There is an article in Haaretz titled:
Sadly, it's in the site's "Premium" section and access may require a subscription. Of course, if you're truly interested in this stuff you should probably have a subscription anyway ...
The article concludes:
It is a very, very interesting article.
A Chance Discovery Changes Everything We Know About Biblical Israel
The discovery of a powerful nomad kingdom in Israel's Arava desert upends our notion of the role of archaeology in understanding Ancient Israel.
Sadly, it's in the site's "Premium" section and access may require a subscription. Of course, if you're truly interested in this stuff you should probably have a subscription anyway ...
The article concludes:
For decades, biblical archaeology has been in the forefront of the attempt to understand better the period of the Bible, and as a veteran field its research activity has become institutionalized within a set mold that dictates how archaeological evidence is to be uncovered and in what way it is amenable to interpretation. Over the course of time, in light of the perception of archaeology as an “objective science” that relies on extra-biblical observations from “the field,” its central role in the discussion of the historicity of the Bible also achieved uncontested status. To this day, scholars from abutting disciplines (biblical criticism and history, for example) turn to archaeology for answers to key questions about the period.
< -- snip -- >The chance discovery in the Arava of a strong kingdom that is not based on permanent settlements means that we are back to square one, at least with regard to periods in which there were – or could have been – societies that possessed a nomadic component. In light of this, the “Bedouin model” fixation must end and consideration be given to an interpretation of nomadic societies as multidimensional, and capable of creating strong political bodies without leaving archaeological evidence of their existence.
This may indirectly support the maximalist school, which finds in the biblical account – in which nomadic tribes play a central role – an essential historical core. But in practice, more than buttressing one school or another, the new understanding of nomads undermines archaeology’s very role as the pivotal factor in the discourse about the historical truth of the Bible. Recognition of its limitations in the study of nomads tips the scales back to the side of biblical criticism and obliges archaeologists to be more modest in their pronouncements.
It is a very, very interesting article.