Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "ราชอาณาจักรอิสราเอล (สหราชาธิปไตย)" in Thai language version.
For conservative approaches defining the United Monarchy as a state 'from Dan to Beer Sheba' including 'conquered kingdoms' (Ammon, Moab, Edom) and "spheres of influence" in Geshur and Hamath cf. e.g. Ahlström (1993), 455–542; Meyers (1998); Lemaire (1999); Masters (2001); Stager (2003); Rainey (2006), 159–168; Kitchen (1997); Millard (1997; 2008). For a total denial of the historicity of the United Monarchy cf., e.g. Davies (1992), 67–68; others suggested a 'chiefdom' comprising a small region around Jerusalem, cf. Knauf (1997), 81–85; Niemann (1997), 252–299 and Finkelstein (1999). For a 'middle of the road' approach, [proposing] a United Monarchy of [greater] territorial scope though smaller than the biblical description cf., e.g., Miller (1997); Halpern (2001), 229–262; Liverani (2005), 92–101. The latter recently suggested a state comprising the territories of Judah and Ephraim during the time of David, which was subsequently enlarged to include areas of northern Samaria and influence areas in Galilee and Transjordan. Na'aman (1992; 1996) once accepted the [fundamental] biography of David as authentic and later rejected the United Monarchy as a state, cf. id. (2007), 401–402.
