Amateur archeologist, Talitha Rudd
discovers Timna Mushroom (for herself).

1. Timna is an Egyptian controlled mining area that produced copper and turquoise.
2. The Egyptians mined copper & turquoise at both Timna and Serabit el-Khadim. Jezirat Faraun was the Egyptian mining sea port that served Timna. Since Jezirat Faraun is not located in Edomite territory, it cannot be Ezion-Geber which was located under the modern shipping yards of Aqaba, Jordan.
   
3. Timna is often called "Solomon's Mines" even though there is nothing from the Bible that says Solomon had mines. Archeology has not verified that Solomon ever mined in Timna, although it would be a rather obvious conclusion, given the fortress he built at Elat. A much better choice for "Solomon's Mines" would be Khirbat en-Nahas since it has a 10th century fortress. Solomon may have mined Timna, but there is no evidence that he did:
   "We know today that the Timna copper mines and all contemporary copper mines on the west side of the Arabah and in the Mountains of Elat belong to the period between the end of the fourteenth century and the middle of the twelfth century BC and were operated by Pharaonic expeditions of the 19th to 20th Dynasties. There is no evidence whatsoever of any copper mining or smelting activities in the western Arabah later than the twelfth century BC until the renewal of the industry in the Roman period. There is no factual and, as a matter of fact, no ancient written literary evidence of the existence of 'King Solomon's Mines'. More so, the negative results of the Timna excavations as far as the 'Mines' are concerned, are well corroborated by 1 Chronicles 22:3; 'And David prepared iron in abundance for the nails for the doors of the gates, and for the joinings; and brass in abundance without weight and 1 Chronicles 18:8 ; 'Likewise from Tibhath, and from Chun, cities of Hadarezer [King of Zobah], brought David very much brass, wherewith Solomon made the brazen sea, and the pillars and the vessel of brass." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
4. A much larger copper mining operation is located at Khirbat en-Nahas, located 38 km north of Petra that the Egyptians never mined at. This site has a fortress built by Solomon. It is strange that Solomon did not built a fortress at Timna. A logical reason would be that Khirbat en-Nahas needed a fortress since it was a hostile take over, whereas Timna was restarting a mining operation that had been dormant for 300 years. Also, the fortress at Elat/Kheleifeh would better serve to protect Timna.
   
5. The entire modern Sinai Peninsula right over to the Wadi el-Arish down to and including Timna was under Egyptian control at the time of the Exodus: "Although there is sufficient evidence in Egyptian sources for Ramesside military campaigns in the Negev, Edom and the Arabah, the Hathor Temple of Timna provides the first archaeological evidence for actual and lengthy Egyptian control of this area." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
6. The pottery finds at Timna are almost identical to those found at Jezirat Faraun. Three types of pottery were found: hand made, ordinary wheel made and two colour Midianite. The identical Midianite pottery has been found at Timna, Jezirat Faraun, Al-Bad (near the Straits of Tiran) and Qurayyah north east of Mt. Al-Lawz, where they found the factory where the Midianite pottery was made and exported. The Kenites migrated with Moses to the promised land and settled in the Negev. They are the link between Israel and Midianite pottery.
7. Although Egypt had two major mines (Timna and Serabit el-Khadem), both of which had temples to Hathor, no Midianite presence was found at Serabit el-Khadem. This is powerful in that it proves the Kenites were partners at Timna with the Egyptians at Timan: "The fact that nothing like the metal offerings attributed to the Midianites was ever found in the Hathor Temple at Serabit el-Khadem, where similarly no Midianite pottery exists, seems a strong argument for the proposed ethnic identification. Yet, it must be said that a certain degree of reliance is placed on Biblical traditions relating to the Kenites-Midianites as the ancient metalworkers of the southernmost Arabah and in the area of the Red Sea." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
8. Timna and Jezirat Faraun were used at the same time and in conjunction with each other under Egyptian control 1440 BC - 1200 BC. "we now propose to identify early Jezirat Fara'un as a Pharaonic mining harbour. ... investigations and the finds on the island confirmed once more the dates previously proposed, including the existence of fourteenth to twelfth century BC Negev and Midianite ware." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
9. The Papyrus Harris I, dates from the Ramesses III and proves there was a huge mining operation at Timna in 1250 BC. The papyrus describes how asses were used to transport the copper from Timna to the sea port of Jezirat Faraun, then shipped to Egypt by "galleys" (ships). It also show Trade routes & Evidence of extensive Egyptian control of Timna in 1500-1250 BC.
10. A cartouche discovered in 1972 at Nahal Roded is only a few miles from Elat and Timna. The cartouche is of Ramesses III, "The inscription, apparently proclaiming the waterholes of as the Pharaoh's property" (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
11. In 1406 BC, the Kenites migrated into the promised land with Moses and settled in the Negev. In 1200 BC, the Kenites converted the pagan Egyptian temple of Hathor, into a possible memorial site for the bronze snake on the pole Moses made. Post holes were dug by the Midianites (Kenites) and the temple of Hathor became a "tented shrine" perhaps because the tent of the wilderness was first built by Moses near the Midianites home town at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Some speculate that the entire concept of the tabernacle in the wilderness was originally a Midianite concept that Jethro used as high priest of the one true God!

1. The exodus occurred in 1440 BC and Israel crossed the Jordan in 1406 BC. During this time Timna and the port Island of Jezirat Faraun were under Egyptian control.
2. There were trade routes that crossed from Timna over to Egypt through the modern Sinai Peninsula. It was a heavily traveled and guarded route by the Egyptians. Remember that Serabit el-Khadim was the other major mine in the Sinai under Egyptian control. This underscores how absurd it is to suggest the exodus route traveled through central Sinai using the same roads that the Egyptian miners used between Timna and Egypt.
3. We know that the promised land did not originally extent all the way down to the Red Sea (Gulf of Aqaba). Now we know the reason! God did not want to interfere with the Egyptians at Jezirat Faraun and Timna. If you look at the map, you can see the yellow dotted line that represents the southern boundary of Judah.
   
4. When Israel took possession of the promised land in 1406 BC, the Kenites (Midianites) who joined Moses settled in the southern Negev within the territory of Judah, likely in the Mountains on the western edge of the Arabah.
5. It is clear that the Kenites (Midianites) who migrated from Arabia to the promised land with Moses became involved as co-workers at the Timna mines only in its last phases of operation. This proves outright Egyptian control at the time of the Exodus, changing to a partnership with Israel until the mines were abandoned in 1200 BC. Then Egypt was expelled entirely from the Timna/Elat area by Solomon in 950 BC for a short time. This fits perfectly with what the Bible says.
   "The appearance of pottery of clearly non-local origin does not of course imply automatically the appearance of foreign people and it is quite possible that it was commercially imported. However, this issue should be considered within the context of all objects found in the temple, including its architecture and furnishings and, not least, the overall picture of the Timna sites. It would be unreasonable to doubt that Midianites actually worked and worshipped in Timna. There was no Midianite pottery in the earliest, initial phase of the temple and it seems plausible to assume that at the very beginning of Egyptian copper mining in Timna the Midianites were not yet working there, while the Amalekites from the Negev were already present. Perhaps this fact explains the differences between Sites 30 and 34, located opposite the temple in Nahal Nehushtan and defended by a strong wall, and the other sites of Timna which had no defensive wall. Whereas at Site 30 no Midianite ware was found (but there was an early stage of metallurgy, known to us from fifteenth to fourteenth century Egyptian smelters of Bir Nasib in Sinai) and very little Midianite pottery was located at Site 34, a large quantity of Midianite ware was found at the unwalled sites of Timna and also in the excavation of Site 2 where it appears from the very beginning and in all levels of the smelting camp. We may perhaps see here a repetition of the story of the Egyptian mines in Sinai where, after obvious conditions of enmity at the beginning of mining in the Wadi Maghara with defensive walls put up around the miners' camps and even a stronghold in the centre of the valley, the Egyptians, after initial setbacks, reached a peaceful working agreement with the local Semitic tribes, and defensive measures were no longer needed. In Timna, according to the evidence in the temple, the Midianites and the Amalekites, the indigenous inhabitants of the area, seem to have become some kind of 'partners' not only at work but also iii the worship of Hathor." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
6. There are two key elements that connect Timna with the exodus route: First, Timna is situated about due west of where Moses set up the brass snake on the pole: Num 21:1-10. After the Egyptians abandoned the mines in 1200 BC it seems that the Kenites may have used the naos of the temple of Hathor as a memorial site for this very event. A bronze snake was found inside the naos. Second, The kenites also converted the temple of Hathor into a tented area, digging post holes visible today which may be a kind of "tented tabernacle, like the one Moses built in the wilderness at the foot of Mt. Sinai near Midian!
7. "A Midianite tented shrine and the Tabernacle: The votive copper snake of Timna is only a part of the Midianite cult represented in the temple. Indeed, it is the first time that Midianite civilization and worship has come to light in the form of temple architecture and of a variety of votive objects and offerings. The study of the religious and cultural implications and connections of the Timna Temple finds is only at its beginning, but already at this stage of enquiry these implications seem important for the under-standing of the formative phase of Israel. The last phase of the Hathor Temple of Timna, which seems to have been a tent-shrine, was a Midianite place of worship and this suggests a possible connection not only of the Midianite cult of the copper snake, found in this shrine, with the Nehushtan of the Exodus, but also with the actual tent-shrine of Israel's desert wanderings, the 'tent of meeting', the Tabernacle. In the light of the Timna discoveries, it seems at least plausible to consider the tented-shrine, the Ohel Mo'ed, of Israel's nomadic desert faith to be somehow connected with the relationship between Moses and Jethro, who was not only a priest (Exodus 3 : 1) and advisor of Moses (Exodus 18:13-27) but also performed sacrifices and took part in a sacred meal 'before Yahweh' (Exodus 18:12). We recall here the view, voiced by some Biblical scholars, that the cult of Yahweh, at this stage intrinsically the invisible Yahweh who 'tented' among his people and whose proper dwelling was a tent, may have been of Kenite-Midianite origin. In this connection it seems relevant to recall also the obvious anti-Hathor practice of the builders of the tented shrine at Timna, though the defacing of Hathor and the destruction of the Egyptian monuments may also be otherwise explainable. (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
   
8. "Hershel Shanks: So you would place Sinai in what is today Saudi Arabia?" Frank Moore Cross: "Yes, in the northwestern corner of Saudi Arabia, ancient Midian. There is new evidence favoring this identification. In the late 1960s and 1970s when Israel controlled the Sinai Peninsula, especially in the period shortly before it was returned to Egypt, the peninsula was explored systematically and intensely by archaeologists. What they found for the 13th to 12th centuries B.C.E., the era of Moses and Israel's entry into Canaan, was an archaeological blank save for Egyptian mining sites at Serabit el-Khadem and Timna (see photos of artifacts from Serabit el-Khadem and Timna) near Eilat. There was no evidence of settled occupation to be found. This proved true even at the site generally identified with Kadesh-Barnea ('Ein Qudeirat). It was not occupied until the tenth century B.C.E at the earliest, and its fortress was constructed only in the ninth century." (Israelite Origins, An Interview with Frank Moore Cross, Bible Review, Aug 1992)
9. "Frank Moore Cross: On the other hand, recent surveys of Midian have produced surprising discoveries of a developed civilization in precisely the period in question, the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, the 13th to 12th centuries. At Qurayyah archaeologists discovered a major fortified citadel, a walled village and extensive irrigation works (see photo of citadel at Qurayyah). Characteristic pottery called Midianite ware—usually called Hejaz ware in Saudi journals—radiates out from the northern Hejaz into southern Transjordan and sites near Eilat, notably Timna. Extraordinarily enough, it is absent from the Sinai. In short we have a blank Sinai and a thriving culture in Midian in this era." (Israelite Origins, An Interview with Frank Moore Cross, Bible Review, Aug 1992)

1. Click here for a discussion of pottery.
   Pottery of the Bible
   Midianite Pottery
   Negev Pottery
2. There are three kinds of pottery found at Timna: "normal" ordinary wheel-made, hand made, Midianite pottery.
3. "All over Site 2, as at most sites in the Timna Valley, sherds of three distinct kinds were collected: 1. 'Normal' ordinary wheel-made pottery, plain but well-fired, consisting mainly of many-handled storage jars, carinated bowls, jugs and juglets. 2. Coarse, hand-made, deep as well as shallow bowls used for cooking and domestic purposes, akin to that previously found in the Central Negev Mountains, and named 'Negev-type ware'. Many of the flat bottoms of these bowls show mat-impressions. 3. Unique, pink-buff ware, decorated with bichrome geometrical designs (red-brown and black), made of well-levigated, evenly fired clay. Most of these sherds found at Site 2 belonged to large deep and shallow little bowls, with flat bottoms and straight sides, and having an occasional knob-handle projecting from the rim. There were also fragments of deep cups, decorated with bichrome `Union-Jacks' and similar geometrical decorations, and shallow bowls with a floral design in the centre. No pottery of this kind has ever been found in Palestine but it has been picked up on the surface of sites in Jordan, and had been named 'Edomite pottery'. Since there is evidence for a Midianite origin of this ware, it should now be called 'Midianite' pottery." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
4. "A large quantity of sherds was found in the excavation of Site 2 and made the subject of a detailed study by Y. Aharoni. Compared with the rather meagre pottery from the surface collection, the excavation secured many additional types, including pieces important for dating. In all areas the same three kinds of pottery, collected on the surface during the previous surveys were found together on most of the different working floors and in many of the pits. The excavations proved, beyond a shadow of doubt, that these three distinct kinds of pottery - 'normal' wheel-made pottery, 'Negev-type' pottery and 'Midianite' pottery - were used in Timna at one and the same time. But, important as this conclusion may be from the stratigraphic, historical and ethnographic aspects of the excavations, none but the normal, wheel-made pottery could be of any real help for the dating of the site, because only comparative material for this kind of pottery was available. Luckily, quite a number of distinctive types were secured, including cooking pots of the shallow, open and carinated type, with small, folded, triangular-shaped rims and no handles. These pots closely resemble the typical Late Bronze Age cooking pots of Palestine and of the neighbouring countries. Many large carinated bowls with handles, and storage jars with pointed and thickened bases can also be dated to Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age tradition. Two pithoi with collared rims are of a highly indicative type very common in the Early Iron Age of Palestine. Other typical types of Late Bronze Age date are jugs with pinched or rounded mouths, a pyxis, and some fragments of deep lamps with small rims and rounded bases. Only few details were added by the excavations to the repertory of the Negev ware, including some small cups and bowls with inverted rims and rounded bases, some round-based cooking pots and several vessels with fabric impressions not only on their bases but also on their sides. This latter detail clearly shows an additional method of primitive pottery manufacture in Timna. Conclusive evidence for the origin in Timna of at least part of the Negev-type ware found in the excavation, can be seen in the copper slag fragments included as temper in the clay of many of these cooking pots." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
5. "The realization that the Timna copper works, with a Hathor Temple in its centre, was in fact a Pharaonic industrial undertaking dated to the New Kingdom brought the problem of the provenance of the pottery found in Timna to the foreground. Whilst sufficient comparative evidence existed from the Central Negev Mountains, the Arabah and north-western Arabia to relate the Negev ware and the Midianite pottery to the areas inhabited by the Amalekites and Midianites, the third and largest group of pottery, the 'normal', wheel-made Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age pottery cannot yet be traced to its origin or its originators. Although most of its forms and shapes can be compared to Palestinian pottery of the period it seems strange to find so much Palestinian pottery in an Egyptian industrial undertaking in the southernmost Arabah, operated in collaboration with tribes from the Negev Mountains and, more so, from Midian. There also exists written evidence (Harris Papyrus I) for direct supply connections with Egypt. Therefore the possibility that the `normal' wheel-made pottery of Timna was imported from somewhere in Egypt was investigated." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)

1. Both archeology and science have proven that Midianite pottery found at Timna was imported from a kiln located at Qurayyah: "Today the Timna types of Midianite ware are dated to the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC, and there is good archaeological evidence for its origin in north-west Arabia, in the area of Midian. Indeed, the survey report of Midian published in 1970 describes the site of a kiln at Qurayyah where this decorated pottery was actually produced and a Late Bronze Age date for at least some of it was correctly suggested by Peter Parr. At Qurayyah a whole sequence of decorated ware was found; some of it seems earlier than the Timna ware, other pieces seem later, but there can be no doubt that the Timna ware is fully represented at Qurayyah. Although the results of comparative analyses of the Qurayyah and Timna pottery are still awaited, it may confidently be said that the Timna pottery originates from Midian and provides the first certain absolute dates for the ancient town sites of Midian, where this pottery is to be found." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
2. In 1991, J. Gunneweg worked with the The Hebrew University and the University of Bonn to do a Neutron Activation Analysis of pottery. This is test allows scientists to identify the trace elements in pottery and establish a unique fingerprint for each of the 81 pieces tested. The purpose was to see if a common type of clay was used from a single geographic location:
   "The purpose of this study is to establish the origin of the three above mentioned different pottery styles in order to shed some light on important inter-regional contacts between, on the one hand, the Negev and Timna and, on the other hand, Egypt, Midian and Edom. These different pottery repertories are listed in Table 1 according to chronological period and style and with the names used in the present study." (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
3. It was discovered that the chemical make up of the Midianite pottery at Timna, for example, had a unique very fingerprint:
   "`Midianite' pottery: Two painted 'Midianite' sherds (N27 and 28) from smelting site 2 at Timna show a chemical composition which is different from all pottery seen so far. This 'Midianite' pottery is chemically characterized by an unusually low calcium content ( 0.5%) and high lanthanum and thorium (75 and 25 ppm respectively), whereas cobalt is low (6.5 ppm). (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
4. The result of the scientific tests was stunning, since it proved that indeed Midianite pottery found in the Negev was imported from a kiln discovered at Qurayyah, in modern Saudi Arabia.
   "We have compared these data with those obtained from archaeologically defined local 'Midianite' pottery, which was obtained through the late Mrs C.-M. Bennett from Parr's survey at Qurayyah in Midian (Arabia) and analysed at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Cluster analysis made it clear that the two sherds from Timna statistically match a mixed Timna-Qurayyah group of pottery believed to have been locally made in north-west Arabia, perhaps at Qurayyah. Qurayyah is a likely candidate because this ceramic does not analyse as Negev or Edom wares and Qurayyah is archaeologically the major site in a region which served as a corridor between Arabia and the Negev. However, additional production centres are not excluded, even at sites close to Timna. ... Columns 8 and 9 show the chemical composition of this 'Midianite' pottery. Statistical comparison shows that these compositions are quite similar." (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
5. "Early Iron Age I Timna, with its highly centralized metal-mining activities, was certainly dependent on foreign trade because no major settlements have been found near Timna which could have imported Timna's entire copper output. Although Egyptian cartouches and other finds at Timna (including the Hathor Temple itself) may point to at least an Egyptian connection there, the picture obtained from this study is much more complicated. By tracing the copper of Timna one establishes an export trade to distant countries, but this does not answer the question of who was mining and working copper at Timna. This can partly be solved by determining unidirectional trade in pottery of the people who worked there. INAA data show that 75% of all pottery analysed from Timna (Negbite', 'Midianite' and 'faience' wares) was imported from Edom proper, whereas 10% could have come from Arabia (perhaps Qurayyah)." (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)

1. Hand made pottery, known as Negev pottery is found at Timna, Elat and many of the fortresses that Solomon built in 950 BC: "Subsequently, however, similar handmade pottery began to appear at numerous other Iron Age sites, particularly in the Central Negev and Timna-Eilat area." (Excavations At Kadesh-Barnea: 1976-1978, Ein el-Qudeirat, Rudolph Cohen, 1981 AD)
2. Stylistically defined `Negbite' [Negev ware] pottery thought to be local to the Negev also had its origin in the Negev and in Edom. These findings might suggest that there were no strict borders between the Negev desert and Jordan during the seventh to sixth century BC. Goods and people moved freely through the deserts. Furthermore, the Negev also imported pottery from elsewhere during Iron Age II as was shown in a provenance study of pottery found at Kuntillet 'Ajrud, a site south of Qadesh Barnea (Gunneweg et al. 1985). (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
3. Examples of Negev Pottery found at Timna:

1. See detailed study of the Kenites.
2. Midianite pottery is characterized by two colour (bichrome) painting and fine workmanship.
   
3. The actual kiln where this pottery was manufactured has been discovered at Qurayyah. (see map below)
   "Other new aspects of chronology and of historical interpretation are provided by the absolute dating at Timna of the decorated Midianite pottery. This pottery had previously been found by the expedition in the smelting camps of the western Arabah and on the island of Jezirat Fara'un in the Red Sea. Prior to this some sherds of this ware had been found by N. Glueck during his survey of the eastern Arabah and Edom and called 'Edomite' ware. In 1935 Glueck dated this pottery correctly to the thirteenth to twelfth centuries se. Yet, until it appeared in stratified and absolutely dated contexts in the Timna excavations, it could not be dated with any certainty and its origin also remained a matter of conjecture. Today the Timna types of Midianite ware are dated to the fourteenth to twelfth centuries c and there is good archaeological evidence for its origin in north-west Arabia, in the area of Midian. Indeed, the survey report of Midian published in 1970 describes the site of a kiln at Qurayyah where this decorated pottery was actually produced and a Late Bronze Age date for at least some of it was correctly suggested by Peter Parr. At Qurayyah a whole sequence of decorated ware was found ; some of it seems earlier than the Timna ware, other pieces seem later, but there can be no doubt that the Timna ware is fully represented at Qurayyah. Although the results of comparative analyses of the Qurayyah and Timna pottery are still awaited, it may confidently be said that the Timna pottery originates from Midian and provides the first certain absolute dates for the ancient town sites of Midian, where this pottery is to be found." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
4. The identical Midianite pottery has been found at Timna, Jezirat Faraun, Al-Bad (near the Straits of Tiran) and Qurayyah north east of Mt. Al-Lawz, where they found the factory where the Midianite pottery was made and exported. The Kenites migrated with Moses to the promised land and settled in the Negev. They are the link between Israel and Midianite pottery.
   
5. "The extraordinary variety and workmanship of the Midianite vessels found in the temple, as compared with the Midianite pottery from the other sites of Timna, is a clear indication that these sophisticated vessels were brought as votive gifts for the Hathor Temple. In the light of the finds of Midianite pottery with identical decorations on identical ware in north-western Arabia, it seems certain that the Midianite pottery was brought to the Timna temple all the way from there, perhaps from the large Midianite town at Qurayyah, about 160 km. south of Aqaba." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
   
6. "On the other hand, recent surveys of Midian have produced surprising discoveries of a developed civilization in precisely the period in question, the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age, the 13th to 12th centuries. At Qurayyah archaeologists discovered a major fortified citadel, a walled village and extensive irrigation works (see photo of citadel at Qurayyah). Characteristic pottery called Midianite ware—usually called Hejaz ware in Saudi journals—radiates out from the northern Hejaz into southern Transjordan and sites near Eilat, notably Timna. Extraordinarily enough, it is absent from the Sinai. In short we have a blank Sinai and a thriving culture in Midian in this era." (Israelite Origins, An Interview with Frank Moore Cross, Bible Review, Aug 1992)
7. "Scholars associate the pottery (shown here, compare with image of landscape at Qurayyah) from Qurayyah with the Midianites, the very people that Moses was said to dwell among when he first fled Egypt—and from whom he chose his wife, Zipporah. Evidence of habitation and culture from that same time period—the presumed time of the Exodus—is practically nonexistent in the Sinai peninsula. Harvard scholar Frank Moore Cross believes that the paucity of evidence in Sinai—and the considerable remains in Qurayyah, Al-Bad' and other Midianite sites—points in favor of an Arabian location for Mt. Sinai." (Mt. Sinai—in Arabia?, Bible Review, Apr 2000, Allen Kerkeslager)
8. When reading the quote below, remember Midianite pottery was once incorrectly called "Edomite ware": "Another type of pottery with stylistic features similar to those of `Edomite' ware [Midianite pottery] was found by B. Rothenberg in the Hathor shrine at Timna, which was dated by two cartouches of Seti I and Ramses V, ranging in time from 1318 to 1156 BC. Rothenberg called the painted pottery 'Egyptian' because of the 'Egyptian' connection (Rothenberg 1972 and 1988; Glueck 1935, 152). In 1968, during Parr's survey of northern Hejaz in Arabia, J. Dayton found similar painted pottery at Hereibe (ancient Dedan) and at Qurayyah (Midian) (Parr et al. 1970) and called it 'Midianite' while dating it to correspond to that found at the Hathor shrine in Timna (c. fourteenth to twelfth century BC). This hand- and wheelmade pottery was also found at various copper smelting sites at Timna of which three are particularly well dated, that is smelting sites 2 and 3, and a group of undisturbed smelting sites on top of a plateau, Slaves Hill, which is difficult of access and is considered to have been occupied by mining Midianites. Our survey there revealed pottery fragments, some of which were painted `Midianite' while others were of a type of ceramic which is slipped in buff, red, green and blue tints. It is the latter which has been classified as 'Egyptian faience-like' ware (Rothenberg 1972 and 1988) and 'Midianite' by others (Parr et al. 1970). The chronology of these wares at Timna possibly covers the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age I periods (1318-1156 BC), based on datable Egyptian cartouches, scarabs and other finds." (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
9. "The appearance of pottery of clearly non-local origin does not of course imply automatically the appearance of foreign people and it is quite possible that it was commercially imported. However, this issue should be considered within the context of all objects found in the temple, including its architecture and furnishings and, not least, the overall picture of the Timna sites. It would be unreasonable to doubt that Midianites actually worked and worshipped in Timna. There was no Midianite pottery in the earliest, initial phase of the temple and it seems plausible to assume that at the very beginning of Egyptian copper mining in Timna the Midianites were not yet working there, while the Amalekites from the Negev were already present. Perhaps this fact explains the differences between Sites 3o and 34, located opposite the temple in Nahal Nehushtan and defended by a strong wall, and the other sites of Timna which had no defensive wall. Whereas at Site 30 no Midianite ware was found (but there was an early stage of metallurgy, known to us from fifteenth to fourteenth century Egyptian smelters of Bir Nasib in Sinai) and very little Midianite pottery was located at Site 34, a large quantity of Midianite ware was found at the unwalled sites of Timna and also in the excavation of Site 2 where it appears from the very beginning and in all levels of the smelting camp. We may perhaps see here a repetition of the story of the Egyptian mines in Sinai where, after obvious conditions of enmity at the beginning of mining in the Wadi Maghara with defensive walls put up around the miners' camps and even a stronghold in the centre of the valley, the Egyptians, after initial setbacks, reached a peaceful working agreement with the local Semitic tribes, and defensive measures were no longer needed. In Timna, according to the evidence in the temple, the Midianites and the Amalekites, the indigenous inhabitants of the area, seem to have become some kind of 'partners' not only at work but also iii the worship of Hathor." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)

1. Timna was in use before the time of the exodus (1440 BC) until about 1200 BC. Solomon took over control of Timna in 950 BC, even though there is no evidence in scripture or archeology that he ever mined there.
2. "we now propose to identify early Jezirat Fara'un as a Pharaonic mining harbour. ... investigations and the finds on the island confirmed once more the dates previously proposed, including the existence of fourteenth to twelfth century BC Negev and Midianite ware." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
3. "The study of the pottery established a Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age date for Site 2, the lowest possible absolute date being the twelfth century B C. The few datable metal finds, especially the early type toggle-pin and the spear-butt, correspond well with this dating, whilst the two Ramesses II scarabs indicate a thirteenth century BC date. The copper works at Site 2 are, therefore, dated to the thirteenth to twelfth centuries BC. The study of the sequences of superimposed floors and their relationship to several building and repair phases, as established in most excavated areas of Site 2, together with a minute stratigraphic recording of all sherds found, allows us to draw the conclusion that there is only one archaeological level here. This means that on and in every floor of this level, as well as in the pits, the same Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age pottery was found. ... It seems that sometime after organized activities at Site 2 had ceased and drift-sand had started to settle on the installations, local workers, who had worked here previously and knew well the details of the site, returned for an additional period of work. These people are assumed to have been the Midianites of the twelfth century BC who were also found to have re-occupied, for a short while, the Egyptian mining temple of Timna and turned it into a Midianite shrine." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)

1. Although Egypt had two major mines (Timna and Serabit el-Khadem see map), both of which had temples to Hathor, no Midianite presence was found at Serabit el-Khadem. This is powerful in that it proves the Kenites were partners at Timna with the Egyptians at Timan: "The fact that nothing like the metal offerings attributed to the Midianites was ever found in the Hathor Temple at Serabit el-Khadem, where similarly no Midianite pottery exists, seems a strong argument for the proposed ethnic identification. Yet, it must be said that a certain degree of reliance is placed on Biblical traditions relating to the Kenites-Midianites as the ancient metalworkers of the southernmost Arabah and in the area of the Red Sea." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
2. The Egyptian Hathor temple at Timna is where the "Egyptian steel workers" went to worship on their days off.
3. We have clear evidence from the Hathor that it was under Egyptian control between the time of 1440 - 1200 BC.
4. During the time of 1440 - 1200 BC, the Kenites, who were a sect of Midianites, partnered in the mining of metals at Timna.
5. After 1200 BC it appears that the temple of Hathor was defaced and reused by the Kenites or other Israelites. In the naos, statues of Hathor were deliberately defaced and the stones were reused for a second use. This second use is not clear. However we do find a copper snake in the Naos, so it may be a memorial tribute or worship center for the snake. Egyptians also worshipped snakes.
6. Timna is situated about due west of where Moses set up the brass snake on the pole: Num 21:1-10. (see map above)
7. Features of the Hathor Temple:

1. Jezirat Faraun was used in conjunction with the Timna mining operation. It simply cannot be, nor ever was Ezion-Geber, which was located in Edomite territory on the other side of the Gulf. It is unlikely that Solomon ever used this Egyptian port himself because it was clearly deep inside Egyptian controlled territory.
2. "we now propose to identify early Jezirat Fara'un as a Pharaonic mining harbour. ... investigations and the finds on the island confirmed once more the dates previously proposed, including the existence of fourteenth to twelfth century BC Negev and Midianite ware." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
3. There is the same collection of pottery found at both Jezirat Faraun and Timna. This shows that the port of Jezirat Faraun and Timna were in use at the same time 1406 - 1200 BC:
   "There was also some rough and some decorated pottery which at first seemed chronologically unrelated, but in 1961, after the first Timna survey, it was identified as Early Iron Age I pottery. It was clearly the same Midianite (called at the time `Edomite) and Negev-type ware which had been found in the Timna smelting camps. Some of the sherds, especially fragments of a cooking pot, could also belong to Iron Age II. In the light of these pottery dates proposed at the time, and in detail in Negev, the following working hypothesis on the history of the island was put forward: the earliest remains at the site, which consist of the case-mate wall, the harbour wall and dwellings in Area H, and remains of a landing pier on the mainland opposite, date to the Early Iron Age I prior to the United Monarchy of Israel, with a possible use also in the tenth to eighth centuries BC. All other remains relate to the Nabataean, Byzantine and Mameluke occupation of the island. Furthermore, in view of these dates and the fact that the island is the only natural anchorage in the northern part of the Gulf of Elat-Aqaba, it seemed logical to look here not only for a harbour of the period before David's conquest of the area, but also for the port used by Israel's kings. In other words, it was proposed at the time to identify the island of Jezirat Fara'un with the Biblical harbour of Ezion Geber. With the new evidence from the Timna Temple relating the copper mining activities of the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age I to the Ramesside pharaohs, and taking into consideration the Papyrus Harris I report of the existence of a regular shipping route to Atika and its identification with the Arabah mines, we now propose to identify early Jezirat Fara'un as a Pharaonic mining harbour. This Egyptian mining port would later be the obvious anchorage for King Solomon's Tarshish ships as it was the main and probably only safe port of the northern Red Sea during all sub-sequent ancient periods. Since 1967 the expedition has re-investigated the island of Jezirat Fara'un and a large amount of pottery was collected there. These investigations and the finds on the island confirmed once more the dates previously proposed, including the existence of fourteenth to twelfth century BC Negev and Midianite ware." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)

1. The Bible says that the Exodus occurred in 1440 BC and they entered the promised land in 1406 BC. Rothenberg says they left Egypt 1250 BC.
2. Rothenberg, like too many archeologists is prepared to trash the Bible instead of adjusting his archeological time tables: Here is what he said: "Timna and the Exodus: Whatever theological implications one attaches to the Midianite shrine, the discoveries at Timna provide a factual, cultural and historico-geographical background to the early desert part of the Exodus narrative. Yet, the presence here of Egyptians and Midianites in the thirteenth century, generally accepted as the period of the Exodus, is of course of great significance and raises many problems. There seems to be little doubt that the actual existence of a large scale Pharaonic industrial enterprise in the Arabah during the fourteenth to twelfth centuries BC will require reconsideration of the factual foundations of current Bible interpretations and historical concepts regarding the Exodus." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
3. The dilemma that Rothenberg creates is this: Egypt controlled Timna in 1406 BC. The exodus was 1250 BC. Midianites became partners with Egyptians in 1250 BC. Exactly why this is a problem Rothenberg does not say, but we expect that he feels that Israel could not occupy the promised land during the same time that Egypt controlled Timna and Jezirat Fara'un as a mining sea port. In fact Rothenberg is a modernist archeologist who really doesn't believe in the Bible. He regards the entire exodus story as a myth the way the Bible tells it.
4. Rothenberg is very wrong for suggesting that Jezirat Fara'un is Ezion-Geber that became Solomon's sea port. Ezion-Geber is in the land of Edom, not Egypt. "Jezirat Fara'un (or 'Pharaoh's Island') appears to have been the mining port connected with the Ramesside mining expeditions to the Arabah ('Atika'). It was later used by the Israelite Kings (as Ezion Geber.), then by Nabateans, Romans and Mamelukes." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
5. Here are Rothenberg's comments that are in error: "The absolute dates now available for the three kinds of pottery found in the temple help us to date many important sites in the Central Negev and the Arabah, in Edom and especially in 'the Land of Midian'. In the Central Negev, in the area south of the Jeruham valley and north of the Makhtesh Ramon, there existed numerous settlements based on dry farming in terraced wadi beds and the use of cisterns and run-off rain water for irrigation. These settlements and the casemate fortlets attached were generally identified as `Israelite settlements' because Iron Age pottery was found amongst the ruins, including much of the unique primitive, hand-made, Negev-type pottery. Biblical associations rather than stratified archaeological evidence seem to have led to the dating of these settlements to the tenth to eighth centuries BC and their relation to the Judaean Kingdom. Continuous study of these settlements, their unique irrigation technology and pottery, had related the sedentary civilization of the Negev to the Amalekite tribes, mentioned in the Bible as the inhabitants of the Negev Mountains at least as early as the thirteenth century and down to the eighth century BC. Yet, the fact that in many of these settlements only Negev-type pottery was found, made the dating rather uncertain. Now, with the discovery of the Timna Temple, we have indisputable evidence that Negev-type pottery was made as early as the late fourteenth century BC and was in use for a very long period afterwards. The peculiar pottery-making tradition in the Negev, which could not possibly have originated in Judaean times [Rothenberg believes the exodus happened in 1250 BC, when in fact it happened in 1446 BC, so his comment is in error] and never occurs anywhere in Judah itself, would therefore exclude any possible identification of the Negev settlements as Israelite. Although not enough archaeological evidence exists so far for the accurate dating of these settlements, the Timna Temple finds strongly corroborate the view that many of the agricultural settlements and hill fortresses in the Central Negev predate the Israelite conquest of Palestine and already existed as fortified Amalekite villages at the time of the Exodus. It therefore seems plausible to conclude that some of the battles between the Israelite tribes on their way to the Promised Land and the Amalekites, their arch enemies, must have taken place around these settlements and fortresses. It appears also most likely that the destruction of many of the fortresses and settlements was actually caused by the continuous struggle carried on during most of the Kingdom of Israel between Amalekites and Israelites. Amalekites were still reported as settlers in the Negev Mountains as late as the time of Hezekiah, King of Judah. In 1 Chronicles 4: 42-43 we find the latest date for Amalekite habitation in the Negev given as the end of the eighth century BC, whilst the Negev-type pottery found in the Timna Temple strongly suggests the existence of a sedentary civilization in the Central Negev at the end of the fourteenth and continuing well into the twelfth centuries R c. This latter conclusion is also based on the archaeological evidence of a direct connection between Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age I Timna and the contemporary settlements in the Negev Mountains. Some small copper smelting sites with Negev pottery only were found along the paths leading from Timna through the southern Negev Mountains towards Makhtesh Ramon, as for instance Site 229. The copper ore for these smelters could only have come from Timna and the assumption is that it was carried north by workers of the Egyptian copper mines on their way home." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
6. Gunneweg makes a similar error in misquoting the Bible. He completely ignores the fact that the first king of Judah to defend the Negev was Solomon in 950 BC when he built a series of fortresses. "According to the Bible, the kings of Judah were involved during the eighth to sixth century BC [wrong: the bible says that Solomon expanded control in 950 BC] in keeping the Negev defensible by holding this vast area populated as a buffer zone against unwanted wandering tribes who appeared to get too close to the territory of Judah and in protecting their interests by safeguarding the barren caravan trade routes which connected the 'Kings Road'" (Arabia-Petra-Damascus) with Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. (Edomite, Negev, Midianite Pottery: Neutron Activation Analysis, Gunneweg, 1991 AD)
7. We accept Rothenberg's dates for Timna and Jezirat Faraun as being under Egyptian control in 1450 - 1200 BC. Had Rothenberg used the Bible as his guide, he would have known the exodus was in 1440 BC. This fact harmonizes perfectly with archeology and the Bible.

1. In 1855, Anthony Charles Harris purchased a papyrus from the period of the 12th dynasty pharaoh, Ramesses III. It is currently housed in the British Museum.
2. The papyrus says: "I sent forth my messengers to the country of Atika, to the great copper mines which are in this place. Their galleys carried them, others on the land journey were upon their asses. Their mines were found abounding in copper; it was loaded by ten thousands into their galleys. They (it) 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 of the colour of gold of three times. I allowed all the people to see them, like wonders".
3. The document proves there was a huge mining operation at Timna in 1250 BC.
4. The papyrus describes how asses were used to transport the copper from Timna to the sea port of Jezirat Faraun, then shipped to Egypt by "galleys" (ships)
5. It also show Trade routes & Evidence of extensive Egyptian control of Timna in 1500-1250 BC:
6. It is clear that Egypt controlled Timna from before 1500 BC to 1200 BC.
7. Rothenberg discusses the Harris Papyrus and describes also a caravan route from Timna to Egypt that the Egyptians controlled during the same period:
   "Although there is sufficient evidence in Egyptian sources for Ramesside (1250 BC) military campaigns in the Negev, Edom and the Arabah, the Hathor Temple of Timna provides the first archaeological evidence for actual and lengthy Egyptian control of this area. We still lack reliable archaeological information on the copper mines and smelting camps of the eastern Arabah and Edom, but we may safely assume that the Egyptians also worked these mines and that the whole of the Arabah was controlled by the 19th and 20th Dynasty Pharaohs. A highly interesting record of large scale copper smelting under-takings exists from the reign of Ramesses III, though until now this detail was hardly noticed and the name of the mining area mentioned remained so far unidentified. In Papyrus Harris I (408) we read: 'I sent forth my messengers to the country of Atika, to the great copper mines which are in this place. Their galleys carried them, others on the land journey were upon their asses. Their mines were found abounding in copper; it was loaded by ten thousands into their galleys. They (it) 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 of the colour of gold of three times. I allowed all the people to see them, like wonders'. Atika was a copper-bearing region, accessible both by sea and land from Egypt and in the light of the evidence from Timna we propose to identify it with the Arabah, and particularly with Timna, the only area known to us so far which is rich in copper ores, is accessible both by sea and land from Egypt, and shows copper mines and smelters of the time of Ramesses Ill. (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
8. "A discovery made in February, 1972, in the mountains of Elat provides additional evidence for our proposed identification of `Atika' with the Arabah. A monumental hieroglyphic inscription, carved into the rock-face at an ancient watering place north of Ras en-Naqb - now called Borot Roded (Site 582, GR 13798920 kr. Grid) - was first noticed by a young schoolboy from Elat and copied and investigated by the author. It is a 40 x 60 cm. large double cartouche of Ramesses III, each cartouche is surmounted by a disc-and-feather crown. The inscription, apparently proclaiming the waterholes of Nahal Roded as the Pharaoh's property, is evidence for Ramesside control of the path which leads from Sinai through Nahal Roded into the Arabah. It may well be the road taken by the Egyptian mining expeditions' overland donkey caravans to `Atika'. Two camping sites with fourteenth to twelfth century pottery, can now be interpreted as stations on this road." (Timna, Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
   
9. The cartouche discovered at Nahal Roded (above) has two images. Each image features a double feathered crown. It is exactly the same style of King Tutankhamun who lived about 75 years earlier in 1325 BC. Notice the ovals in the feathered crown represent the Sun God.
   
10. Here is a photo of the travel route and spring located at Nahal Roded, just north of Elat.
    

By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.

Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA