:::Sorry for the late reply. My internet connection went down as I was checking your first link yesterday and has only been restored a few hours ago. Hugo Winckler,Theodor Nöldeke, Eduard Meyer etc., were very fine sources in their day, but can't be used because they predate contemporary scholarship by more than a century. You can use them if you make a section surveying theories about their existence or not, though. Velikovsky reports most sources like this accurately (in my experience) but he is not RS. The bible refracts ancient legends coming from multiethnic traditions into an 'historical' narrative written in terms of theological patterns of thought. So even the verifiably historical elements are caught up in moralizing reworking (as is true of much ancient historiography and much modern journalism, for that matter). We cannot know whether the traditions re the Amalekites reflects a historical people or league of tribes: we can guess from the topology that they imbricate over the areas later associated with the Bedouin and, generally, Arabs. As the Arabs gain some ascendency (6th cent. BCE) the Amalekites disappear, and the authors who refer to the latter do so in mythifying terms, to create an image of an eternally inimical people. As such, we are there in the realm of theological myth, since no external testimonies are available to restore the lineaments of the Amalek tale to some form of recognizable historical reality.