ASOR is pronounced with a long A, with the emphasis on the first syllable A-sor.


Published for ASOR by Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1983, 292 pp., $15.00.


It is not clear why King chose Mideast, rather than Near East, in his title. Mideast is the common term for the area in the political realm, and Near East in archaeology and academia, as King recognizes (p. xi).


King writes that “Academia is filled with single-minded scholars, who at times are a mixed blessing; their expertise is indispensable, their tenacity insufferable. Situations sometimes require a Solomonic diplomat if an institution is to survive.” Phil King provided that kind of leadership to ASOR for six years. A major defect in his book, no doubt the result of an undue sense of modesty, is his complete failure to describe his own presidency and the enormous contributions he made to the organization, a contribution that is likely to be increasingly appreciated with the passage of time. Only a single sentence in his book is devoted to his administration: “In [1976] Philip J. King of Boston College succeeded to the presidency of ASOR and served for two three-year terms.”


In fairness to Robinson, it should be pointed out that he was by no means alone during this early period in failing to appreciate the significance of tells. Even in the 1870s, the great British archaeologist Claude Conder, who worked with H. H. Kitchener on the Palestine Exploration Fund’s survey of western Palestine, identified the mounds as ancient brick factories.


Lapp died in a tragic drowning accident off the coast of Cyprus in 1970.


Arab objections to any institution that excavated in Israel led ASOR in 1969 to separately incorporate its Jerusalem and Amman schools as autonomous institutes. In this way, ASOR schools are able to excavate both in Israel and in Arab countries.


Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 242 (Spring 1981), p. 15.


According to Dever: “The ‘new archaeology’ was ignored or rejected by older American archaeologists, especially by those who considered themselves exclusively ‘biblical archaeologists’; by many European historical archaeologists working in the Middle East; and, more significantly, by the Israelis (who, however, adopted some of the more practical field techniques of the newer approach)” (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 242, p. 16.).