Insights from Archaeology

Preface

Archaeology! The very word sounds exciting. We picture Indiana Jones in his dashing outfit (inexplicably carrying a bullwhip!), robbing tombs of priceless museum pieces and enduring threats to his life in the process. How exciting! Many of us dream of such a career.

The truth is, archaeology is usually slow, painstaking, and hot labor. It may take years before archaeologists find anything good at a site. I have never met anyone in the field that even remotely reminded me of Harrison Ford (except for myself, of course). Robbing tombs is illegal. Most of the museum pieces found in Israel are rather homely and plain.

Yet archaeology can be exciting if the excitement is about the people whose lives we come to know through the remains. If you expect to see your picture in the New York Times standing with a serious and scholarly expression on your face, surrounded by smiling locals, while you modestly point toward your sensational discovery under the screaming headlines: HOW I FOUND THE ARK OF THE COVENANT!—you may want to explore another career or at least another venue for your career. That will almost never happen in Israel.

If, however, meeting ancient folk through their stuff excites you, you might want to consider archaeology as a career or hobby. If you can hold a broken cooking pot, reflect on the ancient hands that fashioned it from wet clay, imagine the persons that handled the pot repeatedly to cook meals, and finally picture in your mind’s eye the many hands—large and small—that dipped into the pot to eat, then you will love archaeology. The artifacts tell us about the people who used them. That is where the excitement lies.

Yet my task in this small volume is not to entice anyone to grab a trowel and start digging willy-nilly—please do not do that—but to introduce the reader to the ways archaeology can assist in biblical interpretation. It clearly does help in the task. Although not all archaeologists and biblical scholars agree on precisely how the material remains give us interpretative insights, there is a rough consensus. I will, I hope, help the reader to see why these conclusions make sense.

One observation should be clear, if not now, then I hope by the end of your reading this monograph: to ignore the results of archaeology is unwise. Old Testament scholars have known this for a century or more; New Testament interpreters are beginning to understand this as well. The old excuse—I am a text woman/text man, I don’t do archaeology—will no longer hold. Everyone needs to do archaeology in the sense that the material remains are considered. While actual excavation experience is not yet a requisite to become a good biblical interpreter, some reading about the results of archaeology should be required of everyone earning a degree in Biblical Studies.

I hope in chapter 1 to set the table for our feast. Here I intend to survey the common suggestions as to how one can and should use archaeology. Of course, there have been abuses and misuses in the past one hundred or more years, but today there seem to be four or five commonly used approaches in the proper use of material remains in interpreting the Bible.

Chapter 2 will offer the reader some concrete examples of the suggestions of chapter 1. We will look at some of the great events of the Old Testament and at some of the unexpected discoveries relating to the New Testament that both expand and confirm our knowledge of certain narratives. But once a person dips his or her toe into the waters of archaeology, he or she must be prepared for occasional discomfort as well. Some of the remains appear to contradict (or at least challenge) the historicity of the biblical narratives. Not all of the discoveries offer sensational confirmation of the Bible. Some present us with sensational contradictions of the Bible.

Chapter 3 will lead the reader on a sustained tour through an Iron Age (i.e., Old Testament period) Israelite house. In walking through a family’s house and inspecting their furnishings like a group of tourists, we will also have occasion to speak briefly about the nature of the Israelite family based on what we learn from their houses. I hope to create on paper a fictional Israelite family and guide the reader through a typical day in their lives.

Chapter 4 will seek to pull together many publications on the skeletal remains from the Second Temple Period in Israel, that is, the period of the Jesus Movement and the Gospels. As we will see in chapter 1 of this volume, one of the goals in studying the material remains of Israel is to reconstruct the social world of the people. But in chapter 4, I hope to contribute toward reconstructing a bit of the personal world of the people. What was it like for individuals personally to live in New Testament–era Israel? This chapter will be rather like a sad stroll through cemeteries to ponder the brevity of life.

Chapter 5 provides in summary fashion a reminder of what archaeology can and cannot do. Archaeology cannot be used to prove or disprove the Bible, and it cannot tell us all we want to know about the biblical world. It also cannot tell us if the Bible is right or true (theologically). Archaeology can help us reconstruct the social, economic, household, and material environment of the world in which the Bible was written. It can even, occasionally, shed light on a biblical text with the effect of changing the interpretation of a specific text. Finally, it can offer confirmation (or contradiction) of a text, event, or person of the Bible.

No research today can or should be done without the consultation of others. I wish to thank Carol Meyers, Eric Meyers, and Dennis Groh for kindly reading portions of this monograph and offering helpful suggestions. Yet, they can only give advice; it is up to me to take it. Thus any remaining weaknesses are, of course, my own.

Most importantly, I wish to thank my wife, Molly, for her continued friendship and partnership in life’s endeavors and challenges, without whom projects like this one would be much less enjoyable.

1

Vocational Guidance Counseling: What Archaeology Is and What Archaeologists Do

Archaeology, simply put, is the scientific study of material remains of past human life and activities.[1] Or, put a little more expansively, it is the recovery, classification, and description of the material remains of antiquity.[2] Archaeology is another kind of research . . . the research [that] focuses not on texts . . . but rather on what we call ‘material culture.’[3] Or one could say that archaeology is a way of making inferences about ‘how it was in the past’ by examining material culture remains . . . [it is an] ethnography of the dead.[4]

Well, those are formal definitions. In practical terms: archaeologists study bits and pieces of other people’s garbage,[5] or they [deal] with the wreckage of antiquity.[6]   Archaeology focuses on what is left over after wars, natural disasters, and time have had their effects. Obviously, only the most durable objects (stone, fired clay, metal, and bones) survive with any regularity, although sometimes more perishable treasures are found—such as cloth, texts written on animal skins or papyri, or wooden objects—if the climate allows it.

We might distinguish the following categories in archaeology:

written remains (on clay, stone, pottery pieces, papyrus, or vellum);

nonwritten remains, including (a) large structures (such as fortifications, gates, religious buildings, and domestic structures) and (b) small finds (such as jewelry, weapons, coins, pottery, bones, and glass).[7] We will be dealing with all three categories of remains in this work.

Fig. 1.1 Excavation to bedrock. Shikhin Excavation Project. Used with permission.

First, let me state up front that this is not a how to manual. We will not review the process of excavation in this volume. Previous introductions have done this,[8] and anyway, it is difficult to get a clear picture of what happens on a dig without doing one. This volume will present ways biblical scholars and archaeologists have used archaeology to understand the Bible. In engaging in this task, we will in this chapter poll several scholars’ general guidelines for the interaction of biblical texts and archaeology. We will observe that they agree, in the main, about the appropriate uses of archaeology in interpreting the Bible.

Second, let me say that I am not an archaeologist. I have participated in a number of archaeological excavations and surveys, but that does not make one an archaeologist. I have read widely in the field but that does not qualify me either. So, then, what is an archaeologist? William Dever defines an archaeologist as one who writes history from things.[9] But that definition does not tell us enough.

Fig. 1.2 Excavation in progress. Photograph by the author.

In my experiences on excavations, I have discerned four levels of participants to whom people sometimes assign the title archaeologist. The first level I call the dirt movers. These are the grunts—I have been one of them on numerous excavations—who actually dig up the dirt and move it to the dump pile. To be sure, they dig in an orderly and planned way, but they mostly dig, move, and dump. Along the way they collect artifacts: potsherds, bones, coins, jewelry, glass, tesserae, bricks, metal instruments, weapons, and household items such as door keys, stone vessels, loom weights, spindle whorls, and lamps. Sometimes they use a pick (or a small pick called a patish), sometimes a brush, but most of the time they use a trowel. The emphasis is on moving dirt without damaging the artifacts below while remaining observant of stratigraphy. Thus, diggers are cautioned to be on the lookout for breakable ceramics and glass and for changes in the soil. The recovered artifacts are then turned over to the next level of archaeologists.

The second level I call the recorders. These folk might be the square supervisors who take notes, sketch top plans, and draw balks. They take daily elevations and measure large objects such as pieces of plaster, pieces of brick, stones, and stoneware vessels. Or, other recorders might be those who receive the artifacts from the dirt movers. The smaller artifacts are placed in boxes or envelopes, labeled, and then given to the artifact recorder(s). These persons might not even visit the site but remain back at the base camp—perhaps a hotel room—and record, package, and store artifacts. Recorders might also include those with certain specialties such as surveying. The work of the recorders is essential for those coming later in levels three and four. They work not with a trowel but with a notebook.

The third level I name the interpreters. They read the artifacts, whether potsherds, coins, lamp fragments, or other finds. They want to assign a date and function to the artifact. For example, a rim of a ceramic ware might tell the interpreter that the vessel was manufactured in the Iron II[10] period and that it was a storage vessel. A numismatist might determine that a coin was Hasmonean.

Fig. 1.3 Top plan of a square. Shikhin Excavation Project. Used with permission.

A bone expert might determine that certain bones were from sheep. If one has excavated a tomb and collected human bones, a physical anthropologist would tell the age, sex, and general condition of the person at death. An expert in ancient weaponry might decide that an arrowhead was Roman. An architect might inspect the standing ruins of buildings. The interpreters are experts in their fields of interpretation. No single person knows about all of these areas, though sometimes those in the next level of archaeology will also be an expert interpreter in one of them (usually in pottery).

One might also include in this level the restorers of material remains. Most commonly, these are persons who piece together potsherds (or pieces of glass) into an original vessel (or part of it) in order to understand more completely the vessel’s function. A restorer also might produce a sketch of the original vessel or artifact. A restorer is a kind of interpreter of the remains, since she or he is presenting to the public what the vessel looked like in the first place.

Fig. 1.4 Potsherds excavated and washed. Shikhin Excavation Project. Used with permission.

Fig. 1.5 Pottery reading. Shikhin Excavation Project. Used with permission.

Fig. 1.6 Middle Roman–era jar, partially restored. Photograph by the author.

Fig. 1.7 Partially reconstructed house from the MR-LR village of Katzrin. Photograph by the author.

Others might restore part of a building by repositioning stones now lying on the ground into their original places. By so doing, the restorers want visitors to the site to gain a better understanding of the building’s original appearance and function. Such restorations of buildings are also, of course, interpretations. On the one hand, they seek to clarify what the material remains represent. But on the other hand, they can mislead if the interpreter misunderstands the object.

The fourth level of archaeological participant is the director. This is the person (usually the dig director) who will—often assisted by his/her colleagues, perhaps named associate directors—put it all together for a coherent picture of the site. These are the people who (write) history from things. This person will seek to understand the site in all its levels of occupation and in the context of its geography and chronology. This person must be familiar with the political, economic, and cultural history of the region. She must be able to envision the big picture. The director must see the village or building as it was through successive periods of time. He must understand how this site related economically, politically, and culturally with its surroundings. Succeeding in this synthesis is only possible if the recorders and interpreters have done their job adequately.

So which of these persons should we dub an archaeologist? Certainly the fourth level qualifies as a real archaeologist, and I would say possibly the third level if someone devotes his or her skill mostly to archaeology.[11] But the first and second levels would not qualify in my opinion. That is why I say that, although I have participated on levels one and two, it does not make me an archaeologist.

Further—let me add respectfully—not every archaeologist (i.e., those on the director’s level) is necessarily also a good historian/biblical exegete or one who "writes [good] history from things";[12] some seem unable to go beyond extracting and interpreting artifacts and then writing these interpretations up in the final report. They are enormously skilled at conceiving of the excavation queries, organizing the dig, and then synthesizing all of the data into a narrative. But integrating their excavation narrative into the flow of history—interpreting or reinterpreting history because of it—does not always happen. But the best ones are also good historians who can then integrate the material findings of their excavation into the larger historical picture and even, as a result, expand our knowledge of the history of a people.

The Modern Context for the Study of Biblical Archaeology[13]

No discipline exists in a vacuum; it is informed not only by its current environment but also by its heritage. The archaeological investigation of material remains that relate to the Bible has a history that drives much of what is happening today. Thus it is helpful, in getting our bearings, to review briefly the history of the Biblical Archaeology movement in the United States.

Phase I

The use of archaeology to assist in biblical studies—to serve as the handmaid of biblical studies—reached its Golden Age from the 1920s to the 1960s.[14] In this period, Biblical Archaeology was a subdiscipline under biblical studies, and this approach to the use of archaeology dominated American Palestinian archaeological excavations.[15] It existed to serve, illuminate, and prove the Bible (especially the Old Testament). During those years William F. Albright’s influence was at its peak. He appears to have had an agenda from the start for his use of archaeology in biblical studies. Albright believed that archaeology could verify the historicity of the biblical texts. He wanted both to prove the Bible and to oppose German higher criticism. He could write in 1957, after decades of excavating:

I defend the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition, without any appreciable change in my point of view . . . I have not surrendered a single position with regard to early Israelite monotheism but . . . consider the Mosaic tradition as even more reliable than I did then (in 1940) . . . I have grown more conservative in my attitude to Mosaic tradition.[16]

Albright’s excavations—and those of his numerous