BARview: Israel’s Turn at the Annual Meeting

004

For the past three years, the archaeological sessions of the Annual Meeting^a have included a special section devoted to a single country. The first country so honored was Cyprus. Then came Syria. In 1985, it was Israel.

There are differences, however. With Cyprus and Syria, only one or at most two of the lecturers was a Cypriote or a Syrian. In the case of Israel, the reverse was true: Almost all the lecturers were Israeli.

Unlike other countries in the Middle East, Israel has a cadre of well-trained archaeologists who dominate the archaeological scene in their own country. This has immense, largely unexplored implications.

Americans, when they come to dig in other Middle Eastern countries, are the highly trained, enormously knowledgeable foreigners. They must beware, lest they be perceived as cultural imperialists. Yet the opportunities for archaeological leadership are attractive and exciting; American archaeologists in these countries find themselves working in a comparative terra incognita and functioning somewhat as pioneers.

In Israel, there is a vast quantity of archaeological activity and it is dominated by the Israelis themselves, men and women who have studied the land since their childhood, who live there and share ideas and information with one another year round, and whose native language is that of their principal texts. The relationships between the Israelis and the foreigners (mostly American) are warm and personally genuinely friendly, but competition often exists below the surface and it is sometimes difficult for the Americans to compete.

Moreover, American and Israeli archaeologists often bring different methodological and substantive presuppositions to the archaeological endeavor, another potential source of friction.

Finally, the intensive archaeological activity in Israel by the Israelis themselves means that much more is known archaeologically about Israel clan about ocher Middle Eastern countries.

All this was reflected—sometimes directly, more often subtly—at the Annual Meeting where about 3,200 scholars from all over the world gathered to explore the outposts of scholarship together. Hundreds of lectures, panel discussions, consultations, seminars, workshops, addresses, slide presentations and informal meetings were squeezed into four intense days at the Anaheim Hilton, ten minutes from Disneyland. Dozens of events—not including excursions to Disneyland—occurred simultaneously. The experience was a unique pressure cooker that necessitated several days afterward to sort out thoughts and ideas. But, as always, the Annual Meeting was rewarding and stimulating.

Many of the leading lights in Israel’s archaeological community were there to give papers: Trude Dothan, Avraham Malamat, Moshe Dothan, Avraham Biran, Yigal Shiloh, Ephraim Stern, Moshe Kochavi, Itzhaq Beit-Arieh.

Only two Americans gave substantive archaeological papers at the Israel sessions—Seymour Gitin, director of the William F. Albright School for Archaeological Research in Jerusalem (Gitin has lived in Israel for many years), and Lawrence Stager, newly 006appointed as the Dorot Professor of the Archaeology of Israel at Harvard University and director of a major new dig at Ashkelon.

One might have expected the leading scholars in America’s archaeological community to give substantive archaeological papers in other sessions, if not in the Israel sessions. But most of them did not. They were there, but they did not present substantive archaeological papers—James Sauer, president of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR); William G. Dever and Eric Meyers, the two vice presidents (Meyers did give a Biblical paper, although not an archaeological one); Phillip King, ASOR past president; Joseph Callaway, president of the Albright school; Walter Rast, editor of ASOR’s scholarly journal. Other leading lights in the American archaeological community were also there but silent—James D. Muhly (whose commendable work as ASOR program chairman must nevertheless be acknowledged), James Strange, Robert Bull, David Noel Freedman, Ernest Frerichs—this list of the silent could easily be extended.

The senior American scholars left it mostly to their students and the younger generation. It is a pleasure to report that many of them are brilliant; the future looks bright—if only jobs can be found for these young scholars.

Organizationally, ASOR also seems more secure, thanks to the partial subsidence of internal political upheaval, treasurer Charles Harris’s imposition of fiscal restraints, Joseph Callaway’s and Joe Seger’s fund-raising efforts at the Albright school and an anonymous $250,000 gift from ASOR trustee Leon Levy. ASOR is an exciting organization with auspicious prospects. It is sad, however, that somehow it has failed to enlist the wisdom and experience of its elder statesmen who in the past have given so much to the organization. Its past presidents and vice presidents—Phil King, Frank Cross, Noel Freedman, Ted Campbell—strangely play little or no current role in the organization. All this accumulated wisdom and experience represent a tremendously valuable, and unused, asset that leaves the current leadership rootless.

Is it possible to discern any larger scholarly trend from the substantive archaeological papers that were presented?

One exciting new area of research seems to be the reexamination of materials and field reports from sites that were excavated 50 years or more ago. In the decades after World War II, a number of sites were reexcavated in major new expeditions—Gezer, Ai, Jericho, Tell el-Hesi, to name just four. More recently, however, young scholars have been reexamining old field reports and artifacts—with or without a small, new field probe.

An entire afternoon—six presentations—was devoted to reexamining the excavation materials from Tell en-Nasbeh, usually identified as Biblical Mizpeh. Tell en-Nasbeh was excavated in the 1920s and ’30s by W. F. Badé of the Pacific School of Religion. Badè published only preliminary reports. After his untimely death, his assistants published a substantial final excavation report. But there is still much to learn—and to correct—from 007this excavation. It is gratifying to see how far archaeology has come in the last half century. Not only have our methodologies improved, but we are now focusing on different questions. As Merilyn Copland pointed out in her presentation, the site presented different problems for Badé than it does for us; he was primarily concerned with narrow historical questions, especially the ancient identification of the site. Was it really Mizpeh? Was Tell en-Nasbeh occupied in the periods when Mizpeh is mentioned in the Bible? Today, our concerns are broader. We are still interested in site identification, and dating continues to be a major concern, but the focus is shifting to a different kind of history, not simply political history, but anthropological and sociological history as well. The same artifacts, especially when subjected to modern methodologies, may have much new to tell us.

Tell en-Nasbeh is not the only site being subject to such reexamination. Gary Pratico is reexamining the materials from Nelson Glueck’s excavation at Tell el-Kheleifeh. Jacqueline Balensi is reexamining the materials from Tell Abu Hawam. Yigal Shiloh is taking a new look at the Megiddo materials. Gaby Barkay is reinterpreting the results from Ramat Rahel after conducting a few new probes. A report on the new results from Ramat Rahel was presented at the Annual Meeting by Gordon Franz of the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem.

Another trend is emerging in archaeological analysis: asking larger questions of the burgeoning mass of detailed material that has been accumulating in recent years as a result of so many excavations and surface surveys.

In his paper, Bryant Wood of the University of Toronto analyzed 20 sites in Israel with destruction levels that at one time might have been attributed to invading Israelites. Wood was able to categorize the sites into three different areas and to consider each area in terms of its particular geographical-political context. His conclusion: None of the destruction levels could be confidently attributed to invading Israelites.

Patrick McGovern of the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College in Philadelphia examined the clays, the method of preparing the clays for use in pottery, and pottery manufacturing techniques during the transitional period when the Israelites are thought to have appeared in the land of Canaan. McGovern’s analysis utilized the latest scientific techniques, but he also asked larger questions of his material: Can his analysis of the clay tell us anything about the nature of Israel’s emergence in Canaan? Surprisingly, the answer may well be “yes.” The 008continuity of clay, clay-preparing techniques and manufacturing traditions suggests a continuity of culture, an internal emergence of Israel, rather than a new ethnic element from outside. Although the pottery forms may have changed with the assumed appearance of the Israelites, the pottery itself is nevertheless tied to the previous period by a “continuous industrial tradition.” McGovern was able to contrast his analysis of these clay-making and pottery-manufacturing techniques with his analysis of the same techniques in Philistine pottery, which presented a far different configuration.

We recall how, about a decade or more ago, all the confident assertions we thought we could make about the patriarchal age were kicked out from under us by new, largely archaeological analyses. Today, there is almost nothing we can say with confidence about the patriarchal age. The same thing now seems to be happening with respect to Israel’s emergence as a people in Canaan. There is little we can say with confidence.

But there is a difference. There is abundant material relating to Israel’s settlement in Canaan. And the theories are flying thick and fast. None can be said to dominate at this point in the debate. All will probably turn out, in retrospect, to be a bit simplistic. But there is a reasonable hope that out of the scholarly maelstrom a defendable synthesis will emerge. In the meantime, it is an exciting debate to follow.

Because my report on last year’s meetings heavily criticized the Palmer House in Chicago, it seems only fair to note that the Anaheim Hilton deserves high marks. Even the prices at the hotel’s restaurants were reasonable. One minor point: The meeting rooms all had names instead of numbers. The directory board under the posted maps listed the names in nonalphabetical order. This made it extremely difficult to locate meeting rooms quickly. This small criticism, however, is a measure of all that was right.

Two notes on format: The ASOR presentations consisted mainly of back-to-back lectures of no more than a half-hour, often less. This left no room for questions or discussion. Many papers don’t need more time and do not elicit meaningful discussion or questions. Some topics, however, do. Almost all the papers by the Israelis would have profited by more time and by discussion and questions. Is it possible to identify such papers in advance? It is worth a try. A few sessions should be devoted to somewhat larger, synthetic papers that also allow time for discussions and questions.

Happily, the time has also come when Israelis, Egyptians and Jordanians can appear on the same program. Perhaps this is also true of other Arab nationals. The Annual Meeting—particularly since it is under American auspices—provides an excellent opportunity for the interchange of ideas among scholars of different Middle Eastern countries. A fund should be available that would enable scholars from all over the ancient Near East to come to these meetings to present the results of their research and share ideas. Archaeology is not enclosed by national boundaries. No one can understand the archaeology of his or her own country without also studying and understanding the archaeology of adjacent and related areas. Special sessions should be held at these meetings that would consider questions relating to broad geographical areas. Scholars from different countries can bring to these sessions materials from their own research and share their somewhat different national perspectives. The results would be exciting.

Through the good offices of Ernie Frerichs, co-director of the Program in Judaic Studies at Brown University, I had a most cordial and enjoyable dinner in Anaheim with Jack Neusner, who has figured in several recent issues of BAR. We both agreed that important intellectual issues should continue to be explored. Professor Neusner has graciously offered to examine some of these issues either in BAR or in its sister publication, Bible Review. We look forward to publishing these analyses.

For the past three years, the archaeological sessions of the Annual Meetinga have included a special section devoted to a single country. The first country so honored was Cyprus. Then came Syria. In 1985, it was Israel. There are differences, however. With Cyprus and Syria, only one or at most two of the lecturers was a Cypriote or a Syrian. In the case of Israel, the reverse was true: Almost all the lecturers were Israeli. Unlike other countries in the Middle East, Israel has a cadre of well-trained archaeologists who dominate the archaeological scene in their own country. This […]