Talk:Levantine archaeology/Terms and scope

This subpage contains evidence and analysis about the terminology and scope of the article.

In the short-term, this subpage will be used to iron out differences among editors and draft an RfC. HG | Talk 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC questions

This section is for drafting the RfC.

Rough idea. What terms should be used in the article to describe the subject matter? Should a single term be favored, such as the article name? Alternatively, should multiple terms be used for different article text, depending on the term used by the underlying references?
Rough idea. How or to what extent should "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" be described in the article as completely or roughly synonymous with other terms?
Rough idea. How should the article be structured? In terms of chronology, or in terms of geographical region?

Evidence

Here is evidence about the meaning(s), uses, and scope of key terms. Please note the name and date of works by author. Authors may be ordered in rough chronological order.

Albright

Direct quotes here. Interpretations below.

Bar Yosef and Mazar 1982

"Furthermore there is a tendency towards interdisciplinary work, involving scholars from various sciences as staff members, with a declared aim to reconstruct all possible aspects of ancient life. The most prominent speaker for this school today, W. G. Dever, has recently called for the cancelling of the term 'biblical archaeology' and for the recognition of the archaeology of the Levant as an independent branch of archaeology called by him 'Syro-Palestinian archaeology' (Dever 1980)." Source: Ofer Bar-Yosef; Amihai Mazar. "Israeli archaeology" in World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No 3, Regional Traditions of Archaeological Research II. (Feb., 1982), pp. 310-325.

The article uses 'Holy Land' 'Palestine' and 'Israel'. They refer to Israeli archaeology, archaeology in Israel, biblical archaeology, "a new era in the archaeological research of the Holy Land." "Israeli 'Old Testament' archaeology (Y. Aharoni, J. Perrot, 'Trude Dothan, M. Dothan, Ruth Amiran)." They say: "The founders of Israeli archaeology -scholars such as E. P,. Sukenik, B. Mazar, I. Ben-Dor, S. Veivin and M. Avi-Yonah -started their career during the 1930s and 1940s and were naturally well acquainted with the various trends in Palestinian archaeology during those years (Albright 1970)." They also use A of I: "Some of the Israeli archae-ologists specialize, in addition to the archaeology of Israel, in that of neighbouring countries (Syria, Cyprus, Anatolia, the Aegean, Egypt) and thus contribute to the archaeology of these countries by pointing out chronological links and other connections or by discussing specific points of interest. "

They use the term "Israeli archaeology" alot. For them, the term refers to work in the Israel by Israelis, e.g.: "Our main interest in this paper is work in the State of Israel carried out by Israelis." Here's a key quote: "A new stage in the history of Palestinian archaeology began with the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948. Before dealing with Israeli archaeology proper, let us mention briefly the work of foreign expeditions in this country since that date." HG: Here they use P-a to refer to the overall field and I-a as it is done by Israelis.

Hendricus Jacobus Franken in 1963

One page 1 of A Primer of Old Testament Archaeology: "The archaeology of ancient Israel is but a small part of the far greater study of Palestinian archaeology ..." Tiamut^talk 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miller and Hayes 1986

[1] "While the ancient documents and Palestinian archaeology provide much useful information about general conditions in Syria-Palestine during the Late Bronze age and early Iron Age, one must keep in mind, that with the exception of Mernetaph's inscription, these nonbiblical sources shed light only on the general conditions of that time period and provide no specific information about the early Israelite tribes."

Israeli national school

S. Buniwotiz in "How Mute Stones Speak: Interpreting What We Dig Up" echoes this critique, applying it to the "Israeli School" of Palestinian archaeology, as epitomized by Yigael Yadin, writing that,

"[...] despite its new scientific arsenal, biblical archaeology during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s was still parochial, highly pragmatic and bound to traditional interpretative frameworks. Slowly, however, as previous interpretative concepts were discarded, exciting new cultural/historical insights gradually came into view, even through old research strategies."[1]

Levy (1998)

[2] "The 'new' or processual archaeology, with its science-based ahistorical orientation, was rejected by the majority of archaeologists working in Palestine. This is because Palestinian archaeology has been practiced for the most part by scholars who view all dimensions of the archaeological record through the lens of the Bible when investigating all aspects of the past. An in-depth survey of the reasons for this 'denial' of outside archaeological theory in Syro-Palestinian archaeology are discussed by Dever (1992)."

Soggin (1999)

[3] "[...] we should no longer talk of 'biblical archaeology' or 'Old Testament archaeology', but rather of 'Palestinian archaeology' or the arhcaeology of Syria and Palestine, thus covering the whole region on both sides of the Jordan, and as far as the boundaries with Turkey and Iraq." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 01:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brown (2000)

[4] Brown notes that "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" is sometimes called the "new archaeology". He also notes that Dever describes it as running parallel to the school of biblical archaeology in biblical archaeology's heyday, but that it has since "divorced itself from the concern to demonstrate the historicity of biblical traditions."

Abu El Haj (2001)

In Facts on the Ground (2001) pages 251-252, Nadia Abu El-Haj quotes and analyzes Amnon Ben-Tor (writing in 1993) on the field of "Israeli archaeology", concluding that he views it as natural for Israeli archaeology to focus on the remains of the people of Israel. She also uses the term "Palestinian archaeology" in the second meaning of the word, i.e. as referring to archaeology practiced by Palestinians. Tiamut^talk 11:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dever in 2001

Dever, on page 61-62 of his 2001 work, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When did they Know It? writes:

For at least the past 20 years, the branch of Near Eastern archaeology that deals with ancient Palestine has been known chiefly as "Syro-Palestinian", or sometimes simply "Palestinian", rather than "biblical archaeology (the other branches being Anatolian, Mesopotamian, Iranian, Egyptian, and occasionally Cypriot archaeology) [...] Its geographical purview is not the "Bible Lands" as such, but ancient southern-central Syria and Palestine, both west and east of the river Jordan (i.e. modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and parts of Syria), or more properly ancient "Greater Canaan". Its time-frame extends far beyond the "biblical period," embracing everything from the Lower Paleolithic to the Ottoman period.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 10:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davis, who writes on page 192 of Frank Moore Cross, who had studied under Albright and had taught Dever, explains how he took issue with Dever's critiques of the discipline of biblical archaeology. Cross emphasized that in Albright's view biblical archaeology was not synonymous with Palestinian archaeology, but rather that, "William Foxwell Albright regarded Palestinian archaeology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology as a small, if important section of biblical archaeology. One finds it ironical that recent students suppose them interchangeable terms."[1] Dever responded to the criticism by agreeing that the terms were not interchangeable, but differed as to their relationship with one another, writing: "'Syro-Palestinian archaeology' is not the same as the 'biblical archaeology'. I regret to say that all who would defend Albright and 'biblical archaeology' on this ground, are sadly out of touch with reality in the field of archaeology."[18]

...article in Jewish Quarterly by an Israeli archaeologist (presumably peace camp type). He describes the Isr-Pal conflict aspects of archaeology in the city, for instance::

Can Archaeology Further the Peace of Jerusalem? // Archaeologist Hillel Geva wrote an introduction to one of the main showpieces of the Israeli archaeological effort in Jerusalem, Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. He described this work as revolutionary and inspired by ‘a free academic spirit and a deep sense of the trust borne by the scholars engaged in [it]’. Nadia el-Haj has called it a project of physical transformation ‘co-implicated in the Jewish-colonial-nationalist project’. The truth of these views, which are not mutually exclusive, lies very much in the eyes of the beholder. Our review of the history of Israeli excavation in Jerusalem shows that there is neither a single outlook nor an overarching plan in its conduct. But almost all the excavations carried out in Jerusalem since 1967, have been conducted by Israeli institutions, and virtually none by Palestinians. Haphazardly, archaeology has become part of the conflict of identities in what is still a divided city.

Killebrew and Vaughn (2003)

[5] "The rise of a more specialized discipline (dubbed Syro-Palestininan archaeology) during the later 1970s and 1980s coincided with new methodological and science-based approaches to archaeology, sometimes referred to as "new archaeology" or "processual archaeology"." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de Geus (2003)

Explains how Americans preferred to call "Palestinian archaeology", "biblical archaeology" in the early 20th century and during British Mandate rule. [6]

Avi Faust (2005)

Describes "the archaeology of ancient Israel" as "a (sub)discipline" concerned with "the emergence of Israel in Canaan, perhaps the most debated topic in biblical/Syro-Palestinian archaeology and related fields." Faust's discussion of the subject is also described as being related to the archeology of ethnicity.[7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sufian and Levine 2007

[8] use "Israeli archaeology" and "Palestinian archaeology" to refer to archaeology practiced by Israelis and Palestinian respectively. They also define Israeli archaeology's temporal scope and critique its having overlooked Ottoman era Palestine. Tiamut^talk 02:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

This section offers differing, perhaps disputed, analysis of the evidence.

on Davis

HG: Lance (and Davis) are not saying that the terms are synonyms. They're saying that Biblical Archaeology is different than general (i.e., secular) archaeology -- regardless of whether you talk about the general field in terms of Palestinian archaeology or "even Syro-Palestinian" (the broader) archaeology. (Lance quoted) Anyway, I agree with your deduction is correct that the two terms are used as though interchangeable in the first source, Palestinian refers only to ancient Palestine (as indicated by Rast), whereas Syro-Palestinian refers to wider area of the southern Levant.

Tiamut: The two terms are used as interchangeable by those who use both of them. While it is true that Rast defines "Palestinian archaeology" without mentioning parts of Lebanon and Syria, he never uses the term "Syro-Palestinian". Those that do use both terms, like Davis, Dever, and Albright himself, use them interchangeably as synonyms. Further, Soggin defines "Palestinian archaeology" as the "archaeology of Syria and Palestine, thus covering the whole region on both sides of the Jordan, and as far as the boundaries with Turkey and Iraq."

The interchangeability of "Palestinian" and "Syro-Palestinian" is true throughout the history of inquiry in the field. While Albright viewed "Palestinian archaeology" or "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" as a sub-branch of "Biblical archaeology", Dever recasts "Syro-Palestinian archeology" or "Palestinian archaeology" as a secular discipline, removing it from the umbrella of "Biblical archaeology". Accordingly, I would argue that when Franken explains that the archaeology of ancient Israel is a small sub-branch of "Palestinian archaeology", this remains true today, even though the meaning of the term and the scope of the field has been greatly expanded since. Indeed, Faust's 2005 work indicates that "the archaeology of ancient Israel" is in fact "a (sub)discipline" of "biblical/Syro-Palestinian archaeology and related fields." Tiamut^talk 10:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on Dever

HG: The fact that Dever argues in a book on "Archaeology of Israel" to promote his term "Syro-Palestinian" speaks volumes. See also Dever's chapter 7 in Blackwell's companion to the Hebrew Bible, where he has a whole section entitled (p.120ff): "Toward a New Agenda for the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel." Dever is seeking to modify and rename the discipline by tackling its cognate terms, including "Archaeology of Israel" and "Biblical archaeology." Yes, it's an interesting academic positioning/naming debate, but do we need separate encyclopedia articles for every name of this discipline? The big split is between the "Biblical" and secular disciplines, but no matter how many sources refer to different names, it doesn't mean each name gets an article.

Tiamut: Dever clearly says that "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" is sometimes called simply "Palestinian archaeology" and differentiates these two terms from "biblical archaeology". He is the major proponent for the use of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" since he is the one who redefined the concept, reappropriating it from its previous use by Albright in his biblically oriented studies. Dever therefore prefers "Syro-Palestinian", but he nevertheless acknowledges that others use "Palestinian" to refer to the same secularly oriented field of inquiry centered around, but not exclusive to, ancient Palestine. Dever is not explicit on the relationship of the "Archaeology of Israel" to "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" but Faust is. He defines the "the archaeology of ancient Israel" as "a (sub)discipline" of "biblical/Syro-Palestinian archaeology and related fields." It is therefore not a cognate term for the field in general, but rather a sub-discipline. Tiamut^talk 10:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sum-up of positions of each point for RfC

Tiamut

Given the existence of a "Terminology and scope" section in the article which defines the different terms used to refer to the discipline and its sub-fields, we should stick to using the different terms throughout the body of the article when used by the sources themselves. This is in line with WP:NPOV (i.e. expressing mutliple, reliably sourced POVs).
"Palestinian archaeology" is used as a synonym for "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" (per Dever 2001, Davis on Albright, and less explicitly, by Levy, Soggin). While "new archaeology" also seems to used a synonym by Brown in 2000, Killebrew and Vaughn use it as a synonym of "processual archaeology" and define both as a new methodological approach in archaeology. Further, Levy writes that Palestinian archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology have rejected the influence of the 'new' or processual archaeology, indicating that these terms cannot be used as synonyms for Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Per WP:LEAD, terms which are variations of the article title should be bolded in the introduction. In light of the evidence reviewed above, only "Palestinian archaeology" seems to qualify as a synonym here. Accordingly, "Palestinian archaeology" can be used interchangeably with "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" throughout the text, particularly when it is used by the reliable sources cited. Sub-discplines of the field, such as the "archaeology of ancient Israel" (per Franken 1963 and Faust 2005) should not be bolded since they are not cognate terms, but they should be defined in the terminology and scope section, and should be used in the article text when used by the sources themselves. Tiamut^talk 10:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Looks optional from WP:LEDE. "The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." I haven't seen any guidance about use of variations in the article, but maybe it's out there somewhere. HG | Talk 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to rebuttal

The full text from WP:LEAD says: "The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in boldface. Avoid links in the bold title words. The name of the subject is often identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." The example subsequently given of the United Kingdom, illustrates how to bold the variant terms. The may in this case, refers to the possibility of there being variations and not whether or not they should be bolded. Tiamut^talk 16:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for HG Am I to understand that you accept that "Palestinian archaeology" is in fact a synonym for "Syro-Palestinian archaeology", but that your objection centers around whether or not this variant term should be bolded? Tiamut^talk 16:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are no exact synonyms here (or arguably anywhere). S-P-A has different connotations than P-A, whose meaning has changed a great deal in recent years. But, yes, they are roughly the same field. So my objection is not about their approximate function as synonyms, but how they are used in the article. (Sorry if I'm repeating myself: There are other rough synonyms, incl A of the Southern Levant and A of (ancient) Israel and biblical A. I believe that it would be better to use throughout the article, primarily, whatever term is chosen as the title. Currently S-P-A. The rough synonyms should only be used in a restricted way, which I do want to discuss. If one is put in bold up front, then all the rough synonyms should be treated that way. I do not think that MOS requires us to do that in this case.) Does this answer your question? Take care, HG | Talk 21:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HG