REVIEWS

A milestone in Palestinian Archaeology.

The year 1960, it can be safely stated, has brought a major achievement in Palestinian archaeology. For the first time two studies have been published that are in complete accord with the standards of modern archaeological research. One is a shortcr survey of the results of many former Palestinian excavations, corrected and emended by means of applying general methods of prehistoric research to the published material; the other is the first of a series of reports of a great excavation, Jericho, both works by the same author, Miss K. M. KENYON.In her work Archaeo- logy of TheHoly Land (London 1960) Miss KENYONhas made an attempt to sort out what can be considered reliable evidence from excavations, and her study of Palestinian archaeology shows clearly what in fact has been achieved and what the Old Testament scholar can rely on while studying his texts. What are pure facts are clearly separated from suppositions, eroneous explanations and sometimes pure fiction. This has caused the loss of much glory-e.g. the 'Solomonic' stables at Megiddo-which however is greatly compensated for by the gain of certainty about what is reliable information and what is not. This study is not only important for the period which is covered by the Old Testament, but also for the clear picture of the cultural periods preceding the coming of the Israelites. And although the student of ancient religions and texts may sometimes feel that an archaeologist is not necessarily an authority in these branches of studies related to the Old Testament, the appearance of this purely archaeological study is of outstanding importance for Old Testament scholars. , Miss KENYON'S second publication: Jericho, Vol. I The Tombs (London 1960), may seem only relatively connected with Biblical studies, yet from an archaeological point of view it is even more important, since with the recent Jericho excavations of the British School of Archaeology in Jeru- salem 'east and west' have finally met completely, in so far as the method employed can be readily accepted by the archaeologists of Red Indians, pre-Roman Britons or the Band-Ceramic culture of Limburg, which cannot be said of any of the major Palestinian excavations of the past. Therefore it is not only the amazing finds of neolithic Jericho, nor the working out of four groups of 'Amorites' or similar achievements which will make the Jericho excavations famous, but also the modern execution which alone made these results possible. Naturally this does not mean that all the results are final, and that no detailed criticism on various items should be made. However the discussion which has hitherto partly been centred around the question which has hitherto partly been centred around the question whether the so-called LYlheeler-Kenyonmethod is better than others in Palestine is like using a battering ram against an open gate. Miss 353

KENYON did not invent but introduced into Palestine at the excavations at Samaria-Sebaste a standard of digging which (it must be stated) was already the accepted A B C of all prehistoric research, and real discussion of her results only becomes possible and useful when this A B C is con- sidered not as a basic dogma but as a logical method of the discipline. It is well worth stating here that a close co-operation of the professional archaeologist and the Old Testament scholar will be needed to avoid the danger that threatens so much modern science, namely, that after a while they will grow apart with a complete lack of understanding of what the other is doing. Careful reading of Miss KENYON'Ssurvey of the Palestinian archaeology already reveals this danger, whereas on the other hand many studies of Biblical literature appear where valuable archaeological evidence is neglected or misunderstood. Pure material archaeological evidence needs interpretation, and satisfactory results cannot be obtained without close co-operation between archaeologists and Biblical scholars. Thus the date of the fall of Late Bronze Age Jericho according to the discoveries of the last expedition (KENYON, Archaeology of the Holy Land pp. 209-212) and Miss KENYON'S evaluation of the relevant biblical evidence should not escape discussion by Biblical scholars. Recently Miss KENYONhas announced her scheme for a joint expedition of the British School of Archaeology at Jerusalem, the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Ecole Biblique et Arch6ologique de St. Etienne to excavate in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is to begin work in 1961. It seems highly satisfactory that international co-operation on such a large scale can be established and that this search for the city of King David and the earlier history of the site will be of the highest scien- tific quality. Leiden H. J. FRANKEN

Annual of the Department of Antiquities o f Jordan, vol. IV and V, 1960. It is a great pleasure to have this new Annual to review after an un- avoidable gap in publication since 1956. It is the first volume to appear since Mr. Lankaster HARDING ceased to be director of Antiquities in Jordan, and it is much to the credit of Dr Awni DAJANI, director since 1959, that such an excellent volume of studies has come out, containing as it does articles ranging from neolithic settlements in the Jordan valley to a translation of the Qumran Copper Scroll. If the scope of the articles be wide, so is that of the contributors. This Annual faithfully reflects the variety of scholars now working on archaeological studies in Jordan, and the Direktor may congratulate himself on inducing such veteran `Jordanians' as Pere DE VAUx, Miss Diana KIRKBRIDEand Mr. Peter PARR to publish in this Annual rather than in foreign journals. Dr. DAJANI himself has published here a very useful study of MB II pottery and it is to be hoped that his departmental duties will not keep him from producing another article in due course about the imported wares of this period, as he promises on p. 111. His collegue, Farah S. MA'AYAH