inely built gates and related architecture have been found at Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor and associated with 1 Kings 9:15. Rohl dismisses this evidence,

t it signals a change in lifestyle from semi-nomadism to sedentarism, brought about by social-economic conditions. Secondly, there is no evidence for a movement from outlying areas to the heartland. All areas experienced an increase in settlements in the Iron Age I period. Thirdly, there would be no more protection in the heartland than in the outlying areas since none of the settlements were fortified. CONCLUSION It is abundantly clear that, from a Palestinian perspective, Rohl's hypothesis is quite unworkable. Rather than enhancing the connections between archaeology and the Bible, his new chronology would destroy the many strong correlations that exist when the standard chronology is followed. Recommended Resources for Further StudyArchaeology &the Old Testament Bible and Spade CD ROMNIV ArchaeologicalStudy Bible BIBLIOGRAPHY Arnold, P.M. 1992 Gibeah. Pp. 1007-9 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday. Bennett, C.J. 1996 Temporal Fugues. Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies 13: 4-32. A copy of this article in RTF format, suitable for reading in MS Word, WordPad or other word processors, may be downloaded here. Ben-Tor, A. 1993 Hazor: Fifth Season of Excavations (1968-1969). Pp. 604-6 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta. Bienkowski, P. 1989 The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Palestine. Levant 21: 169-79. Brissaud, P. 1996 Le monstre du Loch Ness est-il ne dans le Lac Sacre de Tanis? Bulletin de la Societe Francaise des Fouilles de Tanis 10: 3-28. Campbell, E.F., Jr. 1965 Shechem in the Amarna Archive. Pp. 191-207 in Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City by G. E. Wright. London: Gerald Duckworth. Dever, W.G. 1982 Monumental Architecture in Ancient Israel in the Period of the United Monarchy. Pp. 269-306 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1986 Late Bronze Age and Solomonic Defenses at Gezer: New Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 262: 9-34. 1987 The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 148-77. 1990 Of Myths and Methods. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 121-30. Finkelstein, I. 1993 Shiloh: Renewed Excavations. Pp. 1366-70 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta. Garstang, J. 1941a The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative. The American Journal of Semitic Languages 58: 368-72. 1941b The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1941: 168-71. Garstang, J. and Garstang, J.B.E. 1948 The Story of Jericho, rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. Hoffmeier, J.K. 1997 Israel in Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press. Holladay, J.S., Jr. 1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research



New Discoveries at Rameses
Tags: egypt, exodus, rameses--> This article was first published in the Winter 2008 issue of Bible and Spade. In the Spring 2004 issue of Bible and Spade, I reported on the important discovery of a royal precinct at Rameses, the setting of events recorded in the early chapters of Exodus. The article summarizes the results of excavations undertaken from 1993 to 2000. In the present article I would like to bring readers up to date with the results of further work at the site in the fall of 2004 and spring of 2005, based on a preliminary report published by the excavators (Bietak and Foster-Müller 2005).1 At the time of the Exodus in 1446 BC, the name of the city was probably Perunefer (Bietak 2005), meaning “happy journey.” The name was later changed to Rameses when the city was rebuilt by the famous Rameses II in the 13th century BC.2 The palatial district in Moses’ day occupied an area of some 13.6 acres (5.5 ha) on the east bank of the Pelusiac Branch of the Nile, now dried up, at the modern village of ‘Ezbet Helmi. Both geomagnetic surveys3 and excavation have been employed to elucidate the remains. The complex was comprised of three palaces (F, G, and J) and associated outbuildings within a perimeter wall. Palaces F and G are parallel to each other, on either side of an artifi cial lake or large central square. The buildings were constructed of unfired clay bricks, with the exception of doorways and columns which were made of limestone, although now robbed out. The exterior walls of Palace G and the perimeter wall were coated with an unpainted lime plaster. Map of excavation areas at Rameses. A number of ancient cities were located in this region throughout Egyptian history, requiring excavations over a large area. The locale is generally referred to as Tell el-Dab‘a, after the name of the village where archeological investigations began. In reality, however, excavations have been carried out at a number of small agricultural villages in the vicinity. The royal precinct discusslearn french