053
A long, sometimes bitter debate has been going on in BAR as to whether Yahweh, the God of ancient Israel, had a consort. One of America’s most prominent Biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever, says that in popular religion he sometimes did. Others question Dever’s evidence, even doubting his concept of “popular religion.”
Another kind of debate has also filled these pages: Should scholars look at artifacts that come from the antiquities market? They may have been looted. At worst, they may be forgeries. The two major professional associations of archaeologists in the United States— ASOR (the American Schools of Oriental Research) and AIA (the Archaeological Institute of America)— will not allow these objects to be published in their journals, nor will they allow them to be presented in papers at their meetings.
BAR (as well as many leading scholars) rejects these positions. We will look at the evidence. That is not to say that we approve of looting. And certainly not of forgers. We agree that the missing contexts of looted objects considerably reduce their significance and deprive them of much meaning. But, although looted objects are worth less, they are not worthless. Moreover, averting our eyes from looted objects does not reduce looting, as all admit. We believe that looting must be stopped on the ground. Looters should be caught and jailed. Forgers belong in the same place— only in smaller cells.
These two issues have recently come together. In 2005 we published several previously unpublished house shrines from the collection of the well-known antiquities collector Shlomo Moussaieff. He acquired them on the antiquities market. Our article was based on a manuscript written by three prominent scholars in which they praised these particular house shrines for their “exceptionally rich iconographic detail … warranting the prompt publication.” But at the time they were afraid to publish them under their own names, lest the academy take retribution.
As a result of this article in BAR, we learned of another important house shrine in a private collection that should figure prominently in the debate about whether Yahweh had a consort.
The owner wishes to remain anonymous, lest he be subject to the vitriol the establishment now commonly heaps on collectors. Professor Dever, who is retired and therefore not subject to academic retribution, has agreed to discuss this house shrine here, but only if we “publish” it first.
Here it is, Bill.
A long, sometimes bitter debate has been going on in BAR as to whether Yahweh, the God of ancient Israel, had a consort. One of America’s most prominent Biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever, says that in popular religion he sometimes did. Others question Dever’s evidence, even doubting his concept of “popular religion.”a Another kind of debate has also filled these pages: Should scholars look at artifacts that come from the antiquities market? They may have been looted. At worst, they may be forgeries. The two major professional associations of archaeologists in the United States— ASOR (the American Schools of […]
