This city was destroyed by a siege which resulted in the burning of the city--a burning which left quite a bed of ashes. Dr. Mackenzie thought that this was the siege by which the Israelites gained possession of Beth-shemesh. The city was occupied by the Hebrews apparently until the invasion of Palestine by Sennacherib, King of Assyria, in 701 B. C. At all events, it was in the possession of Judah in the days of King Amaziah (2 Kings 14:8-14). Corresponding to this, Israelitish pottery was found in the stratum above the ashes. Dr. Mackenzie is of the opinion that during this Hebrew period the city was without a wall. Apparently after the time of Sennacherib the site was abandoned for several centuries, for next above the Israelitish stratum the remains of a monastery of the Byzantine period (325-636 A. D.) were found. This monastery apparently was not begun until just at the close of the Byzantine period, for it appears that it was not finished at the time of the Mohammedan conquest. (11) _Exploring the Wilderness of Zin._--The most recent service of the Palestine Exploration Fund was the sending of two explorers, C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, in the winter of 1913-14, to explore the wilderness to the south of Palestine. The results of their work have been published in the Fund’s _Annual_, Vol. III, under the title _The Wilderness of Zin_. The explorers identified a considerable part of the “Darb es-Shur,” or the “way of Shur” (Gen. 16:7, etc.). It was the caravan road from Palestine to Egypt. They also adduce strong evidence against the identification of Ain Kades with Kadesh-Barnea (Num. 32:8, etc.), and think that Kossima, which lies nearer to the Egyptian road and is surrounded by much more verdure, may have been Kadesh-Barnea. The identification of Ain Kades with Kadesh-Barnea was made by the late Dr. Henry Clay Trumbull, after a very brief visit to the spot, and it has been accepted by many others. Between 325 and 636 A. D. extensive settlements and cities of considerable size existed in this wilderness. This was one of the facts that led Ellsworth Huntington to believe that the rainfall in Palestine was much greater at that time. With this view Woolley and Lawrence take issue. They say that where the old wells have been kept open, the water still rises as high as ever it did. They hold that the cities mentioned were possible because of the great energy and skill of the people of that time in sinking wells.