Egyptian Expeditions to Sinai during the New Kingdom,”

in Sinai in Antiquity, edited by Z. Meshel and I. Finkelstein, pp. 321–331. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. (In Hebrew.)

WARD, W. 1972 “The Shasu ‘Bedouin’,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 15:

35–60.

Page 63: UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS...including the highly detailed final report of 1988 (followed by four additional articles). The excavation and its recording methods were presented as systematic

162 U. AVNER

WEINSTEIN, J. 1981 “The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment,” Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 241: 1–28.1992 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 1959–

1984, 1), by B. Rothenberg. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London. American Journal of Archaeology 96: 171–172.

WENSINCK, A.1978 “Kaynuka,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 4, edited by C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel,

W. P. Heinrichs and G. Lecomte, p. 824. Leiden: Brill.WIGHTMAN, G.

2007 Sacred Spaces: Religious Architecture in the Ancient World (Ancient Near Eastern Stud-ies Supplement 22). Leuven: Peeters.

WILLIES, L.1990 “Exploring the Ancient Copper Mines of the Wadi {Amram (Southern {Arabah),”

Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 15–16: 12–15.1991 “Ancient Copper Mining at Wadi {Amram, Israel: An Archaeological Survey,”

Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 11: 109–138.WIMMER, S.

1990 “Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai,” in Jerusalem Studies in Egyptology, Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, Vol. 2, edited by S. Israelit-Goll, pp. 1065–1106. Jerusalem: Magnes.

1998 “(No) More Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai,” in Jerusalem Studies in Egyp-tology, edited by I. Shirun-Grumach, pp. 87–123. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

2010 “A Proto-Sinaitic Inscription in Timna/Israel: New Evidence on the Emergence of the Alphabet,” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2, no. 2: 1–12.

WOOLLEY, L. and LAWRENCE, T.1915 The Wilderness of Zin. London: Jonathan Cape.

YADIN, Y.1972 Hazor: The Head of All Those Kingdoms (Joshua 11:10); with a Chapter on Israelite

Megiddo. London: Oxford University Press.1975 Hazor, the Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible. London: Weidenfeld and

Nicolson.YAHALOM-MACK, N.

2009 Bronze in the Beginning of the Iron Age in the Land of Israel: Production and Utiliza-tion in a Diverse Ethno-Political Setting. Unpublished PhD diss. Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

YAHALOM-MACK, N. and SEGAL, I.2011 “Provenancing Five Copper-Based Artifacts,” in Dan III: Avraham Biran Excava-

tions 1966-1999: The Late Bronze Age (Annual of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology Hebrew Union College 9), edited by R. Ben-Dov, pp. 367–371. Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

In Press “The Origin of Copper Used in Canaan during the Late Bronze – Iron Age Transi-tion”.

ZUSMAN, V. and BEIT-ARIEH, S.1966 “Ancient Burials in Giv{atayim,” {Atiqot 3: 27–39.

Uzi AVNER

The Dead Sea-{Arava Science Center The {Arava Institute for Environmental Studies

Patio 655, Eilat 88000, [email protected]