Much of the review is concerned with how archaeology is presented to the public.
Finley recognizes that, for all their flaws, 19th-century archaeologist-explorers had this down.
As true today as it was 55 years ago: public interest in archaeology is connected to its romantic image, and our attempts to popularize our work have to face this basic fact.
Finley charges (again, this concern is as timely in 2021 as it was in 1966) that specialist archaeologists have left the role of popularization largely for amateurs, for better or worse.
Alright, archaeologists, Finley is throwing down the gauntlet here!
This is certainly true: there *are* whole areas of human behavior that material remains cannot shed any light on, or at best just hint at, and for these we do need textual evidence.
But it is just as true that, at least for most of human history (I mean here, as Finley, once writing appears), how most of humanity lived is ignored or dealt with in a brief and distorted way.
To even attempt to understand that, we need archaeology!
Meanwhile, Finley gives an amazing backhanded compliment of Leonard Woolley -- "a very great excavator"!
And Finley ends with an implied insult to the half-dozen books he's actually reviewing!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Has anyone heard of the book Testaments of Time by Leo Deuel? It's a popular account of manuscript hunting, first published in 1965. @EvaMroczek@LivLied
It's a broad survey of the material, what you might expect for 1965: starts with Renaissance humanists, and moves on to chapters on Tischendorf, the Cairo Geniza, Oxyrhynchus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also a range of other things . . .
It also includes what you imagine might have been standard attitudes in the 1960s, cheering on manuscript hunters like Tischendorf who "outwit" the "negligent but perversely possessive" and "half-literate" monks
Jerusalem Post has an interview with Eitan Klein (deputy director of IAA's theft prevention unit) about the recent announcement of Judean Desert finds.
Several things here worth attention . . . jpost.com/jerusalem-repo…
Klein repeats the claim that the trigger for the survey project came with the appearance of the "Jerusalem Papryrus" on the antiquities market -- without noting that it's likely a forgery.
Is anyone familiar with the "Bar Kochba-era parchments" that the article claims were discovered by looters in a cave in 2009?
A week after a settlement reached between Sotheby's, the Museum for Islamic Art in Jerusalem, & other parties regarding the cancelation of the museum's sale of objects, the museum's director announces he's leaving his position at the end of the month. haaretz.com/israel-news/cu…
There's no suggestion from the article that Sheiban's resignation is directly tied to the sale or its being cancelled, and his resignation letter frame things quite differently, but the article does notes that the saga "cast a pall over Sheiban’s tenure as museum director"
To be clear, these new find is *not* from Qumran -- it consists of fragments of a slightly later Bar Kokhba scroll from Wadi Murabba'at (Nahal Darga) to the south.
The find was part of the operation started in 2017 to survey the Judean Desert.
What Haaretz doesn't tell us -- it's only hinted at by the reference to the Civil Administration -- is that most of the Judean Desert, including Murabba'at, is in the West Bank.
What's discouraging is that scholars continue to publicly pronounce that they think blatant forgeries might be genuine & that we need to keep having pointless debates about them for decades.
Here, not just Tabor but archaeologist Shimon Gibson.
Look who else think Shapira's Deuteronomy was authentic @arsteinjustnes
Happy to say that my review of Veritas, and the saga of the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” forgery, is now published at @TheTLS. the-tls.co.uk/articles/verit…
(Note: As usual, the author was not responsible for the title or the lead photo.)
Thanks to @arsteinjustnes@LivLied@papyrologyatman@dana_lande and the rest of the Lying Pen of Scribes project for discussing this book with me.
(But be sure not to blame them for anything in the review itself!)