Bible, Archeology, and History

Syro-Palestinian Archeology, History, and Biblical Studies

by James A. Sauer

Theories and reconstructions based on the evidence from one region alone, which in the context of biblical studies has usually been Israel, must be tested in nearby regions, especially in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

During the last decade, changes have been taking place within Syro-Palestin­ian archeology and in the

relationship between Syro-Palestin­ian archeology and biblical stud­ies. While in the past the two disciplines have often been com­bined in the concept of "Biblical Archeology/' today they are becom­ing more and more independent as primary fields of research. From the viewpoint of Syro-Palestinian archeology, it is clear that biblical studies relate to only a small portion of the overall history of Syria-Palestine. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of biblical studies, the archeological evidence represents only one aspect of the complex data that biblical scholars must evaluate critically. Thus, although the two fields are becoming more and more specialized, there is an overlap of research in certain peri­ods, and a proper relationship must exist between them for those periods.

Syro-Palestinian Archeology Today extensive archeological work is being conducted throughout the Syro-Palestinian area, in the mod­ern states of Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Although this has always

been the case to a certain extent, the level of activity in Jordan and Syria in particular has increased dramati­cally during the last decade. In addition, for the first time, major surveys and some excavations are underway in the Arabian peninsula and along its coasts. This activity brings Arabia more fully into the Near Eastern picture, alongside such well-established archeological regions as Egypt, Cyprus, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. International scholars are at work in each of these countries, but growing numbers of local scholars are also now carry­ing out research projects through their own universities and Depart­ments of Antiquities. Vast amounts of new archeological data'are com­ing from these areas, and those data must be integrated across modern political boundaries. Theories and reconstructions based on the evi­dence from one region alone, which in the context of biblical studies has usually been Israel, must be tested in nearby regions, especially in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It is thus clear that during the last decade the focus of archeological work has been broadened geo­graphically, not only within Syria-Palestine, but also within the Near East as a whole.

Archeology today is also deal­ing with the entire history of man in the Near East, from the earliest prehistoric times to the modern day. Specialists are now working on the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Chal-colithic periods, from at least as early as 500,000 B.C. to ca. 3300 B.C.; on the Bronze-Iron Ages, ca. 3300-332 B.C.; on the classical Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine periods, ca. 332 B.C.-A.D. 640; and on the Islamic periods, ca. A.D. 630-1918ff. Although some work has always been done in each of these periods, many of them have often been ignored, neglected, or even discarded for the sake of other periods. In the context of biblical studies, the Bronze-Iron Ages have most frequently been studied in isolation, to the detri­ment of both earlier and later peri­ods. It is now an almost universal­ly accepted principle that archeo­logical evidence from all periods must be treated with equal care. This understanding reflects the grow­ing consciousness of all research­ers, both international and local, that the evidence from each period represents only one part of the long archeological history of the Near East. Thus, chronologically, the focus of archeological research in Syria-

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 201

Bible, Archeology, and History

The important Jordanian site of Tell Keshan, regarded by many as the site of biblical Heshbon. Photo by the author

Palestine has also been broadened greatly.

Strategies for obtaining archeo­logical evidence have also been changing during the last decade. Regional surveys, soundings and excavations at one-period sites, and major excavations at complex tells are all taking place, each with new dimensions m method.

During the last decade, numer­ous regional surveys have been carried out in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia. In Jordan, the new surveys have shown that only 5-40% of the archeologi­cal sites are known from previous survey work. Thus, reconstructions of settlement patterns based on the previous work need thorough rein­vestigation. For example, the oft-quoted statement that the Middle-Late Bronze Ages are weakly attested in central and southern Jordan has been shown to be untrue in central Jordan, but it has yet to be tested fully in southern Jordan. In addition, the more recent conclusion, based on the excava­tions at Umm el-Biyarah, Tawilan, and Buseira, that there is no evi­dence for settled occupation in Edom before ca. 800 B.C., has been shown to be untrue by the many Iron IA (ca. 1200 B.C.) sites found in a recent

survey to the south of the Wadi Hesa.

Survey methods have improved greatly in recent years, and they have become far more sophisticated than older approaches. Systematic surface investigation for sites of all periods and quantification of data (such as grid locations of sites, sizes of sites, and artifactual evidence for periods at sites) are methods that have made it possible to determine site relationships and regional settle­ment patterns with more preci­sion. Ideally, such surveys should have interdisciplinary staffs, includ­ing prehistorians. Although many large-scale surveys have been car­ried out, most areas of Jordan and other countries remain to be inves­tigated, and many such projects can be expected in the future. Survey projects still represent the most economical form of archeological fieldwork in terms of the amount of data obtained in comparison to the cost involved.

The advantages of excavating at smaller one-period or several-period sites have become clear during the last decade. In the past, most excavation projects were at­tracted to the large and impressive tells in Syria-Palestine. These tells were often so large that only a very

small percentage of the site, often less than 1%, could be excavated by modern techniques, and thus only very small exposures of each occupa­tional phase could be obtained in deep trenches or squares. In addi­tion, many of these large tells had suffered so much complex restructur­ing of the site in each successive period that damage to the preceding layers by pitting, robbing, and leveling left little intact of each layer. In Jordan, the extreme of such ancient restructuring has been encountered at major sites which were repeatedly scraped off to bed­rock during their long history (e.g., Tell Hesban and the Amman Cita­del). At small sites, with shorter occupational histories, more of the original occupational evidence is left intact, undamaged by numerous subsequent occupations. A much greater percentage of such a site can be excavated, as it is smaller to begin with and more horizontal exposure is thus possible. More thorough sampling of the data for the periodf s ) represented is also possible. Sites can also be selected to represent certain periods, in order to solve particular stratigraphie or chronological problems (e.g., Early Bronze IV-Middle Bronze). Such small sites need to be studied in any

202 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982

H H B

TAe excavation at Tell Mardikh, Syria, site of ancient Ebla. Until the discovery of Ebla, many scholars regarded ancient Syria as a cultural backwater, a "country cousin" of the great civilizations of the ancient Near East. This view is now completely untena­ble, and Syria must be ranked alongside Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Iran, and the Indus valley as a major center of civihzation in antiquity. Photo by the author.

case, to fill out the occupational picture for many periods, where major city sites alone have often been excavated. Work at such small sites can be carried out alone, or in conjunction with a major excavation at a nearby site as part of a regional strategy.

Major excavations at large, com­plex tells are still very necessary, although local surveys and excava­tions at nearby one-period sites should accompany them to elimi­nate the isolation which character­ized them in the past. Major sites offer the greatest potential for public architecture, epigraphic re­mains, and other aspects of an­cient city centers so vital for the understanding of each archeologi­cal period. Most important, such large tells provide complex verti­cal stratigraphie and chronological evidence and require the most sophisticated excavation techniques, especially to deal with the types of disturbances noted above. The meth­od of excavation widely in use today emphasizes the vertical strati-graphic relationships, but this meth­od is currently being modified to provide more horizontal exposure of each occupational phase.

While a stratigraphically con­trolled sequence of pottery, useful

especially for chronological pur­poses, is still one of the most essential goals of excavating a tell, many other anthropological goals have been introduced during the last decade. Animal and human bone materials, carbonized plant remains, pollen samples, and soil and lithic samples are all studied by specialists to reconstruct such things as ancient climates and diets. Carbon 14 and other dating techniques are being applied to sites of all periods, including the historical periods, to refine and to test the existing chronological frame­work. Ethnographic studies are being carried out near excavated sites to determine from the mod­ern use of the environment how it may have been used in the past. Excavation and recording techniques are being quantified, and comput­ers are being used to store data and to help prepare materials for publi­cation. Major excavations thus re­quire large, interdisciplinary staffs and large budgets. As costs in the Near East rise, they are becoming more and more difficult to carry out.

This archeological work is producing great amounts of new evidence, but that evidence is still anything but complete. Although the situation today is a much

improved one, many additional im­provements are certain to be made in the future.

History The aim of this work is to synthe­size the cultural history of man in this sector of the world, from earliest prehistoric times to the modern day. This purpose must involve, in my opinion, the combin­ing of the archeological evidence in all of its complexity with the historical evidence, which is equal­ly complex. Some researchers would like to emphasize a kind of techni­cal archeology, which makes few if any correlations with recorded history. This is an unnecessarily narrow position, making archeo­logical methods the goal rather than the means to reach the goal. It is through the interplay of the archeo­logical data and the historical sources that a fuller synthesis of man's history should begin to emerge; that is a proper goal.

Numerous specialized fields exist, in linguistics, languages, litera­ture, epigraphy, numismatics, and history, to deal with the varied and complex types of written sources relevant to and available for study of the Near East. Of course, no written evidence is available for the

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 203

Bible, Archeology, and History

Paleolithic periods, and protoliterate systems alone are attested in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. Fully developed written sources are first found in Egypt and Mesopota­mia in the Early Bronze Age, ca. 3300 B.C., and in Syria the earliest written sources are now known from Ebla, ca. 2300 B.C. The region of Israel and Jordan has not attested its own written evidence until much later, in the Late Bronze Age, ca. 1550- 1200 B.C. It should be emphasized that except for sources from Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Mesopotamia, the region of Israel and Jordan is largely "prehistoric" until the Late Bronze Age. It is not until the Iron Age, and especially the Iron II period, that written sources become somewhat more common in Israel and Jordan. Of course, the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic periods are much better documented histori­cally.

The written materials that have actually come from ancient sites include many different types. A list of some of the more common types would include ostraca, graffiti, seals, coins, milestones, tombstones and funerary texts, letters, build­ing inscriptions, laws, treaties, con­tracts, administrative and economic

Unless biblical scholars make use of the archeological evidence in an effort to under­stand the ancient world, their scholarship will be locked into modern, western cate­gories of analysis alone.

texts, myths, hymns, and other religious texts, epics, historical accounts, and royal inscriptions. These written materials represent a very incomplete record, and each new discovery brings modifications in previous reconstructions. Those which come from stratigraphie excavations are the most valuable, but in fact a great many of them are found by chance or are not found in their original chronological con­text.

In addition to the written materials from ancient sites, many other historical sources have been preserved through the ages to the modern day. For the earlier periods of Near Eastern history, these would include such sources as the Bible and Josephus, and for the later periods such works as those of the Arab geographers and historians. These represent extremely complex sources, often with fairly clear tend­encies that must be evaluated by the most critical of methods by specialists in those fields. In evalu­ating these sources, it is probably most important to determine the types of literature they contain and to determine the chronological distance between the sources them­selves and the periods they de­scribe. Only then can each source be

evaluated for historical reconstruc­tion.

On the archeological side, how can correlations properly be made between the archeological evidence and the historical sources? Are there any principles or meth­ods that can be agreed upon? A number of important factors can be noted here.

First, it must be established that the geographical location of the archeological data corresponds to the clear geographical references in the historical sources. In some cases, it may be relatively easy to establish the identifications of cer­tain sites, through preserved names, epigraphic discoveries, site locations, and site occupational histories. In most cases, however, site identifi­cations are not possible; even then it may be possible to relate the site geographically to historical events that affected an entire region.

Second, the stratigraphie evidence that is being used for the correla­tion must be clear. Examples of decisive contexts are widespread destruction layers with intense burn­ing, which can reflect human attack or similar military activity, and massive architectural collapses with intact artifacts and human remains but without fire, which

204 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982

can reflect earthquake activity. Third, the chronology of the

archeological data must be well established and the chronology of the historical sources must be clear. There can be no correlation if either half is uncertain, and they must be independent of each other, not circular. Ideally, the archeologi­cal dating evidence should include a combination of epigraphic evidence and carbon 14 or other dates.

Fourth, correlations cannot be based on a single site, but must be broadly based at many sites, through comparative stratigraphie excava­tions and surveys, although the reports from those projects must be used very critically.

Finally, the correlations can­not be based on a single cultural trait, but rather must be made on the basis of multiple traits. Exam­ples of traits which should be included are pottery, flints, indus­tries, items of trade, architecture, burial customs, art, inscriptions, site types, settlement patterns, and geographical distribution of sites.

If these principles are followed, it should be possible to correlate the archeological evidence and the historical evidence with increasing accuracy. Unfortunately, often nei­ther the archeological evidence nor

The archeological evidence from the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Ages, ca. 3300-1550 B.C., has not been correlated convincingly with the biblical traditions of the patriarchs.

the historical evidence is so clear or as complete as we would like, and thus it is often difficult to make firm correlations.

Biblical Studies The Bible represents the most complex and also the most controver­sial collection of written sources from the ancient Near East, surviv­ing as a book of faith through the centuries to the modern day. There have been and continue to be many different positions on how to relate the Bible to the archeologi­cal evidence. Here I will note several positions that must be rejected, and then I will describe what I see as a proper relationship.

One position is that represented by Judeo-Christian fundamentalism and conservatism. This position assumes the literal accuracy of the biblical sources in all periods. The function of the archeological evi­dence, therefore, is merely to prove or support the biblical accounts. In the context of the other historical sources, the Bible is considered to be uniquely inspired; it is thus exempted from the kind of critical historical analysis described above. The ultimate factor in this posi­tion is personal religious faith.

A second position is represent­

ed by those who argue that the Bible should be used little, if at all, in Syro-Palestinian archeological re­search. This position, held by some scholars both in the west and in the Arab world, is in part a reaction to the fundamentalist position described above. It emphasizes the facts that the Bible presents Near Eastern history from an Israelite perspective alone and that the Bible contains many religious materi­als of a nonhistorical character. Some modern political motivations can also be present in this posi­tion, since the Israelite tradition in the Bible is seen as leading to the modern state of Israel.

A third position could be said to be represented by those biblical scholars, critical and otherwise, who do not include the archeologi­cal evidence from the Near East in their biblical studies. Elaborate liter­ary analysis of the Bible is often coupled with modern sociological and anthropological theories, to produce historical judgments divorced from the relevant archeological evidence.

In my opinion, none of these positions can be defended. First, personal religious faith should never be a factor in the evaluation of the Bible as a historical source or

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 205

Bible, Archeology, and History

in the interpretation of the archeo­logical data from the Near East. Second, the fact that the Bible has a clear Israelite Tendenz should not prevent its being evaluated as a historical source, and modern po­litical motivations should be elimi­nated from all research. How much would the scholarly world know about the peoples of Syria-Palestine during the Iron Age if the evidence from the Bible did not exist? It obviously must be used, but with the clear understanding that it relates to only a small part of Syro-Palestinian history, primarily the Iron Age, and that it represents only an Israelite perspective on the ancient Near East. Third, in the realm of biblical studies, it is necessary to emphasize the enormous cultural gap between the ancient, predominantly Semitic world in the Near East and the modern, pre­dominantly Indo-European world in North America and Europe. Just as it is essential for modern bibli­cal scholars to master Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to begin to bridge that great gap, it is also essential for them to deal with the many other physical and cultural aspects of the ancient world. Un­less biblical scholars make use of the archeological evidence in an effort

Many far more important archeological questions should be asked of these sites than "Are they Sodom and Gomorrah? "

to understand the ancient world, their scholarship will be locked into modern, western categories of analysis alone.

Thus, a proper relationship must exist between biblical studies and Syro-Palestinian archeology. The Bible must be used critically, like any of the other historical sources. The only criteria which can be used to correlate the archeological evidence and the biblical sources are the empirical data themselves. Because the archeological evidence is often incomplete or unclear, and because the biblical sources are so com­plex, it is inevitable that critical research on specific historical prob­lems will produce many different positions. Nevertheless, let us turn to several examples of how the archeological data should, in my opinion, be correlated with the bibli­cal sources.

First, it is clear that the archeo­logical evidence for the Paleolith­ic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic peri­ods, ca. 500,000-3300 B.C., cannot be correlated in anything more than a typological way with the biblical traditions of Genesis 1-11. Since it is agreed by virtually everyone that the biblical sources were not written down until ca. 1200 B.C. (or, by the most conservative estimates, ca.

1500 B.C.), and since the pre-3300 B.C. periods are prehistoric in charac­ter, a correlation would be most unlikely, even allowing for oral literature. In addition, the biblical sources clearly represent an effort to explain the origins of the world of that day in its own terms. That is also what modern archeological research is attempting to do, in today's terms, but beyond that the modern research and the biblical sources have little in common. No specialist of the Paleolithic-Chal-colithic periods would turn to the biblical sources to find specific correlations with the complex an­thropological, climatic, artifactual, and chronological evidence for those periods.

In my opinion, the archeologi­cal evidence from the Early Bronze and the Middle Bronze Ages, ca. 3300-1550 B.C., has also not been correlated convincingly with the biblical traditions of the patriarchs. The chronological distance between the biblical sources and the archeo­logical periods is again too great, and the biblical evidence for dating the patriarchal traditions to a particular period is not clear. In Israel and Jordan, these archeologi­cal periods are still largely "prehis­toric," but that could change at

206 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982

Only at the end of the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age, ca. 1300 B.C., can the archeological evidence and the biblical sources begin to be correlated.

any time. To illustrate the difficulty of

correlating the archeological evidence and the biblical sources in the period of the patriarchs, I would like to evaluate the recent discussions of the Sodom and Gomorrah tradi­tions in Genesis 13-19. Initially, it was claimed that Sodom, Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain were attested in the newly discov­ered Ebla archives of ca. 2300 B.C. Then, new surveys and excavations near the southeast shore of the Dead Sea located five Early Bronze sites, strung out on the hills overlooking the flat land near the Dead Sea. Destruction layers were noted, and the name of one of the sites, "Numeirah," was said to reflect, by an acceptable sound shift, the biblical name "Gomorrah."

This argument might seem con­vincing, but each of the parts must be examined closely. First, the Ebla readings have largely been retract­ed, or at least enough doubt has been cast upon them to justify skepti­cism until the definitive publications appear. Even if similar names are confirmed at Ebla, it must be shown that they relate clearly to a particu­lar geographical region. Otherwise, they could represent unrelated sites anywhere in Syria-Palestine, or

beyond. The strongest factor in favor of

the position above is clearly the geographical one, but that is not clearcut either. Because of the lack of known sites near the southern end of the Dead Sea, earlier bibli­cal scholars had argued for a location of the cities of the plain either to the north of the Dead Sea, in the Jordan Valley itself, or under the shallow southern end of the Dead Sea. The latter possibility is now known to be highly unlikely, as the southern end of the Dead Sea has been drained and there is no evi­dence there of any sites. Another geographical interpretation of the biblical account holds that the cities of the plain were located at the northern end of the Dead Sea in the Jordan Valley. Although this view has not been popular in recent years, it does reflect another real possibility.

The fact that five Early Bronze sites have been found is again not as convincing as it at first seems. The Early Bronze period represents over 1000 years of time, and during that time those five sites were not all occupied simultaneously. In addi­tion, it has not been established that all five sites represent city sites, since at least one of the sites thus

far attests only cemetery remains. It also cannot be argued that these five sites represent the only Early Bronze sites in the region, or that Middle Bronze sites are lacking, for a fully intensive survey of the region has not been carried out. In fact, numerous Early Bronze sites exist along the foothills of the Jordan Valley to the north, and there are some which are known along the foothills of the Wadi Arabah to the south, so the five sites are anything but unique. Also, intact Middle Bronze (ca. 1950-1550 B.C.) vessels have been found at Safi, one of the five sites. The Early Bronze III destruction evidence likewise is not an unexpected phenomenon. It rather fits into the pattern of Early Bronze III destructions and abandon­ments throughout Israel and Jordan.

Finally, the argument that the name "Numeirah'' represents ancient "Gomorrah" cannot be maintained. The proposed sound shift from ayin in "Gomorrah" to nun in "Nu-meirah" is virtually impossible in comparative Semitics. Instead, it is clear that "Numeirah" is simply the modern Arabic feminine diminu­tive form oinimr, meaning "tiger," and should be translated "little tigress." Many sites in Jordan have such modern animal-derived names,

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 207

Bible, Archeology, and History

There are many problems of detail, but the biblical tradition of the Israelite conquest should be taken seriously.

and "Khaneizir," one of the other five sites under discussion here, derives from khanzir, which means "pig" or "wild boar."

Thus, the archeological evi­dence is actually weak. A correlation with biblical history is not impossi­ble, but it would require much more evidence before it could ever be­come convincing. In the meantime, many far more important archeo­logical questions should be asked of these sites than "Are they Sodom and Gomorrah?"

In my opinion, it is only at the end of the Late Bronze Age and in the Iron Age, ca. 1300 B.C., that the archeological evidence and the bibli­cal sources can begin to be cor­related. The biblical sources are then much closer in time to the archeological periods, and the con­tinuous Israelite occupation in the land would provide a more likely context for the transmission of tradi­tions. In addition, the appearance of more epigraphic remains in the archeological evidence becomes an important factor in any correla­tion.

It is widely accepted that the periods of the United Monarchy and the Divided Kingdoms, ca. 1000 B.C., are well documented both archeologically and biblically (al­

though numerous problems still exist). The preceding Late Bronze IIB-Iron I periods, ca. 1300-1000 B.C., are far more controversial. It is not possible to go into details here, but I would like to suggest that a more traditional approach to the Israelite conquest and the period of the Judges may best be supported by the Syro-Palestinian archeologi­cal evidence.

Virtually all Late Bronze II sites that have been excavated in Israel and Jordan, as well as in coastal Lebanon and Syria, were destroyed, abandoned, or interrupt­ed in some way at the end of the period. It has not been established if these phenomena occurred at or near the same time, but they clearly represent an important cul­tural change.

In the region of Israel and Jor­dan, two different cultures, which can be labelled Iron IA and Iron IB, succeeded the Late Bronze occupa­tions. The stratigraphie evidence at several sites in the hill country of Israel (e.g., Tell Beit Mirsim, Bethel) indicates that the Iron IA culture perhaps slightly preceded the Iron IB culture, even in the Shephelah and along the coast (e.g., Gezer, Ashdod). In Jordan, the Iron IA culture is attested in the southern Jordan Val­

ley and in the hill country of central and southern Jordan. This culture is characterized by poorly made, undecorated pottery, with the typical collar-rim store jar; by pillared houses, not only in Israel but also in southern Jordan; by pits and the absence of public architec­ture, except in southern Jordan, where fine fortified settlements are attested (e.g., Medeiyineh North and South); by lack of imported materials and little art; and by settlement patterns characterized by many small sites, some occupied for the first time in the Iron I period.

The Iron IB culture, attested along the coast of Israel, in the Esdraelon Valley, and in the north Jordan Valley, is characterized by finer pottery, often decorated with multiple painted lines, birds, and semicircles, by temples and other public architecture in major city sites, by smelting installations, and by artistic artifacts.

The geographical distribution and the character of the Iron IA sites would suggest that they represent early Israelite, Ammonite, Moabite, and Edomite occupations. Although there are differences between them, the similarities are far more evi­dent, and a basic common physical culture could be attributed to

208 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982

them. Interestingly, similar materi­als are not known from Lebanon or Syria.

The geographical distribution of the Iron IB sites and the character of the Iron IB culture, would agree with the longstanding identification of the Iron IB culture with the Philistines or Sea Peoples. Similar materials are well attested all along the eastern Mediterranean coast, including Lebanon and Syria.

The stratigraphie evidence would, in my opinion, agree with the biblical evidence in placing the Iron IA (Israelite) culture in Palestine first. The appearance of the Sea Peoples slightly later, as witnessed by the Egyptian sources (Ramses III), would also agree with the archeo­logical evidence and with the bibli­cal sources.

Thus, although there are many problems of detail, and it is not yet possible to reconstruct the exact nature of the end of the Late Bronze Age in the region of Israel and Jordan, I would argue that the biblical tradition of the Israelite conquest should be taken serious­ly as an explanation.

Conclusion Biblical studies relate to only a small part of the great archeological

history of the Near East stretching from prehistoric times to the mod­ern day. The discipline of archeolo­gy is moving away from biblical studies as a field of its own; like biblical studies, moreover, it has many specializations within it. However, a proper relationship must continue to exist between Syro-Palestinian archeology and biblical studies, one based on the same critical methods applied to all of the other complex historical sources. At one time the term "Biblical Archeology" was used to describe the entire archeological endeavor in Syria-Palestine, and in fact in the Near East as a whole. Today this is clearly not a correct use of the term, but there is nothing wrong in its being used to describe the proper application of archeological evidence to the Bible. Unfortunate­ly, a great deal of what is published today under the popular heading of "Biblical Archeology" is sensational-istic and speculative in character.

The Judeo-Christian tradition in western civilization clearly traces its ideological roots back to the ancient Near East, and it is thus natural for people from the West to take an interest in the archeology of the Near East, especially as it relates to the Bible. At the same

time, there is a growing awareness by the modern peoples of the Near East that their roots are also repre­sented by the rich archeological history of the region. Those who share these common historical roots in the Near East likewise share the responsibility to strive for an ever-better understanding of the history of that region.

BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST/FALL 1982 209

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.