In this issue (see “Whatchamacallit”), William Dever tells us that the term “Biblical Archaeology” is passé as the name of a particular archaeological discipline. He thinks “Biblical Archaeology” should be reserved for a needed dialogue between archaeology and Biblical studies. What then should archaeologists who specialize in the Biblical era call their discipline? After considering and rejecting terms like the “Archaeology of the Levant” and “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” (which he once championed), Dever opts for national names, identifying, in effect, the national schools of archaeology—Israeli archaeology, Jordanian archaeology, Cypriot archaeology, etc.
It was with this in mind that I looked at the names of the sessions in the “Call for Papers” to be presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) in November. ASOR is the premier American professional organization of Near Eastern archaeologists. Historically, ASOR was the organization of American Biblical Archaeologists. Its semi-popular magazine was called Biblical Archaeologist. In recent years, however, ASOR has broadened its horizons. Its schools in Amman, Jordan, and Nicosia, Cyprus, could not be expected to embrace Biblical Archaeology. Indeed, such nomenclature would be unacceptable in Amman. Even ASOR’s school in Jerusalem is involved in exploring pre-Biblical periods and, more recently, Islamic archaeology. Symptomatic of this change in focus, the name of ASOR’s magazine was changed to Near Eastern Archaeology; the sessions at ASOR’s annual meeting reflect this broadened interest.
So the Call for Papers announced that there would be sessions on the “Archaeology of Jordan,” the “Archaeology of Syria,” the “Archaeology of Cyprus,” the “Archaeology of Mesopotamia,” the “Archaeology of Anatolia” and another session simply described as “Arabia.”
There are also to be more general sessions: “Trade in the Mediterranean,” “Stone Tools in the Southern Levant,” “Organic Approaches to Near Eastern Archaeology,” “Politics of Ottoman Syro-Palestine”—all using a wide array of geographical terms.
Do you see anything missing here? Am I being overly sensitive?
Dever’s article describes a national school of Israeli archaeology that is more highly developed than any of the other national schools in the Middle East, with “a proliferation of talent,” but that school seems to be the only one that has been omitted from ASOR’s Call for Papers. Indeed, the word Israel doesn’t appear, except as one of the nations included in the geographical term “Southern Levant.”
Perhaps the omission of Israel was simply accidental. There is, after all, a session on “The Hebrew Bible, History and Archaeology”; presumably this session will embrace the dialogue between archaeology and Biblical texts that Dever talks about. The mention of the Hebrew Bible, however, suggests another omission. Although there is a 070session on the relationship of archaeology to the Hebrew Bible, there is no analogous session on the New Testament. Has Near Eastern archaeology nothing to contribute to an understanding of the New Testament? Perhaps this will be covered in the session on “Roman and Byzantine Palestine.” But one does get the feeling that although ASOR is making the necessary nod to Israel and to religious texts, its institutional interest is tepid at best. The Bible—both the Old and New Testaments—and the nation of modern Israel barely have their foot in the door.
This is only the Call for Papers, however. The situation may radically change by the time ASOR’s annual meeting convenes in Atlanta this November.
In this issue (see “Whatchamacallit”), William Dever tells us that the term “Biblical Archaeology” is passé as the name of a particular archaeological discipline. He thinks “Biblical Archaeology” should be reserved for a needed dialogue between archaeology and Biblical studies. What then should archaeologists who specialize in the Biblical era call their discipline? After considering and rejecting terms like the “Archaeology of the Levant” and “Syro-Palestinian Archaeology” (which he once championed), Dever opts for national names, identifying, in effect, the national schools of archaeology—Israeli archaeology, Jordanian archaeology, Cypriot archaeology, etc. It was with this in mind that I looked […]
You have already read your free article for this month. Please join the BAS Library or become an All Access member of BAS to gain full access to this article and so much more.