Some Anomalies in David M. Rohl's Chronological Re-dating of Archaeological
Time Periods and His Attempted Synchronizations with Biblical Scenarios
(Utilizing the Book of 1 Samuel)
Please click here for this website's most important article: Why the Bible Cannot be the Word of God.
For Christians visiting this website _my most important article_ is:
"The Reception of God's Holy Spirit: How the Hebrew Prophets _contradict_ Christianity's Teachings" Please click here.
11 January 2003
Revisions through 23 November 2008
David Rohl has proposed a "re-dating" of various archaeological time periods. His re-dating scheme has attracted quite a following of individuals who have attempted to use Rohl's re-dating to synchronize archaeological data with the biblical scenarios. His re-dating has been met with some welcome by those who are disturbed to learn archaeology contradicts the Bible, for they perceive that the archaeological anomalies melt away with this "re-dating," confirming Holy Writ.
The generally accepted dating of archaeological time periods by mainstream Liberal scholarship will be abbreviated to GAD (Generally Accepted Date).
Rohl's re-dating faces numerous problems when employed in an attempt to "synchronize" biblical scenarios with the archeological data. It is not the intent of this brief article to "cover in-depth" every single aspect in detail, I am about focusing in on a selected number of anomalies that undermine "sincere misguided attempts" to use Rohl's re-dating proposals to establish biblical
Rohl understands that Solomon is a Late Bronze Age King. It logically follows that as Saul and David preceded Solomon to the throne that they must date to the Late Bronze Age as well.
The Bible tells us that Saul came to power when Israel was being oppressed by Philistines. The GAD for the Philistines arrival is 1175 BCE or Iron I (the GAD for Iron I being 1200-1000 BCE).
Rohl has argued that the Pelest arriving in Canaan in Pharaoh Rameses III's days are not the Philistines of Abraham's days. We will put aside this argument as it is not germane to the discussion at hand.
What is germane is Rohl's notion that Saul, David and Solomon are Late Bronze Age monarchs. It follows that if he is correct that there should be archaeological data to confirm his proposal. If the data contradicts the proposal, then it has be "re-thought-out."
Darrell Pursiful, Ph.D., Pastor of the First Baptist Church at Salem, Indiana and an Adjunct Professor at Mercer University, noted that Rohl has King Saul being a contemporary of Pharaoh Akhenaten, who in the Conventional Chronology is a Late Bronze Age monarch reigning circa 1350-1334 B.C., the Late Bronze Age ending circa 1200 B.C., but under Rohl's "New Chronology" schema Akhenaten reigns circa 1023-1007 B.C. The Conventional Chronology understands that the Philistines are the "Pelest" (part of a coalition of "Sea peoples" possessing Myceanean-Greek style pottery) who invaded Canaan and Egypt circa 1175 B.C. _in the Iron Age_, in the reign of Pharaoh Rameses III (reigned: 1182-1151 B.C.)
"In Rohl's chronology, Saul's reign coincides with that of Akhenaton in Egypt (1023-1007, EE 274). This places Saul in the midst of the Amarna period, in which Egypt suffered under weak leaders. It was an ideal time for the Israelites to finally throw off the yoke of the Philistines and assert their independence. If it were possible to assume a span of several years between Saul's anointing and the "renewal" of the kingship at Gilgal (1 Sa 11:14), it would allow for a reign longer than two years--which would seem to be impossible to square with the very busy narrative of Saul's exploits--and bring Saul's open rebellion against the Philistines by (re-)taking Michmash and Gibeah into the period of Akhenaton's rule from his new city, Akhetaton, which begins about his eighth regnal year (ca. 1016 in Rohl's chronology)."
Pursiful also noted that a Jeremy Goldberg in papers on the internet (?) titled “Centuries of Darkness and Egyptian Chronology: Another Look” proposed a down-dating for Pharaoh Rameses II, aligning him with King Saul as a contemporary. In the Conventional Dating Rameses II is dated circa 1279-1212 B.C., Goldberg dates him 1075-1009 B.C., in effect, Goldberg is making a Late Bronze Age monarch (Late Bronze ending 1200 B.C.) a contemporary of Saul who, in the Conventional Chronolgy is _not_ a Late Bronze Age ruler, but an Iron Age monarch (Iron Age I beginning circa 1200 B.C.).
Pursiful on Goldberg:
"King Saul ends up being possibly a friendly vassal of Ramesses II (r. 1075-1009)."
(cf. Darrell Pursiful, Ph.D., "Ancient Chronology: The Goldberg Variations")
We learn from the book of Samuel, that this prophet "judged Israel all the days of his life" by traversing a circuit which included several places, Bethel, Gilgal, Mizpah and Ramah, the latter being his home (1Sam 7:15). We are informed that Samuel summoned Israel together at Mizpah and defeated a Philistine attempt to penetrate Israelite territory (1 Sam 7:7-11). Later, we are informed the people want a king to rule over them to effectively organize them to withstand future Philistine encroachments. Samuel is portrayed as summoning the people to Mizpah and presenting to them their new king, Saul (1 Sam 10:17-25).
Later we are informed of a Philistine invasion, they have successfully run Saul and his troops out of Michmash and now occupy it. Jonathan at Gibeah, defeats a Philistine garrison at Geba, and eventually occupies it to monitor the Philistines across the way at Michmash (1 Sam 13:2-3; 16). We are informed that Michmash is situated on a pass overlooking a gorge, and that there were two rocky crags in this valley or gorge called Bozez and Seneh, the former before Michmash the latter before Geba, to the south of Michmash (1 Sam 14:1-6). Jonathan eventually succeeds in routing the Philistine forces which flee westwards from Michmash to Aijalon (1 Sam 14:31).
If Rohl is correct about Solomon being a Late Bronze Age king, then we should expect to find evidence that ALL of these places, not just SOME of these places, existed in Late Bronze Age times of Samuel and Saul.
Unfortunately for Rohl, the archaeological data contradicts his notion that Saul and David are Late Bronze Age kings.
Between 1982 and 1986, for four consecutive years, exhaustive archaeological "surface surveys," -collecting shards from the topsoil- were undertaken by the Israeli Antiquities Authority to establish the archeological occupational parameters for most of the sites within the tableland of the former tribal territory of Benjamin (the survey did not explore the area of Jericho and the Arabah). The data has been collated and published. I must observe here, with some surprise and consternation, that Rohl and the scholars he has gathered about him to champion his re-dating and synchronization efforts, are apparently ignorant of this very important survey, for had they studied it they would have realized the impossibility of Saul and David being Late Bronze Age kings!
The source I am using is:
Israel Finkelstein & Yitzhak Magen, Editors. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993. ISBN 965-406-007-8.
A highly detailed removable map is provided with the book, of a scale of 1:50,000, dated 1993. All sites investigated within Benjamin (the high-tableland, not Jericho) are marked by numbers which are then explained in some detail as to what the occupancy levels are. The Periods run from Chalcolithic (Stone Age) to the Ottoman Period. The map has been broken down by a series of schematic map grids plotting each site by a number for each period on pp. 440-465. One will quickly note that a map for Late Bronze Age sites is missing from the listing.
pp. 440-441, Map 1,"Chalcolthic Period"
pp. 442-443, Map 2, "Early Bronze Age"
pp..444-445, Map 3 "Middle Bronze Age I"
pp. 446-447, Map 4 "Middle Bronze Age"
pp. 448-449, Map 5 "Iron Age I"
pp. 450-451, Map 6 "Iron Age II"
pp. 452-453 Map 7 "Persian Period"
pp. 454-455, Map 8 "Hellenistic Period"
pp. 456-457, Map 9, "Roman Period"
Israel Finkelstein explains the "absence" of Late Bronze Age sites in this survey:
"However Late Bronze Age sites are virtually absent not only in my own southern Samaria survey, but also in the surveys which have been carried out in the Galilee (Frankel 1994; Gal 1992:56), in the the hill country north of Jerusalem (Finkelstein and Magen 1993) and in the Judaean hills (Ofer 1994). In all these regions, which were surveyed by different teams, hundreds of survey days have revealed very little evidence for sedentary sites of this period, and almost no evidence for non-sedentary activity."
(p. 25. "The Archaeology of Nomads, Survey Methods." Israel Finkelstein. Living on the Fringe, the Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield, England. Sheffield Academic Press. 1995, 2001)
The following sites were listed in Israel Finkelstein & Yitzhak Magen, Editors. Archaeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin (Jerusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993) as possessing Late Bronze Age sherds:
Bethel, modern Beitin, Survey No. 82:17, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Intermediary Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze Age II, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 21).
Qaluniya, ruin of an Arab village, Survey No. 291:16, Late Bronze, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 44).
Gibeon, modern el-Jib, Survey No. 315:16, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman. Note: No Late Bronze was found within the city, but LB was found in the cemeteries: Early Bronze, Intermediary Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron II (p. 46).
The following sites -all of whom are mentioned in the biblical narratives about Michmash, Samuel, Saul and Jonathan- possess Iron Age I debris:
Michmash, modern Mukhmas, Survey No. 223:17 Middle Bronze, Iron I*, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic. *Special note, only Iron II was found at the site of Mukhmas. Iron I and II was found at nearby khirbet el-Hara el-Fauqa, so the two sites have been combined to reflect an Iron I presence (p. 36).
(cf. also p. 814. Vol. 4. Patrick M. Arnold, "Michmash." David Noel Freedman. Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday and Company.1992)
Gibeon (el-Jib) Survey No.315:16, Early Bronze, Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman. Note: While no Late Bronze Age debris is attested in Gibeon which was excavated, a few Late Bronze Age burials were found in nearby re-used Middle Bronze Tombs (p. 46).
Geba (across from and south of Michmash) called today Jaba , Survey No. 206:17, Iron I, Iron II, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 35). (cf. also map of the area in ABD 1.1008, Patrick M. Arnold, "Gibeah," 1992).
Ramah (where Samuel lived) today called er-Ram, Survey No. 188:17, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 33).
Mizpah (where Samuel assembled Israel to see Saul their new king) today called Tell en-Nasbeh Survey No. 175:17, Chalcolthic, Early Bronze I, Early Bronze II, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 31).
Upper Beth-Horon, today called Beit `Ur el-Fauqa, Survey No. 28:16, Middle Bronze, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Roman (p. 16).
Upper Beth-Horon, or Beit `Ur el-Fauqa, Survey No. 143:16, Iron II, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 28).
Lower Beth-Horon, Bet `Ur et-Tahta No. 22:15. Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 15).
Ai, called today et-Tell, Survey No. 92:17, Early Bronze, Iron I (p. 22).
Bethel, called today Beitin, Survey No. 82:17, Chalcolithic, Early Bronze, Intermediary Bronze, Middle Bronze, Late Bronze II, Iron I, Iron II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman (p. 21).
I note some errors in this survey which eluded the proof-readers. According to Peterson, Upper Beth-Horon (Beit `Ur el-Foqa`) was founded in the Late Bronze Age, while Lower Beth-Horon (Beit et-Tahta) was founded in Iron II. (cf. p. 689. Vol. 1. John L. Peterson."Beth-Horon." David Noel Freedman. Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday and Company. 1992).
Gibeon possesses no Late Bronze Age remains (it was excavated by Pritchard in 1961, but a few nearby burials exist of the Late Bronze, cf. ABD 2.1010, P.M. Arnold, "Gibeon" 1992).
I am puzzled by the absence of a Late Bronze Age Grid map for the Finkelstein and Magen 1993 Benjamin Hill Country Survey which should have appeared on pp. 448-449 where an Iron Age I map appears, perhaps this was because there were so few Late Bronze Age finds or perhaps the editors and or proof-readers _accidentally overlooked_ the _three_ Late Bronze Age sites which _were listed_, Beitin (p. 21), Qaluniya (p. 44), and Gibeon (p. 46)?
An extensive Late Bronze Age presence in the tableland of Benjamin, as suggested by the biblical narratives of Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon is not supported by the archaeological data. The area is almost devoid of human settlement in Late Bronze Age times.
Of some 544 sites surveyed, only two possess undisputable Late Bronze Age debris, Bethel (Beitin) Survey No. 82:17 and Qaluniya Survey No. 291:16; While the other two sites are in dispute or doubtful, Gibeon Survey No. 315:16 (No LBA in the excavated city, only in a couple of re-used MBA tombs) and Upper Beth-Horon (if Peterson is correct, his statement contradicting the findings of the survey).
I am amazed that Rohl can seriously present Solomon ruling over such a "wasteland," only 4 sites out of 544 surveyed having Late Bronze Age occupation for his Late Bronze Age monarchs: Saul, David and Solomon.
Mainstream Liberal biblical scholarship understands that based on the archaeological record, that Iron Age I is the settling of the land by Israel with small agrarian communities or farmsteads and villages ca. 1200-1000 BCE. Then in Iron II, 1000-587 BCE, many of the agrarian settlements are abandoned and the region becomes urbanized with fortified cities.
It is quite clear that Joshua did not lead 600,000 or even 600 or 60 Israelite warriors on a blitzkrieg conquest of the Holy Land, ending Late Bronze Age Canaan. If he had, then there would be Late Bronze settlements everywhere in the territory of Benjamin. Israel entered a nearly empty land at the end of the Late Bronze Age as far as the Benjaminite plateau is concerned. Rohl, however, maintains that mainstream archaeologists are in error, Joshua's conquests are to be dated to the end of Middle Bronze II (which, nevertheless makes Saul, David and Solomon Late Bronze Age kings).
Rohl has not won many "professional" scholars over to his notion of Saul, David and Solomon being Late Bronze Age kings. His success has been with a public _unaware_ that archaeological findings contradict his scenarios (his revised chronology).
Mizpah, Ramah, Michmash and Geba which appear in the narratives about Saul,
Samuel and Jonathan, DO NOT POSSESS LATE BRONZE AGE DEBRIS, but all of them do possess Iron Age sherds. The archaeological convergence on all of these sites existing at about the same time is the Iron Age, not the Late Bronze Age. They thus "conform" archaeologically to the story of Jonathan and Saul routing the Philistines (who arrived in Canaan ca. 1175 BCE) from Michmash (1 Samuel 13 & 14).
Several "critiques" of Rohl's "New Chronology" by scholars exist on the internet here are a few:
Some viewers may have an interest in observations made by Dr. Bryant Wood (trained in Archaeology) "contra" Rohl's Chronology, noting several "archaeological anomalies."
Dr. Bryant Wood:
"David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology : A View from Palestine"
Those with an interest in the archaeological anomalies which indicate TO MAINSTREAM SCHOLARSHIP why the bible is "unreliable" for history as portrayed in Genesis through Joshua, are invited to click on the following url which will take you to articles noting further problems -.
Mizpeh is generally identified with Tell en-Nasbeh. Archaeologists have excavated the site and have determined a presence there in the Late Chalcolithic through Early Bronze Age. The site appears to have been abandoned after that period and not reoccupied until Iron I ca. the 11th-10th centuries BCE. What is of interest, is that Philistine sherds were found at the site, suggesting their possible presence for some scholars, who would date their appearance there in the 12th century, which corresponds with the Philistine arrival and settlement in Canaan ca. 1174 BCE in Pharaoh Ramesses III's days. The ABSENCE OF MIDDLE BRONZE AND LATE BRONZE DEBRIS at Mizpah/Nasbeh suggests that Rohl's proposed "New Chronology" IS NOT SUPPORTED, in that the Bible is adamant that Saul was crowned king at Mizpeh by Samuel within the context of wars with the Philistines. The presence of Philistine wares at Mizpeh/Nasbeh appears to support the Iron Age alignment with the Biblical events, NOT Rohl's Late Bronze Age as the world of Saul, David and Solomon.
Negev and Gibson on Mizpeh/Nasbeh:
"The earliest traces of occupation go back to the Late Chalcolithic period and to the early phases of the Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000 BC). Although no building remains were discovered, pottery found in the tombs and dwelling caves provide evidence of settlement. The main occupation of the site was in the Iron Age...The earliest settlement belongs to the 11th-10th centuries BC although PHILISTINE SHERDS found on the site may indicate an occupation in the previous century. To the Iron II town belongs a rather frail wall of rubble 3 feet thick. In about 900 BC this wall was replaced by a formidable system of fortifications."
(pp.361-362. "Nasbeh, Tell en-". Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson. Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York. Continuum Press. 2001)
Avi-Yonah and Stern on Mizpah (Tel en-Nasbeh):
"End of Chalcolithic Period- Beginning of Early Bronze Age. No architectural remains whatsoever were discovered on the mound from these periods. The only evidence of occupation were the sherds found scattered over the surface of the site and in the caves...Most of the other finds are from the Early Bronze Age I, while some isolated objects can be ascribed to Early Bronze Age II. After an interruption of about two thousand years, the site was re-occupied at the beginning of the Iron Age, in the 11th century BC."
(Vol. 3. p.914. M. Broshi. "Nasbeh, Tel En-." Michael Avi-Yonah & Ephraim Stern. Editors. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1977)
1 Samuel 7:5-14 (RSV)
"Then Samuel said, Gather all Israel at Mizpah, andI will pray to the Lord for you. So they gathered at Mizpah...and Samuel judged the people of Israel at Mizpah. Now then the Philistines heard that the people of Israel had gathered at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel...Samuel cried to the Lord for Israel and the Lord answered him. As Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to attack Israel; but the Lord thundered with a mighty voice that day against the Philistines and threw them into confusion, and they were routed before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and smote them, as far as below Beth-car. Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Jeshanah, and he called its name Ebenezer, for he said, Hithero the Lord has helped us. So the Philistines were subdued and did not again enter the territory of Israel."
1 Samuel 10:17- (RSV)
"Now Samuel called the people together to the Lord at Mizpah; and he said to the people of Israel...You have this day rejected your God...set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes and your thousands."
Responses From Critics of this article:
A member of Rohl's organization, Richard Abbott, having reviewed the above arguments made a response to this article of mine, to the effect of that most of the 544 sites had not been excavated to bedrock or even excavated, they were merely surface surveys. Thus the posibility still existed that these sites might be of the Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze eras. He is correct in noting that surface surveys can be misleading, and that on occasion, when a later excavation has been conducted, sometimes earlier debris appear in the deeper strata. Mizpeh and Gibeon (Tell en-Nasbeh and el-Jib) however, have been subjected to excavations down to bedrock and they did NOT have Late Bronze Age debris or structures.
A clever argument from another critic of this article was that the archaeologists did not find the required structures and debris of a given period because later builders, cleared the site to bedrock to build later structures. Archaeologists, however, are well acquainted with this phenomena, and search the perimeters of a Tell to locate the earlier debris in rubbish tips or dumps. If earlier debris is found then the site is given the benefit of the doubt and classed as being occupied in an earlier period, so this argument is flawed.
David Rohl understands that King Saul is Laba'yu of Shechem, a "mayor" appearing in the Amarna letters to Pharaoh Akhenaten (ca. 1350-1334 BCE). Dr. Bryant G. Wood has noted a number of "contradictions" or "incongruities" vis-a-vis the biblical description of Saul versus Laba'yu, suggesting Rohl is in error.
Bryant G. Wood:
"According to Rohl's correlation, Labayu, king of Shechem in the Amarna period, is one and the same as Saul of the Bible (205-19). There is not one iota of similarity in the careers of these two individuals. Several examples will suffice. Saul's capital was at Gibeah (1 Sm 10:26), as opposed to Shechem, the capital of Labayu. Gibeah is located at either Tell el-Ful or Geba (Arnold 1992). In either case, there was no occupation in the LB IIA period to match Rohl's dating of Saul to this time frame. Labayu was an Egyptian vassal. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that Saul was an Egyptian vassal. Labayu was taken captive to be escorted to Egypt for his rowdy behavior. He managed to extricate himself from the predicament by bribing his captors. The Bible records no such thing for Saul. Labayu eventually died at the hands of his fellow vassals (Campbell 1965: 198-200), whereas Saul died on Mt. Gilboa fighting the Philistines (1 Sm 31).
The men of David fought the men of Ish-Bosheth, son of Saul, at the pool of Gibeon (2 Sm 2:12-17). That pool has been excavated and it has been determined that it was built in the Iron Age I, not the LB IIA period as required by Rohl's reckoning (Pritchard 1961: 22-23). Rohl finds the names of the Biblical figures Jesse, David, Joab, Ishbaal, and Baanah in Amarna Letter 256 (222, 228-29). This letter was written to Yanhamu, an Egyptian commissioner in Gaza. There is no hint in the Bible that David was in vassalage to Egypt or had any dealings with the Egyptians. Moreover, Gaza was not under the control of the Egyptians in David's day, but rather the Philistines and later the Israelites (2 Sm 8:1). (Bryant G. Wood. "David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View from Palestine." http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/rohl.html)
Of interest, in addition to Bryant's above observations about the "incongruities" between Saul and Laba`yu, is a comment made by Professor Clay back in 1919, to the effect that in his day (and the same holds true today), NO INSCRIPTIONS EXISTED ATTESTING TO HEBREW AS A LANGUAGE BEING IN EXISTENCE IN THE 2d MILLENNIUM BCE, he noting that a number of nations were employing Akkadian (Babylonian) cuneiform as a syllabary or writing medium, but that one could detect the local language being represented by this foreign medium. Of special interest here, is that although Clay was well acqainted with the Amarna correspondence, written on clay tablets from mayors of Canaan, including Laba`yu, NO HEBREW LANGUAGE EXISTED!
If Rohl is correct in asserting Saul is Laba`yu, why is Laba`yu writing in a Canaanite dialect and NOT IN HEBREW dialect?
Professor Clay (Emphasis mine):
"There are many Hebrew words in the Amarna letters. Some (aside from the personal names) are found in the Cappadocian and other tablets written in the Babylonian language, BUT NOT A SINGLE TABLET KNOWN TO THE WRITER CAN BE SAID TO BE WRITTEN IN HEBREW IN THE BABYLONIAN SCRIPT OR SYLLABARY. Let us repeat. Other peoples, like the Hittites, Mitannians, and Vannic peoples used the Babylonian syllabary for their languages. This was known throughout Amurru, of which we have much evidence. WHY IS IT THAT NOT A SINGLE TABLET HAS BEEN FOUND AS YET IN PALESTINE, MESOPOTAMIA, OR BABYLONIA WRITTEN IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE?"
(p. 64. Albert T. Clay. The Empire of the Amorites. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1919)
Shlomo Izre`el noted that ALL of the Amarna letters from Canaan reveal a "Canaanite vernacular" being spoken, apparently he is unaware of any Amarna letters from Laba`yu revealing Hebrew being spoken (Emphasis mine):
"In general, the farther south in Canaan an Amarna letter originated, the more remote is its language from Akkadian, and the closer it is to the CANAANITE VERNACULAR of that region."
(p. 2418. Vol.4. Shlomo Izre`el. "The Armarna Letters From Canaan." Jack M. Sasson. Editor. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995, 2000. 4 vols in two books)
As noted above, Goldberg argued that Saul was a contemporary of the Late Bronze Age Pharaoh Rameses II. The foregoing archaeological data reveals that this proposal is _not_ supported. The majority of the sites mentioned in the Saul vs. Philistines narratives of the book of Samuel have almost _no_ Late Bronze Age debris but in the Iron Age, _all_ of them are occupied. Thus the Conventional Chronology is supported by the archaeological findings (Saul being listed as an Iron Age king, _not_ a Late Bronze Age monarch) and Rohl's and Goldberg's redating efforts making Saul a Late Bronze King are _not_ supported by the tells found in the high tableland of Benjamin.
Patrick M. Arnold. "Michmash." p. 814. Vol. 4. David Noel Freedman. Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday and Company.1992.
M. Broshi. "Nasbeh, Tel En-." Vol. 3. p.914. Michael Avi-Yonah & Ephraim Stern. Editors. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1977
Albert T. Clay. The Empire of the Amorites. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1919.
Israel Finkelstein & Yitzhak Magen, Editors. Archaeological Survey of the
Hill Country of Benjamin. Jerusalem. Israel Antiquities Authority. 1993.
Israel Finkelstein. p. 25. "The Archaeology of Nomads, Survey Methods." Living on the Fringe, the Archaeology and History of the Negev, Sinai and Neighboring Regions in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Sheffield, England. Sheffield Academic Press. 1995, 2001.
David Noel Freedman, Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 Volumes. New
York. Doubleday. 1992. (This work is famous for its coverage of archaeology illuminating biblical texts and places. I reccomend it for those wanting to verify statements I have made)
Shlomo Izre`el. "The Armarna Letters From Canaan." p. 2418. Vol.4. Jack M. Sasson. Editor. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Peabody, Mass. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995, 2000. 4 vols in two books.
Avraham Negev & Shimon Gibson. pp.361-362. "Nasbeh, Tell en-". Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York. Continuum Press. 2001.
John L. Peterson. "Beth-Horon." p. 689. Vol. 1. David Noel Freedman. Editor. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York. Doubleday and Company. 1992.
Urls cited :
Darrell Pursiful, Ph.D., on Rohl's King Saul being a contemporary of the Late Bronze Age Pharaoh Akhenaten and _not_ being an Iron Age monarch:
Darrell Pursiful, Ph.D., "Ancient Chronology: The Goldberg Variations." The Late Bronze Age Pharaoh Rameses II being a contemporary of King Saul, making Saul a Late Bronze Age monarch, _not_ an Iron Age Monarch: