BARlines

010

Dever To Write Popular Book on Gezer and To Undertake Emergency Preservation on Site

William G. Dever, the excavator of Gezer,¹ will write a popular book on the 11-year Gezer excavation, which lasted from 1964 to 1974. Dever is currently negotiating with Thomas Nelson Publishers for a book contract.

Nelson recently published Nahman Avigad’s popular account of his excavations in the Upper City of Jerusalem entitled Discovering Jerusalem and is currently discussing the publication of several other popular archaeological books by leading scholars. Nelson is thus emerging as the primary publisher in the United States of top-quality original archaeological books relating to the Bible.

“If I didn’t write it, somebody else might,” Dever told BAR in explanation of his decision to write the Gezer book. “And only the excavator can really tell the story,” he added. All predictions are that it will be a blockbuster of a book. The material is great, and Dever knows how to write.

“I won’t be able to start for at least a year and a half,” Dever said. But he was certain he would complete it.

Dever, who will be returning to Gezer this season for some check-up probes, will also undertake emergency preservation and conservation measures, especially of the Solomonic gate.

“This should ‘hold’ it until more extensive work can be done,” Dever reported. A coordinated effort at a large scale restoration and preservation project is presently under consideration by Hebrew Union College (one of the original major sponsors of the Gezer excavations), the Israel Department of Antiquities and other interested parties, both here and in Israel. The problems are formidable, but all parties concerned are convinced that the job must be done.

Major Five-Volume Bible Dictionary Planned

David Noel Freedman, probably the greatest scholarly editor of his generation, has signed a contract with Doubleday publishers to edit a new Bible dictionary.

The new Bible dictionary will consist of five volumes and will take five years to produce. It will be written by 500 contributors and will reach 5,000 pages and 5,000,000 words. So reports Freedman with a twinkle in his eye. Obviously pleased with the new assignment, he refuses to speculate whether the figure 5 and its multiples impart any mystical significance to the project. Nor has he explained how he intends to get 1,000 words on each page.

Freedman has edited almost every kind of scholarly publication in the field of Biblical studies and archaeology, including Doubleday’s Anchor Bible Series. Almost every volume of this distinguished series is sprinkled with footnotes acknowledging his substantive contributions as editor. In addition, he has served as editor of the Biblical Archeologist, the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, ASOR’s dissertation series, numerous festschrifts, The Bible And Its Tradition and Biblical Archeologist Reader. Freedman is currently head of the Religious Studies Program at the University of Michigan.

Annual Meetings Exhilarating; Debate over Biblical Archaeology Laid to Rest

In these pages last year, we called many of the papers at ASOR’s 1982 annual meetings boring. It is pleasant to report that the 1983 meetings, held in Dallas for four days in late December, were exhilarating.

The annual meetings bring together thousands of scholars interested in religion, religious studies and archaeology to present papers, share ideas and discuss developments in the field. The meetings most pertinent to BAR readers’ central concerns are conducted under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), although other scholarly societies also present papers.

Much of the planning credit for this year’s successful ASOR meetings goes to Professor James Muhly of the University of Pennsylvania, who served as ASOR’s program chairman. Muhly early on cautioned the scholars against “papers that are purely descriptive.” Muhly asked the scholars to “place far greater emphasis upon interpretation and analysis.”

Sessions at the Dallas meetings were often planned around unifying themes and included interpretation, as well as description, of archaeological data. For example, one session was built around ancient food systems and included six papers that explored different aspects of the problem. Another session was devoted entirely to the archaeology of Cyprus.

Excavators also gave dig reports but in general avoided detailed descriptions of stratum after stratum with associated pottery. A highlight of the dig reports was Yigal Shiloh’s account of the latest developments in his excavations at the City of David in Jerusalem. In addition, Shiloh gave a separate paper describing his stunning find of a cache of 51 clay bullae.^a The City of David archaeologists discovered the cache while excavating a stratum that had been destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The bullae, 011in the ash of the fiery destruction, lay there, said Shiloh, “like peanuts.” All but four of the bullae are inscribed in Early Hebrew (or paleo-Hebrew) writing, in two, and sometimes three, lines. Most repeat a common formula of the period: “Belonging to X, son of Y.” A total of 81 names are found on the 51 bullae. One of the bullae is stamped with the seal of “Gemaryahu, son of Shaphan.” This is apparently the same Gemaryahu, son of Shaphan, who served in Jerusalem just before the Babylonian destruction as scribe to King Yehoiakim, as recorded in Jeremiah 36:9–12. The building in which the bullae were found, near the acropolis of the City of David and the Temple Mount, may well have been the royal chancellery. Shiloh gave an electrifying presentation.

The most maddening aspect of the program was poor scheduling. The opening morning of the meetings—when everyone was the freshest—did not include a single session of broad interest. Admittedly, the “Sub-Divisions of the Middle Bronze Age Ceramic Materials of Syria” are important, but a broader archaeological offering should also have been available. By contrast, on the last morning of the meetings, two three-hour sessions took place simultaneously, one with seven papers on “Archaeological Perspectives on Ancient Cultures” and another with six equally fascinating papers on “Biblical History and Archaeology.” Most of the audience would have liked to attend both sessions, and the shuffling back and forth (to which the BAR attendees admit we contributed) was disturbing even if understandable.

The planners apparently also had difficulty in predicting the size of the audience that would attend various sessions. Sometimes a hall that would accommodate more than 300 people attracted an audience of 15. On the other hand, distinguished scholars from around the world had to sit cross-legged on the floor to hear Peter Craigie’s excellent paper on the archaeological evidence for the religion of Ugarit. And the crowd trailed out into the hall trying to hear a session on the Sociology of the Israelite Monarchy with papers by Norman Gottwald and Volkmar Fritz.

We suggested in this space last year that business meetings should be scheduled prior to the formal opening of the sessions when scholarly papers are read. To some extent, that was done this year. It should be done more. Meetings of boards of trustees, corporations and other business meetings should not be scheduled to conflict with the reading of scholarly papers.

We are also happy to report that much of the scholarly leadership presented papers. Frank Cross drew a large audience for a ten-years-later discussion of his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, a seminal work published in 1973 (Harvard University Press, $20 [still in print]) that traces the development of Israelite religion. Unfortunately, that session conflicted with an equally engrossing session led by Joseph Callaway, devoted to the uses of remote sensing technology in Near Eastern archaeology. David Noel Freedman, another scholarly leader, delivered an insightful paper, in memory of the late Mitchell Dahood, on how the structure of Biblical passages may unlock the meaning of particularly difficult Biblical texts.

The debate about whether Biblical archaeology is a useful term to describe a legitimate, professional, academic discipline continued in public sessions as well as in private discussions. The discussions about this subject that have appeared in BAR² were referred to both explicitly and implicitly. The mood was, however, relaxed; a boil had been lanced, and it was no longer dangerous to discuss the subject openly and directly. Eric Meyers, Vice-President of ASOR and editor of Biblical Archaeologist, stated in a major plenary session that he “was happy to report that Biblical archaeology was alive and well in all its several manifestations.” He then announced to a stunned audience, which soon broke out in laughter, that BA and BAR had decided to merge—and that the new magazine was going to be called BaBar. Some wag suggested that a book might be written with the title “BaBar Goes to the Holy Land.”

Avraham Biran, former director of the Israeli Department of Antiquities and now director of Hebrew Union College’s Nelson 086Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology, ended his description of the magnificent Middle Bronze gate he excavated at Tel Dan with a reference to its possible Biblical connections; he jokingly apologized for using that “dirty word Biblical archaeology.”

Few scholarly debates reach conclusions. The debate over Biblical archaeology, however, did so at the annual meetings. With the exception of a very small group of stalwarts, a consensus was reached, and it is likely that the debate is now over. That consensus may be described as follows:

1. Biblical archaeology as an academic discipline is not only alive—it is healthy and growing. Moreover, Biblical archaeology is a legitimate, professional endeavor. It is neither amateur, not is it necessarily armchair archaeology. It is a professional academic discipline with many aspects, just like other kinds of archaeology.

2. The best of Biblical archaeology, like the best of non-Biblical archaeology, has welcomed and will continue to welcome methodological improvements and new approaches. There is no basis for distinguishing between Biblical archaeology and non-Biblical archaeology on this basis. The anthropological approach of the so-called new archaeology, by which is meant the effort to understand ancient social processes as opposed to political history, is as interesting and valuable to the Biblical archaeologist as it is to the non-Biblical archaeologist.

3. The effort to narrow the scope of the “true” or “professional” archaeologist so as to exclude Biblical studies was, in effect, an effort to confine the term archaeology to field archaeology and to exclude from archaeological concerns all humanistic studies. If one were to accept the narrow definition of archaeologist espoused by the few holdouts in the debate, no more than a handful of people in the United States would be counted as “true” or professional Near Eastern archaeologists. In one private discussion, a leading proponent of this narrow definition of archaeology argued that Cornell University’s David Owen, a participant in the conversation, was not an archaeologist, despite the fact that he has been a member of the senior staff of a major excavation (Tel Aphek) for 15 years. The reason that David Owen was not an archaeologist, according to this view, was that he specialized in epigraphy. This disqualified him, it was argued, unless he might be considered an amateur, nonprofessional, or armchair archaeologist.

Just as an epigraphist cannot be a professional or “real” archaeologist, according to this narrow view, neither can someone who specializes in Biblical studies. Thus, the argument goes, archaeology must be divorced from Biblical studies. Only the full-time field archaeologist is a “true” archaeologist, this argument maintains.

It is fair to say that never before were the implications of this argument more clearly drawn—and more clearly rejected by almost everyone.

The debate over Biblical archaeology is almost certainly over. The movement to change the name of the Biblical Archaeologist to eliminate the Biblical reference is dead. Biblical archaeology as an academic discipline is here to stay, and stronger than ever.

In the future, we are likely to hear more about the “new” Biblical archaeology, which like other areas of archaeology, is asking new questions, developing new methodologies, testing new theories. History will still be important, but so will the social world of the Bible. Neither excludes the other; indeed, each is an aspect of the other.

Of course there will still be some holdouts here and there. But one senses that even they are wearying of their well-worn arguments. In short, the argument over the legitimacy of Biblical archaeology as an academic discipline is now passé. It is highly unlikely that next year’s annual meetings will include a session on the relationship between archaeology and the Bible. Instead, we are likely to hear how specific archaeological advances shed new light on the meaning of the Bible and the history it reflects.

With the debate finished about the legitimacy of Biblical archaeology, more specific issues are likely to emerge and to be addressed. The future could be dimly seen in an in-depth session devoted to the write-up and publication of archaeological materials. How should the results of an archaeological excavation be reported? Aside from the fact that, in the words of William Dever, a 087leading participant in the discussion, modern archaeological reports are “dull, dull, dull,” there are a host of other vexing problems still unsolved.

What is exciting about these discussions is that we are advancing beyond simply the question of how much detail to include in a final archaeological report. The problems are beginning to be seen in terms of trade-offs, in terms of cost and benefits. The question is not how much detail, but how much detail for how much benefit. What are the costs in terms of delay and simple exhaustion? Behind the discussion lay a painful awareness of how few excavations are ever fully published. This is a permanent loss just as surely and just as tragically as digging a site with an outmoded methodology. Moreover, if the details are not eventually incorporated into a meaningful interpretive report, the details are impotent.

As the modern Xerox machine is able to produce mountains of paper, so is a modern excavation able to produce mountains of information. Even an earlier generation choked on the amount of information that came out of the ground. How are we to digest the geometrically increasing mountains of information that a modern dig produces? We too shall choke unless we develop adequate principles of selection.

This is a profession-wide problem that archaeologists should face as a profession. The American archaeological community has now made an admirable start. The Israeli archaeological community, whose archaeological effort dwarfs the American effort, at least in Israel, should also provide some institutionalized framework within which to face these problems. Then together, these two principal archaeological establishments can mount a frontal attack on the problem of how to preserve and present the results of archaeological excavations. There is no more pressing problem facing the profession.

It is a hopeful prediction that this problem will receive increasing attention both at future annual meetings and at international congresses and colloquia.

In a way, a similar problem is facing investigators of the intertestamental period, of early Christian history, and of contemporaneous Jewish history: What to do with mountains of information? Listening to panel discussions on historical problems of this period, it becomes increasingly obvious that it is no longer possible to focus on Jewish history, Christian history, or even Greek or Roman history to the exclusion of the others. Each of these is important to the 088others. It is impossible to understand Christian history without understanding Jewish history. It is impossible to understand Jewish history without taking account of the information provided in Christian sources. And neither can be understood without appreciating the Hellenistic setting in which all this history unfolded. Yet who is able to master all these materials from diverse cultures, especially since the primary materials are increasing by leaps and bounds?

On one thing, all agreed: There is an enormous amount of exciting new scholarship being undertaken by an exceptionally talented cadre of scholars. No wonder this year’s annual meetings were exhilarating.

Rast New Editor of BASOR

Walter E. Rast has been designated editor of the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR), the distinguished scholarly quarterly now in its 66th year. Rast assumes his post following William G. Dever, who served as editor from 1978 to 1984.

Professor of theology at Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, Indiana, Rast excavates at Bab edh-Dhra, where he co-directs the expedition with R. Thomas Schaub. This Early Bronze Age site in Jordan near the eastern shore of the Dead Sea was described in “Have Sodom and Gomorrah Been Found?” BAR 06:05.

American Friends of Israel Exploration Society To Sponsor Homage to Albright

At a plenary session lecture at the ASOR annual meetings, ASOR Vice President Eric Meyers described “Israeli archaeologists [as] the true inheritors of the Albright tradition.”

As if in confirmation of this statement, the American Friends of the Israel Exploration Society are sponsoring an all-day symposium entitled “Homage to Albright” in late October, 1984.

Until his death in 1971, William F. Albright was the world’s leading Biblical archaeologist. Long associated with Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Albright was at various times director of the ASOR school in Jerusalem, first vice-president of ASOR and editor of the ASOR Bulletin. In 1970, the American School in Jerusalem was renamed the William Foxwell Albright School of Archaeological Research.

Among the leading scholars scheduled to participate in the homage are David Noel Freedman of the University of Michigan, Delbert R. Hillers of Johns Hopkins, Frank Moore Cross of Harvard University, Samuel Ivry of John Hopkins University and Baltimore Hebrew College and Gus Van Beek, Curator of Old World Archaeology, the Smithsonian Institution.

The colloquium will be held in Rockville, Maryland. Details will be announced later.

More Dig Information for Volunteers

Gamla

Protected by steep cliffs northeast of the Sea of Galilee, Gamla seemed invulnerable to its Jewish defenders until 67 A.D., when the Romans laid siege to it. The determined defense mounted by the city’s inhabitants led later historians to call Gamla “The Masada of the North.” Like the defenders of Masada, the defenders of Gamla were eventually overwhelmed by the Romans. All but three people perished in the destruction of the city.

The ninth excavation season at Gamla will run from April to the beginning of September, 1984, led by Shmaryahu Guttman, who excavated with Yigael Yadin at Masada. In previous seasons, excavators unearthed a building that may have been a synagogue (see “Gamla: The Masada of the North,” BAR 05:01).

Volunteers who dig at Gamla will live in army tents fitted out with beds and mattresses. The campsite has electricity and running water. Kosher meals will be served.

When not digging, volunteers can visit the nearby Kazrin Museum or enjoy the waterfalls and natural pools within hiking distance of the site. There is no charge for participation in the dig at Gamla, and no previous archaeological experience is required. For more information or to apply to dig at Gamla, write to Gamla Excavations, c/o Golan Museum, Kazrin 12900, Israel.

Kinneret

Kinneret, on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee, was one of the fortified towns in the territory of Naphtali. Its inhabitants apparently abandoned the town in the ninth century B.C., perhaps after Ben-Hadad of Syria ravaged northern Israel.

Volkmar Fritz will lead excavations at 089Kinneret, today known as Tell el-‘Oreme, from September 2, 1984, to October 13, 1984. Registration fee is $100. No charge will be made for accommodations in a youth hostel near the site. No course credit is available, but lectures and field trips will be offered. Minimum stay is three weeks. For more information, write to Dr. Volkmar Fritz, Fachbereich Evengelische Theologie der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Postfach 3980, 6500 Mainz 1, West Germany.

Kazrin

The Talmudic period village and synagogue of Kazrin, located in the central Golan Heights one mile east of modern Kazrin, will be excavated in two two-week sessions, from August 25 to September 8, 1984, and from September 8 to September 22, 1984. Volunteers may attend either or both of the sessions.

During the fourth to sixth centuries A.D., Jewish, Christian and pagan communities flourished in the Golan. A highly developed agricultural system, centered around the extraction and export of olive oil, brought prosperity to the region.

Excavations at Kazrin are directed by Zvi Ma’oz, District Archaeologist of the Golan for the Israel Department of Antiquities, Rachel Hachlili of Haifa University, and Ann Killebrew of Hebrew University. Volunteers will stay at the Golan Field School Hostel, located in Kazrin. Three afternoon field trips per week and weekend day tours will be conducted to nature preserves and archaeological sites throughout the Golan Heights. Costs, including registration fees, accommodations and instruction, are $300 per two-week session. For more information, write to Kazrin Synagogue Excavations, Kazrin Archaeological Museum, P. O. Box 30, Kazrin 12900, Israel.

Hartuv

Volunteers are welcome to join dig directors Amihai Mazar and Pierre de Miroschedji at Hartuv, an Early Bronze Age site near Beth Shemesh, which will be excavated from August 12 to August 24, 1984. The dig, sponsored by Hebrew University and the French Research Center of Jerusalem, offers lectures and training for volunteers and housing at the French Center at Emmaus, 30 minutes from Jerusalem. Cost of $200 includes full board and transportation from the French Center to the dig site. For details, write to Dr. Amihai Mazar, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel.

Dever To Write Popular Book on Gezer and To Undertake Emergency Preservation on Site

William G. Dever, the excavator of Gezer,1 will write a popular book on the 11-year Gezer excavation, which lasted from 1964 to 1974. Dever is currently negotiating with Thomas Nelson Publishers for a book contract.