The. Idealized cross section of a tell, with colors indicating different strata.

Transcription

1 BY ERIC M. MEYERS Recent years have witnessed the ascent and decline of the discussion on whether there is such a discipline or field of archaeology as biblical archaeology. Many leading scholars in the field have been concerned to convey the fact that they were true scientists at work, and therefore cogently argued for a nomenclature that was neutral with respect to the Bible. They have suggested that those engaged in archaeological work in the Holy Land and surrounding areas be known as Palestinian archaeologists or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists. The change in nomenclature, they believe, would convey in a simple and yet dramatic way the state of the field today and it would separate it from the days of the not-so-distant past when giants like Albright, Glueck, de Vaux, and Wright were preoccupied with correlating the biblical record with archaeological evidence. The fact of the matter is, however, that there is a deep reservoir of support for maintaining an overt connection between the Bible and the material cult are of the biblical world. Summer e xcavations in Israel and Jordan bring nearly a thousand American young people to those countries each year and involve dozens of colleges, universities, and seminaries. The major umbrella organization in the United States coordinating this activity, the American Schools of Oriental Research, also the publisher of Biblical Archaeologist, has experienced an unprecedented spurt of activity in the past decade and is The BIBLE and Archaeology Idealized cross section of a tell, with colors indicating different strata. responsible for communicating the results of archaeological research not only in Israel and Jordan but also in Cyprus, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, and other Near Eastern areas as well. Interest in the Bible at colleges and universities is also on the rise after having been eclipsed for a while by a fascination with eastern religions. For example, at Duke University where I teach, there is virtually no limit to the number of students who would enroll for a course in Old or New Testament. This pattern is repeated on many campuses throughout America, and on many campuses it is possible to study biblical archaeology specifically, especially where the unique resources of an institution provide instruction in Bible and archaeology. In America, biblical archaeology 36 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH 1984

2 is usually offered in departments of religion and in divinity schools (with archaeology in general offered as a part of the curricula of departments of classics, anthropology, Near Eastern studies, and so on). In contrast, in Israel the "professional" archaeologists are largely set off from departmental contexts and function in separate departments or institutes. The Israelis, nonetheless, are the real practitioners of biblical archaeology today. In this respect they are the true inheritors of the Albright tradition. Yet, because the Israeli archaeologists are institutionally isolated from those who study Bible or Jewish history, in an intellectual as well as a physical or administrative sense, a gap is thereby created between the literary historian and the cultural historian. (There are notable exceptions of course.) Because most Palestinian or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists in America are not isolated in purely archaeological contexts at universities, such a gap exists to a lesser extent in this country at present. The divergent settings in which biblical archaeology is pursued in the United States and in Israel suggest something of the division that underlies the field today. Such division is clearly the result of the impact of what has come to be known as the new archaeology. Emerging out of New World archaeology with its environmental focus and concern for new approaches and methods for information retrieval and interpretation, it finally began to make its mark on biblical archaeologists in the late 1960s. Strange as it may seem to some, the accommodation to these new approaches was spearheaded by G. Ernest Wright, then president of the American Schools of Oriental Research and Parkman Professor of Divinity at Harvard University. As a professor of Old Testament and Albright's leading disciple in field archaeology (and, incidentally, the founder of the magazine Biblical Archaeologist), Wright was the individual uniquely qualified to respond to the challenges of a changing discipline. The Idalion Expedition in Cyprus was his modest attempt to respond to the new winds that were blowing. The seeds were sown, however, and biblical archaeology, as conducted by Americans at least, was never to be the same again. One could say that the debate which ensued in the 1970s, whether to retain the name biblical archaeology or not, came in direct response to Wright's efforts to move the discipline in new directions. Although G. Ernest Wright directing excavations at Tell Gezerin Photograph by Eric M. Meyers. ceramic typology remained a central if not the central component of the new archaeology, other subspecialties were to become regular components of the vast array of subdisciplines which now constitute the complex, broad discipline of archaeology. The bones, human and animal alike, that previous generations discarded were now cleaned and boxed and sent to specialists all over the world for examination. The same earth that late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century archaeologists viewed as the expendable and annoying blanket over hidden artifacts was now sifted and screened for pollen samples, minute seeds, and other organic materials. Geologists who once were concerned only with the depositional history of a site were now conducting research on the provenance of specific stones or artifacts and commenting on the region as a whole and the resources it provided for village life. Natural scientists and biological scientists alike were rediscovered and engaged in a dialogue about ancient ecology. Finally, the social scientists, especially anthropologists along with some sociologists, began to take part, and although their impact on the discipline is yet to be fully felt, their concern for the reconstruction of social patterns based on archaeological data has already had profound effects upon biblical archaeology, and their interpretation of some of the material evidence has been most helpful and constructive. Indeed, one could say that regardless of how Americans describe what they are doing in Israel or Jordan it is already a fact that archaeological research is being conducted in a way that reflects the new archaeology in its broadest sense, including both techniques of data collection and modes of interpreting those data. Because so many archaeologists who work in biblical lands insist adamantly on being known as Near Eastern archaeologists, or as Syro- Palestinian archaeologists on the one hand or biblical archaeologists on the other, the different perspectives that they bring to the discipline of archaeology must be explored. As we will soon discover, it is not so much what one brings out of the ground that determines one's place along this continuum; it is rather what one brings to the field by way of training, background, and theoretical considerations. BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

3 Eric M. Meyers (left) and G. Ernest Wright examining pottery sherds from Tell Gezer in Photograph by Carol L. Meyers. The 1950s was a period that led many to believe that the primary aim of biblical archaeology was to corroborate Scripture. The most famous publication espousing this point of view was Werner Keller's The Bible as History incorrectly translating the German title which might better be rendered, "The Bible is Indeed Correct." And then there was Nelson Glueck sitting on a camel, Bible in hand, writing about his explorations in the desert, declaring that the Bible is the most reliable guide to ancient Palestine, insisting on its historicity. This mixing of archaeology and biblical history is uniquely indicative of the legacy of biblical archaeology, a legacy which has been both a blessing and a curse. The late J. J. Finkelstein put the negative aspects of it this way in an article entitled "The Bible, Archaeology, and History," as he went about criticizing Glueck's approach: My uneasiness has to do with the apparent readiness of an influential number of biblical scholars to enlist the substantial gains made during recent decades in our knowledge of Israelite and biblical history perhaps unintentionally in the current campaign to sell the public on a 1959-model piety incorporating all the latest scientific gadgets. By stamping the Bible with the approval of scientific authority, an accommodation is ostensibly achieved with the popular faith in sciences a faith that must progressively deepen as the realm of science recedes even further from the horizon of general comprehension. (Commentary April 1959, p. 349) Whether the cautions urged by Finkelstein were justified or not, his comments serve to highlight the kinds of difficulties that have persisted in the field of biblical archaeology to this day. Let us put the matter in a slightly different way. We may differentiate between those scholars in the field of biblical archaeology who place the biblical word as the primary corpus of evidence from which all history flows and those who place the biblical world in its material manifestation as the primary datum from which all interpretation of history emerges. In the case of the former, there is a concentration on ancient records and a persistent attempt to explain and pinpoint certain historical events, an emphasis on the rather bare bones of political history characterizes such an approach. In the case of the latter, there is an absolute attention to the details of material culture and an attempt to isolate and identify various stages of culture without respect to specific historical time; historical interpretation is clearly secondary to the evidence. Whereas the old biblical archaeology dealt with specific events of unique interest to the biblical audience, the new biblical archaeology deals with the totality of cultural factors in a more direct fashion. By removing the word biblical from the discussion and substituting Near Eastern or Syro-Palestinian, perhaps we can say more clearly what the new biblical archaeology really does. By eliminating the emotionally loaded term biblical, perhaps we can cast our scholarly nets even wider than before and can do so without prejudice to the nature of archaeological data. Surely there is a place for the new biblical archaeology or Near Eastern archaeology, or whatever we shall call it, without destroying a concomitant interest in the Bible. And it seems to me that we should be skeptical about archaeologists who want to dig in periods that are identified only in historical or, more precisely, biblical terms. In such instances the data become secondary to a historical situation that has a prior place in the excavator's mind before the first spade is placed into the ground. Indeed, recent years have seen any number of these kinds of expeditions. One, led by astronaut James Erwin, set out to recover Noah's ark (and a popular film on the subject has grossed millions of dollars at the box office). Yet another group several years ago set out to recover the Ark of David from a cave in the wilderness of Ein Gedi, only to return home empty-handed, broke, and more than slightly embarrassed. Even more recently, a group has claimed to have found that Ark in a Trans Jordanian setting. In such instances we should not automatically 38 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH 1984

4 It is important that historians of the Near East allow biblical studies and archaeology to inform one another in a constructive way. assume that the archaeologists were incompetent field people or technicians. Rather, we must call into question the motives and fixed set of historical questions governing their mode of inquiry. David Noel Freedman remarked in his final issue as editor of Biblical Archaeologist: Two perfectly respectable and responsible disciplines are involved: archaeological research and biblical studies. Both have validated their claims to being authentic scientific approaches and procedures for exploring a particular body of data. Each has its own prerequisites, technical apparatus, scholarly norms, and verifiable results.... Furthermore they impinge upon each other on important points, e.g. for a biblical scholar to ignore the results of archaeological research in the Near East, especially in the Syro- Palestinian region and during the Bronze and Iron Ages, would be foolhardy; similarly any archaeologist working in those areas during the same periods would be foolish to disregard the biblical materials, especially those concerning places and events. Whether the term biblical archaeology is maintained is secondary to the more central concern of whether the researcher concentrating in Near Eastern history and culture will allow both scientific biblical study and scientific archaeological investigation to inform one another in a constructive way. Surely it is much perhaps too much to expect someone today to work in both fields. But that surely was the intention of Albright when he coined the phrase biblical archaeology; and if dropping the term means divorcing these two interdependent components of historical research, archaeology and biblical studies, then I am against changing the name. To be sure, each discipline may speak with its own distinctive voice, but only the investigator who deals with all primary data is truly qualified to distinguish between the descriptive, taxonomic task and historical interpretation. Palestinian archaeology has clearly emerged from a concern with the biblical past alone, and it would be a mistake to ignore its potential as a separate discipline irrespective of such a particular historical context. Archaeology is first and foremost a discipline that is devoted to recovering the remains of past cultures. These cultures can be as recent as modern times and some archaeological projects do indeed concentrate on the immediate past (for instance, the University of Arizona garbage project). It goes without saying that when archaeological data are recovered from historical periods whose date and provenance are firmly established and completely obvious, the task of taxonomy and classification as well as interpretation is greatly simplified. But the archaeologist who is faithful to his discipline is committed to as total an information retrieval as possible, given the normal limitations of time, manpower, and budget. The task is not only to get as much data as possible but also to do this in a way that is not biased in favor of one type of artifact. A common criticism of Old World archaeology has been its special attention to fine ceramics or to ceramic typology while expending insufficient attention to ceramic technology. Because some kinds of data may still be overlooked by Old World archaeologists, and because some data might lie beyond the ken of our present range of questions and techniques, an utmost effort must be made to recover the fullest possible range of information. New methodology has also shown us that it is no longer acceptable to study a site in isolation from its regional affiliations and the environmental factors operating upon both. For antiquity it is especially important to establish the regional patterns of usage for artifacts whose life spans may spread over centuries. The sum total of the information recovered from a site thus constitutes a basic building block for assessing relationships, for determining cultural horizons that may be distinguished by certain combinations of environmental features and artifactual and architectural assemblages. As such procedures are followed year after year, season after season, the cumulative effect and worth of the data will become apparent. Previously excavated and published materials can be reinterpreted and perhaps illumined, and their merit or lack of merit can be fully exposed. In such an approach the data themselves constitute a clear and independent source of information. The data and only the data are interpreted, or reinterpreted, against analogous collections of data, ultimately a relative or unrefined chronology along with other modes of understanding can be proposed for the context of the evidence. This is pure archaeological research. If the material being examined is perceived to come from a period that relates to the biblical record, I agree with Freedman that it would be foolhardy to ignore the biblical materials. Similarly, it is simply foolish for the modern biblical scholar to ignore the results of pertinent archaeological research. Examining the history of any human community in light of BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH

5 archaeological evidence provides historians with many more questions and possibilities than they would have were they to approach the study from the perspective of literary history alone. If I may draw a classic example from biblical studies, until recently a historian relying solely on the Bible would tend to view the beginnings of Israel in terms of a military conquest by a united group of invading troops led first by Moses and then by Joshua. Thinking largely in terms of political history, such a historian might try to set dates for the series of battles that comprised this event, attempt to pinpoint the sites of the various encounters between Israelites and indigenous Canaanites, and trace the outlines of the ensuing Israelite tribal organization. Thanks to the social sciences, and especially to the pioneering scholarship of Mendenhall and Gottwald, we know that such a reconstruction is no longer possible. Biblical history, rather, is a complex pattern of social organization and change, with accompanying religious development; it is not just a catalogue of battles or a biography of kings and prophets. When a biblical scholar is equally at home in the world of artifacts as in language and literature, and when all of these can be critically analyzed and used, then we have biblical archaeology at its optimum level. Many people, however, feel it is no longer possible for any single individual to work both sides of the street. They would agree that Albright did it in his day but that no one can do justice to both disciplines any longer. They feel that this is particularly true since the archaeological component of such an enterprise has expanded geometrically since the peak of Albright's work. They are probably right. Although I have no doubt that there will be a sufficient number of field archaeologists around for years to come who will be able to do superior work, and although biblical scholarship rooted in literary analysis will surely prosper and mature as a discipline, I am not convinced that our society and its institutions of higher learning will be able to produce enough scholars grounded in both literary sources and material culture. Most scholars of the Bible, scholars of Old and New Testaments, cannot be critical about a particular dig or excavation report, let alone be qualified to identify an object as Late Bronze II or Iron I, Early Roman or Middle Roman. Similarly, most historians of the early Church or of ancient Judaism could not be bothered with the actual physical remains of that world, even though such a setting would include art and artifacts. In general, the historians of these traditions have asked the archaeologists to communicate the results of their investigations in such a way that they, the literary, social, and economic historians, can make use of the insights of archaeology without having actually to do field work. I think our nonarchaeologicallyinclined colleagues have a point. The burden of the fully integrative approach is on the archaeologist. Is it too much to ask those who do archaeology to synthesize more while not sacrificing their commitment to complete, more scientific reporting? In other words, it would seem that literary scholars want archaeologists to prod them into seeking new approaches and into discovering new ways of assessing old problems. Unfortunately, Near Eastern archaeologists have not been doing this prodding. Despite the importance of social-scientific models for historical or cultural reconstruction, for instance, only the rare archaeologist in our field has published in a language demonstrating an awareness of such models. Few scholars, biblical scholars included, have attempted to synthesize; few have attempted to raise issues that colleagues in other disciplines could and should address. Scholarly publication, therefore, its direction and its format, is an item that bears heavily upon the future directions of our disciplines, especially on archaeology. Biblical history is indeed being rewritten with the help of biblical archaeology; but, as I have indicated, it is a most challenging undertaking. Many specialists must work together to recreate the culture and historical setting of the Bible. Each specialist and each discipline has its place and its role to play in the recovery of the past. One day these many specialties will be integrated in a way that makes possible new levels of human understanding; then and only then will biblical archaeology have come of age as a discipline unto itself. Meanwhile, we shall have to content ourselves with a field that is divided over terminology but united in its dedication to the recovery of the past and its search for the truth. This article is a slightly modified version of an address given in Dallas, Texas, on December 20, 1983, at the plenary session of the American Schools of Oriental Research during its annual meeting with the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Academy of Religion. 40 BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/MARCH 1984

6 ^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or ed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS ) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.