I have recently been attending a class on biblical archaeology at the London School of Jewish Studies given by Lindsey Taylor-Guthartz. Over the next few posts, I am going to mention a few highlights of the course.
The first week was an introduction to archaeology, saying what archaeology can (and can not) teach us, what constitutes archaeological evidence, how things are dated and explaining basic techniques such as carbon dating and stratigraphy. Lindsey gave a word of warning about the use of archaeology and Tanakh in tandem. It can lead to bad archaeology and a bad use of Tanakh. Archaeology can not always find evidence, but this does not necessarily mean that things recorded in Tanakh did not happen – some evidence does not keep well (it is estimated only 5% of artefacts from the past survive and not all of those are found (I was not quite sure how this estimate was produced!)) or is simply not found. Also, Tanakh is a theological text, not a historical one and it may introduce deliberate inaccuracy to further its religious message. Interpretation is always shaped by the prejudices of archaeologists, whether they are believers or sceptics. However, archaeology can tell us a lot about the society in which Tanakh was written, which can further our understanding of the text.
The first week was an introduction to archaeology, saying what archaeology can (and can not) teach us, what constitutes archaeological evidence, how things are dated and explaining basic techniques such as carbon dating and stratigraphy. Lindsey gave a word of warning about the use of archaeology and Tanakh in tandem. It can lead to bad archaeology and a bad use of Tanakh. Archaeology can not always find evidence, but this does not necessarily mean that things recorded in Tanakh did not happen – some evidence does not keep well (it is estimated only 5% of artefacts from the past survive and not all of those are found (I was not quite sure how this estimate was produced!)) or is simply not found. Also, Tanakh is a theological text, not a historical one and it may introduce deliberate inaccuracy to further its religious message. Interpretation is always shaped by the prejudices of archaeologists, whether they are believers or sceptics. However, archaeology can tell us a lot about the society in which Tanakh was written, which can further our understanding of the text.
The second class was a history of archaeology in the Middle East. There were some interesting anecdotes, but it is all a bit long and specialised to repeat here. One thing that was interesting was how much archaeology was served by military demands concerning the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The British knew that the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and wanted to make sure that they ended up in control of the region to safeguard the Suez Canal and the route to India. Because they thought they would be fighting in the area, they helped with an extensive archaeological survey in what is now Israel, knowing that the result would be detailed maps, important for the army. One of the soldiers involved was T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), who got his first experience of desert life.
1 comments:
So that's what Taylor-Gutharz does professionally.
Post a Comment