Avner Timna 14

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272060120
Egyptian Timna- Reconsidered
Conference Paper January 2014
CITATIONS READS
2 138
1 author:
Uzi Avner
Arava Institute for Environmental Studies and the Dead Sea-Arava Science Center
47 PUBLICATIONS 477 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
1. Ancient copper industry at nahal 'Amram, Israel. 1. Desert Kites. 3. Ancient desert roads. 4. Ancient
desert farming. 5. Prehistoric cult sites. 6. Rock art View project
Ancient Desert Cultures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Uzi Avner on 05 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STUDIES
SUPPLEMENT 45
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
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: Davids 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Tali 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Uzi AVNER
STUDIES ARISING
The Symbolic and Social World of the Qurayyah Pottery Iconography . . . . . . 163
Juan Manuel TEBES
Arabian and Arabizing Epigraphic Finds from the Iron Age Southern Levant . . . 203
Pieter Gert VAN DER VEEN and Franois BRON
vi CONTENTS
EDOM OVER THE BORDER
The Judean Desert Frontier in the Seventh Century BCE: A View from {Aroer . . 227
Yifat THAREANI
Edomite Pottery in Judah in the Eighth Century BCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Lily 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
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 Gluecks 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 teams
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
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. 186190.
5
Frank 1934, pp. 233234, 241244.
6
Glueck 1935, pp. 4245.
7
Glueck 1938a; 1938b; 1940a; 1942; 1970, Ch. 4.
8
Glueck 1956; 1957; 1960; 1961; 1965. For a summary and analysis of Gluecks exploration in the
Negev, see Baron 1978; 1981.
9
Rothenberg 1962.
104 U. AVNER
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 Solomons 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
Rothenbergs 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 excavations1969 and 1974of 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. 12801145 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).
Rothenbergs 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
10
Rothenberg 1962, pp. 4456; 1967, pp. 191206.
11
Rothenberg 1962, pp. 4044.
12
13
14
Rothenberg 1967, pp. 7*28*; 1972a, pp. 63117; 1990, pp. 1674; 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. 1926.
18
Rothenberg 1984; 1988a; 1992; 1993; 1995; 1999b.
EGYPTIAN TIMNA RECONSIDERED 105
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 sanctuarys 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.
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.
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 writers probes (grey rectangles, P. 1P. 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 Rothenbergs text
(e.g. 1972a, pp. 130132; 1984, pp. 9396. For a fragment of the restored architrave in Fig. 2b see
Rothenberg 1972a, fig. 74; 1988a, pl. 110:1)
The sanctuarys 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 sanctuarys 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,
IVII, 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
26
Rothenberg 1969; 1970a; 1970b; 1970c.
27
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.
108 U. AVNER
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 12 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 Rothenbergs 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
35
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 273274.
36
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 62, 274.
37
38
Rothenberg 1988a, p. 34.
39
40
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 126; 1984, p. 92.
41
42
43
44
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 32, 3536, 274, 38 and ill. 11, and here Fig. 1.
45
Rothenberg 1970a, pp. 3132; 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 kingsfrom Amenmesses to Setnakhteover some 20 years. Within this time, the
name of Twosret is represented, but due to her short reign (11871185 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. 156168). 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
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.
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 serpents 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
53
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 7283, esp. p. 82.
54
55
Rothenberg 1988a, ill. 27, pls. 9698.
56
57
58
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 152; 1988a, p. 272; 1993, p. 1483.
59
60
61
62
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
66
67
110 U. AVNER
ores mixed with copper offering objects, and 23 kg of copper slag. It was described as
a Byzantine smelting and casting installation penetrating into the temples 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 sites history.79 Nevertheless, an attempt to reach some understanding
of the sites significance is still required.
68
For example, Rothenberg 1970a, pp. 3334.
69
70
71
Rothenberg 1984, p. 118; 1988a, pp. 6066, 192203, 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. 7677;
Dothan and Ben-Tor 1983, p. 140; Artzy 1999; Blakely-Westover 1999; Ben-Dov 2011a, pp. 349361; Ben-
Dov 2011b, with further references.
72
73
Rothenberg 1988a, p. 278; 1999b, p. 172.
74
For example, Rothenberg 1969, p. 29; 1970a, pp. 3334.
75
Rothenberg 1971, p. 19; 1972a, pp. 151152.
76
Rothenberg 1984, pp. 99, 111.
77
78
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. 1926). 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. 287290), but many of them include finds from
different loci and various strata. In many other find boxes, strata are not indicated (Rothenberg 1988a,
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 12 cm thick,
obviously the remains of the white floor. 3) A living level of light grey-coloured sand and
ash, 715 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 Rothenbergs 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
pp. 278290). For some reason, these problemsthe stratigraphic disruption and discrepancy between differ-
ent publicationsescaped 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. 5970; 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).
112 U. AVNER
Fig. 3. Probe 1: 1. Lower living level; 2. White floor; 3. Remains of upper living level; 4. Wall 2
Fig. 4. Probe 2. Wall 3 with a massebah concealed in it

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, 4050 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 walls 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 stones
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 2535 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
82
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 131; 1988a, pp. 3839, 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
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. 79). 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.
114 U. AVNER
Fig. 5. Probe 3: The altar stone stabilised by smaller rocks underneath
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. 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
116 U. AVNER
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 excavators 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 unita 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
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
89
Rothenberg 1984, p. 99; 1988a, p. 42, pl. 31.
90
Avner 1984b; 1993a; 2001; 2002, with references.
91
Rothenberg 1972a, pls. 110, 112.
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
118 U. AVNER
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 Rothenbergs 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
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, 9:16.
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. 478, 5357, 88 n. 61, 247, 275.
102
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).
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: 68) in which he put half of the blood in the basins, Hebrew ( plural),
and then sprinkled it on the attendants.108 The larger basin is the biblical , 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 priests ablution (Exodus 30:1821, 40:3032; 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
105
Examples for depressions in altars, from north to south: Hazor (Yadin 1975, pl. 124, 128, 129; 1972,
pp. 86, 100; 1975, pp. 8687); Megiddo VII (Loud 1948, p. 105, figs. 254, 257); Megiddo, masseboth hall
(Schumacher 1908, pp. 48, 112, 117, 156157, abb. 169, Taf. 35, 37b); Ta{anach (Sellin 1905, pp. 2930,
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. 105106); Megiddo, VII (Loud 1948,
p. 105, figs. 254, 257); Ta{anach (Lapp 1964, pp. 3032, figs. 16, 19; 1967, pp. 1920, 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. 79, 27); Benei-Braq (Kaplan 1963, p. 302); Gezer (Macalister 1906, pp. 5457; 1912, pp. 377406;
Dever 1971, pp. 120124; 1972, pp. 6870); 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 4:734; 7:27; 9:9; 2 Kings 17:12, 15 etc.;
Herodotus III:8. See also Robertson Smith 1889, pp. 337345; Grant 1929, p. 48; Aharoni 1968, p. 19;
Herzog et al. 1984, p. 11; Lewis 2006.
109
Petrie 1906, pp. 105107, 190.
110
Badawy 1968, p. 321.
111
For example, Badawy 1968, pp. 491496. The term basin occurs several times in Badawys 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.
120 U. AVNER
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 Rothenbergs 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
phasesthe 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).
112
Gourdin and Kingery 1975, pp. 148, 150.
113
Garfinkel 1987; Kingery et al. 1988; Hauptmann 2000.
114
Lucas and Harris 1962, pp. 7475, 78; Kemp 2000, pp. 9293.
115
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. 8792); 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 altars top, but their continuations were not preserved.
117
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 7583, pls. 93, 96, 97.
118
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 151, fig. 44; 1988a, pp. 55, 60; Sheffer and Tidhar 1988.
Fig. 10. The sanctuary after restoration: 1. Local shrine; 2. White floor;
3. Egyptian naos and pronaos
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, Rothenbergs 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 13 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 13 can be related now to Rothenbergs 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
119
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 149; 1984, p. 96.
122 U. AVNER
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 2535 cm higher than that of Wall 1.121 This means that quite a long period of time
passed from the construction of Walls 13 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
sites 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
shrinean 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 2535 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.
120
Petrie 1906, pp. 6371, 97107.
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.
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 sites 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
Rothenbergs 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 deitys 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 Solomons 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
124
Badawy 1965, pp. 1938; 1966, pp. 3346; 1968, pp. 176181; Wightman 2007, pp. 123130. 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. 1921, 3133, pls. 33, 48:2; James and McGovern 1993, pp. 239244.
128
Tufnell et al. 1940, pp. 1934.
129
Ussishkin 1978, pp. 125, 9193; also see Giveon 1972; Kempinski 1978; Mazar 1987, pp. 148152.
124 U. AVNER
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, Hathors 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
130
Helck 1962, pp. 482500; Stadelmann 1967.
131
Pritchard 1969b, nos. 470476, 485.
132
Helck 1962, pp. 480481; 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 (9:13). In Wimmers 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. 249250; and see many examples in the Lexikon der gyptologie (Helck and Otto
1986) of entries with the gods names.
134
Petrie 1906, pp. 71, 191192.
135
Gardiner 1916, p.15.
136
Gardiner et al. (1955, p. 41) accepted Petries 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. 4151).
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. 1415, 19, 21, 3233, 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. 3941; Pritchard
1969b, no. 485). Ramses II worshiped El Kan Zafon in the Bashan (Giveon 1965, pp. 197199).
139
Rowe 1930, p. 11.
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 Rothenbergs 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).
140
Avner 1993a, n. 37 with references.
141
Avner 1993a, pp. 174175, figs. 1929; 2000, pp. 102103; 2002, Table 11: 2:141, excluding 2:3,
2:30, 2:37.
142
Needham 1973.
143
Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 63, 65, 101, 162; 1984, p. 121; 1999b, pp. 150151; Conrad and Rothenberg
1980, pp. 183418.
144
145
Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 122124; 2001.
146
Rothenberg 1984, pp. 104; 1988a, pp. 9596.
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).
126 U. AVNER
Fig. 11. Mine T, fourth millennium BCE: wide, irregular dig connected by
galleries with similar entrances
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 Rothenbergs 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
148
Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 148166, 181183; Rothenberg 1999a, p. 79; Drenka 2003.
149
Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 130, abb. 140.
150
Rothenberg 1967, pp. 810, 4446; 1972a, pp. 63, pls. 17, 18.
151
Cohen 1976.
152
Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 6365; 1995, pp. 1822; 1999b, pp. 149151; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980,
pp. 69167, 183184.
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.
128 U. AVNER
Fig. 12. Mine S10, third millennium BCE, cylindrical shaft

(partially excavated by Conrad and Rothenberg)
Fig. 13. Mine 25, an advanced shaft, second millennium BCE,

with chisel marks and steps, 42 m deep
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
157
Two bronze digging picks were published from Timna (Conrad and Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 7273),
but the same objects were previously published as copper spear-butts (Rothenberg 1972a, pp. 105106). No
chemical analysis was published to justify the switch in interpretation of the objects.
158
For example, Rothenberg 1990, pp. 1638. 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. 1516; 1972a, pp. 6778; 1983; 1985; 1999b, pp. 153155; 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. 149150. In some of these publications the furnaces are not termed Egyp-
tian but Late Bronze-Early Iron Age.
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
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 1:8088).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 1,085C. Smeltingthat is, extracting metallic copper from
rockis a much more complex, sophisticated operation. It requires profound knowledge of
the copper minerals and fluxes, other skills and a temperature above 1,200C. 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
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. 2426; 1999b, pp. 153155) 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. 212223). Later it was changed to Roman and Early Islamic
(Rothenberg 1992; 1993; 1990, pp. 5463; 1995, pp. 3739; 1999b, pp. 166168), 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 1:8188).
164
Davies 1943, pp. 5354, 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, 2535 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. 813).
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. 221222, abb. 242), which actu-
ally contained Early Islamic slag rings. Therefore, the date of this furnace is not secure.
132 U. AVNER
Fig 16. Themilat Radadi, a rock engraving of Ramses III (95 cm high)
Fig. 17. An outline for a rock stele of Ramses III above the Timna sanctuary
134 U. AVNER
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. 12801145 BCE with a gap, ca.
12001180 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
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. 192198.
173
Ben-Yosef 2010, pp. 567569; Ben-Yosef et al. 2012, Table 4; and see here Table 1:6170.
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. 830831, 901903, 973
977, 986).
Fig. 18. Histogram of calibrated 14C dates from copper mines and production sites,
southern Arabah
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 Rothenbergs 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
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. 413; 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. 4150; Willies
1990; 1991.
179
Kisnawi et al. 1983, pp. 76, 80.
136 U. AVNER
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.
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. 98102; Haiman and Goren 1992; Meshel 2002;
Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004, pp. 135140.
182
Rothenberg 1988a, pp. 92, 95, figs 1415; Glass 1988, pp. 108111.
183
184
On the Shasu, see Giveon 1967; 1971; Ward 1972; Redford 1992, pp. 269280; Levy et al. 2005;
Vassiliev 2006; Rainey 2008.
185
Rothenberg 1988a, p. 95, figs. 1620; Glass 1988, pp. 101108.
186
See n. 178.
187
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 163, Glass 1988.
188
Rothenberg 1972a, p. 153; Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 194195.
189
The pottery from the Yotvata Fortress is as yet unpublished, but it was exhibited for several years in the
visitors centre of Yotvata. For the fortress excavation see Meshel 1993.
190
Rothenberg 1984, p. 104; Glass 1988, p. 108.
191
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
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 inscriptionsone 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
neighbouring countries (Van Neer et al. 2004, esp. pp. 119125), 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. 120122; Jasmin 2006; Tebes 2007. For the antiquity and intensity of the desert
road network see Avner 2002, Ch. 6.
138 U. AVNER
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 Setis 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
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. 2429, 7476; Kitchen 1964, p. 66;
Mazar 1981; Redford 1992, pp. 272273).
204
Giveon 1971, pp. 6065; Pritchard 1969a, p. 254; Pritchard 1969b, no. 326; Vassiliev 2006.
205
Kitchen 1964, pp. 6669; Giveon 1971, pp. 134137; Pritchard 1969a, p. 262.
206
Giveon 1971, pp. 65130.
207
208
Petrie 1906, pp. 3940; Giveon 1978, pp. 6062.
209
Petrie 1906, pp. 4145; Gardiner and Peet 1917, pls. 16; Giveon 1978, pp. 6768. According to
Giveon (1978, pp. 6768), 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. 1416.
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.
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 (mt) 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,
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. 110121; Gardiner et al. 1955, pp. 1420; 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 , i.e. Smoking Crucible.
216
Somaglino and Tallet 2012.
217
Avner 1972; Rothenberg 1972a, p. 201; 1988a, p. 85; Schulman 1988, pp. 143144.
218
Avner 2002, Ch. 6, fig. 6:1.
219
Glueck 1940a, pp. 910.
220
Mussell 2000, p. 6.
221
Glueck 1970, p. 132; 1967, pp. 815. 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.
140 U. AVNER
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
Kings 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 Pharaohs administration (quite
similar to biblical Josef). According to Schulmans 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
222
Rothenberg 1967, pp. 211213; 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 2.22.5 m thick, the casements are
2.5 m deep and the inner wall is 0.8 m thickaltogether 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. 212213, with references to nineteenth-century explorers; Flinder 1977, 1989; Raban 1997, pp. 1315).
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. 143144); and Ventura (1974).
226
Schulman 1976.
227
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.
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
229
Petrie 1906, pp. 118; Cerny 1935.
230
For Horma see Num. 21:3, Deut. 1:41 etc.; Ahituv 1984, pp. 113114 with references.
231
Cerny 1935, figs. 15.
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. 81101.
237
For example, Haiman 1993; 1999; Cohen 1999; Avner 1998; 2002, Ch. 2.
142 U. AVNER
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 ( in the Proto-Sinaitic
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 ariseswhere 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.
238
See Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, pp. 9294 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. 253273; 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.
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.12501000 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
14
C, 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 campaigns 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
247
Cohen and Cohen-Amin 2004, p. 121.
248
Bruins and van der Plicht 2007, p. 491. Rothenberg (1967, pp. 9297) 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. 8688) and Finkelstein (1995, pp. 103126; Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006,
pp. 2426) 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 1,5003,000 graves are mentioned.
252
Axelsson 1987; Giveon 1971, pp. 267271; Ward 1972; Ahituv 1998; Herzog and Bar Yosef 2002,
pp. 172174; Rainey 2008.
253
Kitchen 2003, pp. 121125.
254
Fantalkin and Finkelstein 2006, p. 26.
255
See n. 228, and the following notes respectively.
144 U. AVNER
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 , Hebrew create260 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.
256
Gen. 4:22; 1 Chron. 4:1314. 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 ( 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. 516; Avigad 1972,
pp. 195196).
261
Forbes 1950, pp. 6269; Eliade 1956; 1978, pp. 5255; Blakely-Westover 1999.
No Site Site Type Lab No. B.P. Cal Date (2v) Mean Value Reference
1 Timna S27 Mine Bonn2538 7680120 69086248 6450 Rothenberg pers. comm. 2000
2 Yotvata Hill Rampart RT1548 546855 44514177 4350 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98
3 Yotvata Hill Smelting Camp RT1546/7 465070 36373120 3500 c
4 Timna 39a Habitation OxA7632 548545 44304250 4340 Rothenberg and Merkel 1998
5 Tell Magass Industrial Village Bln5075 488132 37123634 3650 Grsdorf 2002
6 Tell Magass c Bln5076 518639 40403800 3950 c
7 Tell Magass c Bln5119 511137 39803790 3890 Klimscha 2009, pp. 364368
11 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5047 487932 37113543 3650 Grsdorf 2002
12 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5121 486339 37133532 3640 c
16 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27709 523525 42553971 4110 Klimscha 2009, pp. 364368
17 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27710 504926 39493783 3670 c
18 Tell H. alGhuzlan c KLA27708 542525 43374245 4291 c
27 Tell H. alGhuzlan c Bln5247A 470980 36553342 3500 c
35 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Ham215 4020100 28652293 2260 Scharpenseel et al. 1976, p. 287
36 Shehoret Hill Furnace Remains Rt591 4010150 29102063 2550 Avner et al. 1994
37 Timna S28/2 Mine Bonn2363 400090 28712235 2460 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179
38 Timna S28 c Bonn2362 389070 25702146 2380 c
39 Beer Ora Hill Mine and Smelting Rt1440 347060 19391635 1800 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98
40 Beer Ora Hill c Rt1437 343050 18841622 1670 c
41 Beer Ora Hill c Rt2547 345540 18891669 1740 Segal and Carmi 2004, p. 146
42 Beer Ora Hill c Rt2548 349540 19231695 1790 c
43 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Ham216 334060 17711461 1640 Scharpenseel et al. 1976, p. 287
44 Timna 2 Smelting Camp Bm2382 322050 16151414 1480 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 7172
45 Timna 2 (FuZ) Smelting Camp Pta4121 309060 14961135 1380 c
46 Timna S18 Mine Bonn2359 305070 14911058 1360 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179
47 Timna F2 Furnace Remains Bm1368 303050 14121129 1290 Merkel and Rothenberg 1999, p. 152
146 U. AVNER
No Site Site Type Lab No. B.P. Cal Date (2v) Mean Value Reference
48 Timna 2 c Grn4493 300050 1399157 1250 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 7172
49 Timna 2, Fu4 Furnace H3625(2782) 294050 13671002 1170 c
50 Timna 2 Smelting Camp Pta4123 288060 1261910 1060 c
51 Timna 2 c Bm1115 284051 1192849 1050 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349
52 Timna 2 c Rt5276 312535 14401320 (1v) 1380 Erickson-Gini 2014, Table 1
53 Timna 2 c Rt5277 292035 11201040 (1v) 1120 c
54 Timna 2 c Rt5278 296535 12601130 (1v) 1190 c
55 Timna 2 c Rt5279 296540 12701120 (1v) 1190 c
56 N. {Amram Miners camp Pta4127 292060 1310933 1110 Rothenberg 1990, pp. 7172
58 Timna S27 c Bonn2356 291070 1260916 1080 c
59 Timna 30 Smelting Camp Bm1598 278550 1056815 940 Burleigh and Matthews 1982, p. 165
60 Timna 30 c Bm1162 248035 770416 580 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349
61 Timna 30 c AA86521 287234 11161003 1070 Ben-Yosef 2010, p. 567
62 Timna 30 c AA86517 289339 11291008 1070 c
63 Timna 30 c AA86522 285834 1111943 1030 c
64 Timna 30 c AA84741 285539 1111939 1030 c
65 Timna 30 c AA84739 285250 1112934 1020 c
66 Timna 30 c AA86518 281935 1101921 1010 c
67 Timna 30 c AA86516 285934 1111946 1010 c
68 Timna 30 c AA84740 288238 11241006 1010 c
69 Timna 30 c AA86519 281434 1006921 910 c
70 Timna 30 c AA86520 270535 895816 860 c
71 Timna S28 Mine Bm2361 278090 1209797 890 Conrad and Rothenberg 1980, p. 179
72 Timna 200 Sanctuary Bm1117 277955 1108811 960 Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349
73 Timna 2 Tomb Grn938 265565 979568 810 Not found
75 Yotvata Hill Fortress Rt1550 258050 835539 790 Segal and Carmi 1996, p. 98
76 Yotvata Hill c Rt1549 242050 753339 520 c
77 Timna 39b Furnace Bm1116 1945309 753BC640AD 50 AD Burleigh and Hewson 1979, p. 349
78 Timna 2, Fu1 Furnace Grn4381 135050 640720 AD 670 AD Rothenberg 1990, pp. 7172
79 Timna 2, FuZ Furnace Bm2242 (?)1400100 425867 AD 650 AD
80 Beer Ora Smelting Camp Pta4117 139050 638677 AD 660 AD Rothenberg 1998, p. 4
81 Beer Ora c Pta6158 137020 648672 AD 660 AD Sharon et al. 1996, p. 112
82 Beer Ora c Rt1741 127055 662869 AD 730 AD c
83 Beer Ora c Pta6159 121040 687973 810 c
84 Beer Ora c Rt1742 111545 7821017 AD 970 c
85 Beer Ora c Rt1825 73055 11861392 1290 Avner and Magness 1998, p. 57
86 Beer Ora c Rt1949 115045 773990 890 c
87 Beer Ora c Rt1740 91550 10241215 1090 c
88 Beer Ora c Rt1825 73055 11861392 1290 c
89 N. {Amram Furnace Bm1163 124036 683879 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
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 mtallurgiques du Moyen Empire. Cairo: Institut Franais
dArchologie Orientale.
ABRAMSKI, S.
1954 The Qenites, Eretz Israel 3: 116124.
ADAMS, R.
2000 Cult and Recycling of Metal at the End of the Bronze, in Periplus: Festschrift
fr Hans-Gunter Buchholz (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127), edited by
P. Astrom and D. Surenhagen, pp. 2732. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag.
AHARONI, Y.
1968 Arad: Its Inscriptions and Temple, Biblical Archaeologist 31: 232.
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: 2337,
98111.
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 IsraelCurrent 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. 135140. 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: 121147.
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. 1741. Dubuque, IA: Kendall.
1999 Cult and Recycling of Metal at the End of the Late Bronze Age, in Periplus:
Festschrift fr Hans-Gunter Buchholz (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 127),
edited by P. Astrom and D. Surenhagen, pp. 2731. Jonsered: Paul Astroms Forlag.
2006 The Jatt Metal Hoard in Northern Canaanite/Phoenician and Cypriote Context (Cuad-
ernos de Arqueologa Mediterrnea 14). Barcelona: Laboratorio de Arqueologa 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: 193200.
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: 103104.
1984b Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev and Sinai Deserts, Tel Aviv 11: 115131.
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. 166181. 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,
6th3rd Millennia BC, in Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic
Change, edited by A. Issar and N. Brown, pp. 147202. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2000 Nabataean Standing Stones and Their Interpretation, ARAM 1112: 95120.
2001 Sacred Stones in the Desert, Biblical Archaeology Review 27, no. 3: 3041.
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. 5174. Oxford: Oxbow.
2008 Eilat Region, in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy
Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 5 (Supplementary), pp. 17041711. 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 rcoltes:
un regard sur la diversit du nolitique au prsent. XXIII Reconteres Internationales
dArchologie et dHistorie dAntibes, edited by P. Anderson, L. Cummings, T. Schip-
pers and B. Simonel, pp. 455475. 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. 265300. 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: 3957.
AVNI, G.
2007 From Standing Stones to Open Mosques in the Negev Desert: The Archaeology of
Religious Transformation, Near Eastern Archaeology 70: 124135.
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. 151157. London: British Museum.
BAMBERGER, M., WINCIERZ, P., BACHMANN, H. G. and ROTHENBERG, B.

1986 Ancient Smelting of Oxide Copper Ore, Metall 40: 210.
1988 Mathematical Modeling of Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Smelting of Oxide Copper
Ore, Metall 42: 311.
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
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:
197213.
BEIT-ARIEH, Y.
1985 Serabit El-Khadim: New Metallurgical and Chronological Aspects, Levant 17:
89116.
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: 7794. (In Hebrew.)
BENNETT, A.
1989 The Contribution of Metallurgical Studies to the South-East Asian Archaeology,
World Archaeology 20: 329351.
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. 188196. 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: 3171.
BIMSON, J. and TEBES, J. M.
2009 Timna Revisited: Egyptian Chronology and the Copper Mines of the Southern Ara-
bah, Antiguo Oriente 7: 75118.
BIRAN, A.
1998 Sacred Spaces: Of Standing Stones, High Places and Cult Objects at Tel Dan,
Biblical Archaeology Review 24, no. 5: 3845, 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. 148155. 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. 8690. Oxford: Archaeopress.
BRANDL, B.
1984 A Midianite Bowl from Gezer, Levant 16: 171172.
BREASTED, J. H.
1927 Ancient Records of Egypt. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
150 U. AVNER
BRONK RAMSEY, C.
2008 Deposition Model for Chronological Records, Quaternary Science Review 27:
4260.
BRUINS, H. and VAN DER PLICHT, J.
2007 Radiocarbon Dating the Wilderness of Zin, Radiocarbon 49: 481497.
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. 1531. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.
CERNY, J.
1935 Semites in Egyptian Mining Expeditions to Sinai, Archiv Orientln 7: 384387.
CHAMBON, A.
1984 Tell el Far{ah I. Paris: ditions 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
3435: 7997.
COHEN, E.
1976 The Mystery of Plates in the Timna Crater, Israel Land and Nature 19, no. 4:
1519. (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: 7596.
CONRAD, H. and ROTHENBERG, B.
1980 Antikes Kupfer im Timna-Tal: 4000 Jahre Bergbau und Verhttung in der Arabah
(Israel). Bochum: Bergbau-Museum.
DAVEY, C.
1979 Some Ancient Near Eastern Pot Bellows, Levant 11: 101111.
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. 335346. Leiden: Brill.
DAYTON, J.
1972 Midianite and Edomite Pottery, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 2:
2533.
DE VAUX, R.
1951 La troisime campagne de fouilles Tell el-Farah prs de Naplouse, Revue Biblique
58: 557592.
DEVER, W.
1971 Further Excavations at Gezer 19671971, Biblical Archaeologist 34: 94132.
1972 The Gezer Fortifications and the High Place: An Illustration of Stratigraphic
Methods and Problems, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 105: 6170.
1986 Gezer IV: The 196971 Seasons in Field VI, the Acropolis. Jerusalem: Hebrew
Union College.
DONNER, H. and RLIG, H
19621964 Kanaanische 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. 7481. Jeru-
salem: Hebrew Union College.
DOTHAN, T. and BEN-TOR, A.
1983 Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus, 19711972 (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 MarchMay 2001, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies
23: 2126.
DUNAND, M.
1958 Fouille de Byblos. Vol. 2. 19331938. Paris: A. Maisonneuve.
EISENBERG, E.
1977 The Temples at Tel Kittan, Biblical Archaeology 40: 7781.
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 gyptologique Reine lisabeth.
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/359886
FAUST 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: 135160.
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: 127139.
1989 Is This Solomons Seaport?, Biblical Archaeology Review 15, no. 4: 3043.
FORBES, R.
1950 Metallurgy in Antiquity: A Notebook for Archaeologists and Technologists. Leiden:
Brill.
FRANK, F.
1934 Aus der Araba I, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 57: 191280.
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. 3353. Cairo: Ministry of Culture.
152 U. AVNER
GARDINER, A.
1916 The Egyptian Origin of the Semitic Alphabet, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 3:
116.
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 gypte pharaonique: sources et mtallurgie, Palorient 10, no. 1:
97129.
1985 Le travail du cuivre dans lgypte pharaonique daprs les peintures et les bas-reliefs,
Palorient 11, no. 1: 85100.
GARFINKEL, J.
1987 Burnt Lime Products and Social Implications in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Villages
of the Near East, Palorient 13, no. 1: 6875.
GIVEON, R.
1964 Toponymes ouest-asiatiques Soleb, Vetus Testamentum 14: 239255.
1965 Two Egyptian Documents Concerning Bashan from the Time of Ramses II, Rivista
degli Studi Orientali 40: 197202.
1967 The Shosu of Egyptian Sources and the Exodus, in Proceedings of the Fourth World
Congress of Jewish Studies, pp. 193196. 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. 5053. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies.
1971 Les Bdouins Shosou des documents gyptiens (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis
Antiqui 18). Leiden: Brill.
1972 Egyptian Temples in Canaan, Museum Haaretz Bulletin 14: 2327. (In Hebrew.)
1975 Lady of the Turquoise Hathor at Serabit al Khadim and Timna, Eretz Israel 12:
2426. (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 19591984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 96113.
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: 317.
1938b The Topography and History of Ezion-Geber and Elath, Bulletin of the American
1939 The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber: Elath), Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 75: 822.
1940a The Third Season of Excavation at Tell el-Kheleifeh, Bulletin of the American
1940b Kenites and Kenizzites, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 73: 2224.
1942 The Excavations of Solomons Seaport: Ezion-Geber, The Smithsonian Report for
1941: 453476.
1956 The Fourth Season of Exploration in the Negeb, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 142: 1735.
1957 The Fifth Season of Exploration in the Negeb, Bulletin of the American Schools of
1960 Archaeological Exploration of the Negev in 1959, Bulletin of the American Schools
1961 The Archaeological History of the Negev, Hebrew Union College Annual 32: 1118.
1965 Further Explorations in the Negev, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 179: 629.
1967 Some Edomite Pottery from Tell el-Kheleifeh Bulletin of American Schools of Orien-
tal Research 188: 838.
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:
812.
GRSDORF, 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. 333339. Rahden:
Marie Leidorf.
GOURDIN, W. and KINGERY, W. D.
1975 The Beginnings of Pyrothechnology: Neolithic and Egyptian Lime Plaster, Journal
of Field Archaeology 2: 133150.
GRANT, E.
1929 Beth Shemesh. Haverford, PA: Biblical and Kindred Studies.
1931 Ain Shems excavations (Palestine) 1928192919301931. 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. 143151. Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.
HAUPTMANN, A.
2000 Lime Plaster, Cement and the First Puzzolanic Reaction, Palorient 26, no. 2: 6168.
2007 The Archaeometallurgy of Copper. Berlin: Springer.
HELCK, W.
1962 Die Beziehungen gyptens zu Vorderasien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
1980a Kapellen, in Lexikon der gyptologie III, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto, col. 322
323. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
1980b Kiosk, in Lexikon der gyptologie III, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto, col. 442.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
HELCK, W. and OTTO, E.
1984 Reinigungsgefae, in Lexikon der gyptologie V, edited by W. Helck and E. Otto,
col. 214220. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
HELCK, W. and OTTO, E., eds.
1986 Lexikon der gyptologie, 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. 151181. Beersheba: Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev Press.
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: 134.
HOFFNER, H.
1965 The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered, Revue Hittite et Asianique 23: 516.
IBRAHIM, M. and TALLET, P.
2009 King Den in South-Sinai: The Earliest Monumental Rock Inscriptions of the
Pharaonic Period, Archeo-Nil 19: 179183.
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. 143150. Oxford: Oxbow.
KALSBEEK, J. and LONDON, G.
1978 A Late Second Millennium BC Potting Puzzle, Bulletin of the American Schools of
KAPLAN, J.
1963 Excavations at Benei Beraq, 1951, Israel Exploration Journal 13: 300312.
KEMP, B.
2000 Soil (Including Mud-Brick Architecture), in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Tech-
nology, edited by P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw, pp. 78103. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
KEMPINSKI, A.
1978 On the Architectural Characterization of the Canaanite Temple at Lachish,
Qadmoniot 10: 9596. (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:
219244.
KIRKBRIDE, D.
1968 Beida 1967, An Interim Report, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 100: 9096.
KISLEV, M. E.
1988 Fruit Remains, in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the
{Arabah 19591984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 236241. 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: 7683.
KITCHEN, K.
1964 Some New Light on the Asiatic War of Ramsses II, Orientalia 40: 4770.
1976 A Pre-Ramesside Cartouche at Timna, Orientalia 45: 263264.
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 2931, 2000, edited by W. Dever and S. Gitin, pp. 113132. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
KLIMSCHA, F.
2009 Radiocarbon dates from Prehistoric Aqaba and other Chalcolithic Sites, in Prehis-
toric {Aqaba I (Orient-Archologie), edited by L. Khalil and K. Schmidt, pp. 363
401. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
KNAUF, E.
1993 Review of The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah
19591984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of
Archaeology, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Levant 25: 226228.
KNAUF, E. and LENZEN, C.
1987 Edomite Copper Industry, in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan III,
edited by A. Hadidi, pp. 8387. Amman: Department of Antiquities; London; Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.
LAPP, P.
1964 The 1963 Excavation at Taannek, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 173: 441.
1967 Taanach by the Waters of Megiddo, Biblical Archaeologist 30: 227.
LAUER, J.
1936a La Pyramide Degrs. Vol. 1. LArchitecture: Texte. Cairo: Institut Franais
1936b La Pyramide Degrs. Vol. 2. LArchitecture: Planches. Cairo: Institut Franais
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 19591984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 241246. London: Institute for
Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology, University College London.
LEVENE, D.
1998 Expedition to {Atika, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies: 20: 1013.
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. 147176. 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: 247277.
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. 6389. 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. 197214. Oxford: Oxbow.
LEVY, T. E., HIGHAM, T., BRONK RAMSEY, C., SMITH, N., BEN-YOSEF, E., ROBINSON, M., MNGER, 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: 1646016465.
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: 546550.
LEVY, T. E., NAJJAR, M., MUNIZ, A., MALENA, S., MONROE, E., BEHEREC, M., SMITH, N., HIGHAM, T.,
MNGER, 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: 443487.
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 24:38 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. 342350. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
LIPSCHITZ, O. and NUSSBAUMER, A.
1972 Egyptian Rock Engraving Discovered in Timna Valley, Teva Vaaretz 14: 218221.
(In Hebrew.)
LOUD, G.
1948 Megiddo II: Seasons of 193539. 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: 91130.
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: 645.
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: 37773792.
MAZAR, A.
1982 The Bull Site: An Iron Age I Open Cult Place, Bulletin of the American Schools of
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. 136159. 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: 140.
MAZAR, B.
1965 The Sanctuary of Arad and the Family of Hobab the Kenite, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 24: 297303.
1981 Yahweh Came Out from Sinai, in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times,
edited by A. Biran, pp. 59. Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeol-
ogy, Jewish Institute of Religion.
1982 Ba{al Samem and El Qoneh, Eretz Israel 16: 135133. (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. 125128.
Sheffield: JSOT Press.
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:
164169.
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 19591984, 2), edited by B. Rothen-
berg, pp. 78122. 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. 7987. 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. 149165. 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. 15171520. 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. 283300. 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: 858859.
MUSIL, A.
1908 Arabia Petraea, Vol. 2. Vienna: A. Hoelder.
MUSSELL, M.-L.
2000 Tell el-Kheleifeh, American Journal of Archaeology 104: 56.
NAAMAN, N.
1992 Israel, Edom and Egypt in the 10th Century B.C.E., Tel Aviv 19: 7193.
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. 149176. 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: 193242.
PERROT, J.
1955 The Excavations at Tell Abu Matar, Near Beersheba, Israel Exploration Journal 5:
1740, 7384, 167189.
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: 137145.
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: lexemple de
Ouadi Dara (Dsert Oriental dgypte), in Lor dans lAntiquit, de la mine lobjet:
Actes du Colloque International de Limoges 2004 (Aquitania, supplment 9), edited by
B. Cauuet, pp. 131144. Bordeaux: ditions 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: 537575.
PUSCH, E.
1990 Metalverarbeitende Werkstatten der Fruhen Ramessidenzeit in QantirPiramesse/
Nord, gypten und Levante I: 75113.
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. 121132. 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: 727.
RAINEY, A.
2008 Shasu or Habiru: Who were the Early Israelites?, Biblical Archaeology Review 34,
no. 6: 5156.
REDFORD, D. B.
1982 A Bronze Age Itinerary in Transjordan (Nos. 89101 of Thutmose III List of Asiatic
Toponyms), Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 12: 5574.
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. 101119. 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: 565.
1967 Negev. Ramat Gan: Massada. (In Hebrew.)
1969 The Egyptian Temple of Timna, Illustrated London News 255, no. 6800: 2829.
1970a An Egyptian Temple of Hathor Discovered in the Southern {Arabah (Israel),
Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 12: 2835.
1970b An Egyptian Temple at the Solomon Pillars, Israel Land and Nature 12: 8389.
(In Hebrew.)
1970c An Egyptian Temple for the Goddess Hathor in the Southern {Arabah, Bulletin
Museum Ha}aretz 12: 2025. (In Hebrew.)
1971 Midianite Timna: British Museum Catalogue of Exhibition. London: Thames and
Hudson and the British Museum.
1972a Timna: Valley of Biblical Copper Mines. London: Thames and Hudson.
1972b Sinai, Exploration 19671972, Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 14: 3146.
1974 Sinai Exploration III, Bulletin Museum Ha}aretz 1516: 1634.
1978 Timna, in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4, edited
by M. Avi-Yonah and E. Stern, pp. 11841203. Jerusalem: Massada Press.
1979 Sinai: Pharaohs, Miners, Pilgrims and Soldiers. Bern: Kmmerly and Frey.
1983 A Rock-Cut Copper Smelting Furnace in the Timna Valley, Historical Metallurgy
17: 116119.
1984 The Miners Temple in Timna Valley, in IsraelPeople and Land, edited by R. Zeevi,
pp. 85122. 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. 123149. London: British Museum. (In Hebrew.)
1987 Pharaonic Copper Mines in South Sinai, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies
10, no. 11: 17.
1988a ed. The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna (Researches in the {Arabah 19591984, 1).
1988b Early Islamic Copper Smeltingand Worshipat Beer Ora, Southern {Arabah
(Israel), Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 12: 14.
1990 ed. The Ancient Metallurgy of Copper: Archaeology-Experiment-Theory (Researches
in the {Arabah 19591984, 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. 15871599. 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. 14751486. 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. 145. 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. 197212. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau-Museum.
1999a Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern {Arabah 19591990, Part 1: Late
Pottery Neolithic to Early Bronze Age IV, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 131:
6889.
1999b Archaeo-Metallurgical Researches in the Southern {Arabah 19591990, Part 2:
Egyptian New Kingdom (Ramesside) to Early Islam, Palestine Exploration Quarterly
131: 149175.
1999c Was Copper Smelted in Ancient Temples? More About Crucible Smelting,
PALLAS 50: 161172.
2001 Rock Drawings in the Ancient Copper Mines of the {Arabah: New Aspects of the
Regions History, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 21: 49.
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: 914.
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. 65124. Sheffield: JSOT Press.
160 U. AVNER
ROTHENBERG, B. and MERKEL, J.

1995 Late Neolithic Copper Smelting in the {Arabah, Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical
Studies 19: 17.
1998 Chalcolithic, 5th Millennium BC, Copper Smelting at Timna, Institute for Archaeo-
Metallurgical Studies 20: 13.
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: 1728.
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: 49.
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: 268289.
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: 117128.
1988 Catalogue of the Egyptian finds, in The Egyptian Mining Temple at Timna
(Researches in the {Arabah 19591984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 114147.
SCHUMACHER, G.
1908 Tell el Mutesellim I. Leipzig: Haupt.
SEGAL, D. and CARMI, I.
1996 Rehovot Radiocarbon Date List V, {Atiqot 29: 79106.
2004 Rehovot Radiocarbon date List VI, {Atiqot 48: 123148.
SELLIN, E.
1905 Eine Nachlese auf dem Tell Taannek (Palstina 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: 107114.
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. 114. 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 19591984, 1), edited by B. Rothenberg, pp. 224
231. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeology,

University College London.
SNAPE, S.
1984, 1). London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies, Institute of Archaeol-
ogy, University College London, by B. Rothenberg. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
77: 207208.
SOMAGLINO, C. and TALLET, P.
2011 Une mystrieuse route sud-orientale sous le rgne de Ramss III, Bulletin de lInstitut
franais darchologie orientale 111: 361369.
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. Frster
and H. Riemer, pp. 511518. Kln: Heinrich Barth Institut.
STADELMANN, R.
1967 Syrisch-Palstinensische Gottheiten in gypten. 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. 301304. Leuven: Peeters.
TALLET, P.
2013 La zone minire pharaonique du Sud-Sina I. Catalogue complmentaire des inscrip-
tions du Sina (MIFAO 130). Cairo: Institut franais darchologie orientale.
TALLET, P., CASTEL, G. and FLUZIN, P.
2011 Metallurgical sites of South Sinai (Egypt) in the Pharaonic Era: New Discoveries,
Palorient 37, no. 2: 7989.
TALLET, P. and LAISNEY, D.
2012 Iry-Hor et Narmer au Sud-Sina (Ouadi {Ameyra): un complment la chronolo-
gie des expditions minires gyptiennes, Bulletin de lInstitut franais darchologie
orientale 112: 381398.
TEBES, J. M.
2003 A New Analysis of the Iron Age I Chiefdom of Tell Masos (Beersheba Valley),
Aula Orientalis 21: 6378.
2007 Pottery Makers and Premodern Exchange in the Fringe of Egypt: An Approximation
to the Distribution of Iron Age Pottery, Buried History 43: 1126.
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: 317336.
TUFNELL, O., INGE, C. and HARDING, G. L.
1940 Lachish II. London: Oxford University Press.
USSISHKIN, D.
1978 Excavations at Tel Lachish, 19731977: Preliminary Report, Tel Aviv 5: 197.
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, Palorient 30, no. 1: 101148.
VASSILIEV, A.
2006 The Localization of the Shasu-Land of Ramses IIs Rhetorical Texts, in Current
Research in Egyptology 2006: Proceedings of The Seventh Annual Symposium, edited by
M. Cannata, pp. 162168. Oxford: Oxbow.
VENTURA, R.
1974 An Egyptian Rock Stela in Timna, Tel Aviv 1: 6063.
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. 321331. 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:
3560.
162 U. AVNER
WEINSTEIN, J.
1981 The Egyptian Empire in Palestine: A Reassessment, Bulletin of the American Schools
1984, 1), by B. Rothenberg. London: Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies,
Institute of Archaeology, University College London. American Journal of Archaeology
96: 171172.
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 1516: 1215.
1991 Ancient Copper Mining at Wadi {Amram, Israel: An Archaeological Survey,
Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society 11: 109138.
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. 10651106.
Jerusalem: Magnes.
1998 (No) More Egyptian Temples in Canaan and Sinai, in Jerusalem Studies in Egyp-
tology, edited by I. Shirun-Grumach, pp. 87123. 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: 112.
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: 2739.
Uzi AVNER
The Dead Sea-{Arava Science Center
The {Arava Institute for Environmental Studies
Patio 655, Eilat 88000, Israel
uzi@adssc.org
View publication stats

Avner Timna 14

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Avner Timna 14

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See

Egyptian Timna- Reconsidered

Conference Paper January 2014

Ancient Desert Cultures View project

UNEARTHING THE WILDERNESS

Juan Manuel TEBES

WILDERNESS AND BEYOND

Socio-Economic Fluctuations and Chiefdom Formation in Edom, the Negev and

Timna Site 2 Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Appendix: XRF Study of Archaeological and Metallurgical Material from Copper

Egyptian Timna Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

EDOM OVER THE BORDER

Edomite Pottery in Judah in the Eighth Century BCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Local Production of Edomite Cooking Pots in the Beersheba Valley: Petrographic

THE EGYPTIAN SANCTUARY

The sanctuarys general stratigraphy

Stratigraphy of the naos

RESTORATION AND PROBES IN THE SANCTUARY

In 1984 the team at the Timna Park asked me to conduct a preservation-restoration

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

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

ALTERNATIVE STRATIGRAPHY AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE

Phase 7 The construction of Walls 13 surrounding the courtyard. According to my

THE TIMNA SANCTUARY COMPARED TO EGYPTIAN TEMPLES

Sanctuary planning and design

EGYPTIAN MINES AND SMELTERS IN TIMNA VALLEY

Fig. 12. Mine S10, third millennium BCE, cylindrical shaft

Fig. 13. Mine 25, an advanced shaft, second millennium BCE,

THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE TIMNA COPPER PLANT

DESERT PEOPLE AND EGYPTIANS

Pottery types and peoples

Following the above discussion, here is a suggested historical-social scenario addressing

The desert people

ABD EL-RAZIQ,M., CASTEL, G., TALLET, P. and FLUZIN, P.

BAMBERGER, M., WINCIERZ, P., BACHMANN, H. G. and ROTHENBERG, B.

HERZOG, Z., AHARONI, M., RAINEY, A. F. and MOSHKOVITZ, S.

ROTHENBERG, B. and MERKEL, J.

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

View publication stats

Вам также может понравиться