You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Debating Ancient Synagogue Dating: The Implications of Deteriorating Data
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
No. 376 (November 2016), pp. 83-100
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.376.0083
Page Count: 18
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Synagogues, Excavations, Archaeological excavation, Archives, Buildings, Biblical archaeology, Academic libraries, Plasters, Primary literature, Archaeology
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
One of the most well-known debates about synagogue dating concerns the synagogues excavated as part of the Meiron Excavation Project. According to the excavators, Eric Meyers, Carol Meyers, James Strange, and Thomas Kraabel, these buildings were constructed in the second and third centuries C.E. Jodi Magness, however, claims that the archaeological evidence supports moving the construction dates into the late-fourth, fifth, and even sixth centuries C.E. This article addresses a methodological issue that significantly affects how we should interpret the competing historical conclusions. Whereas the excavators' chronologies are based on evidence that includes the excavation experience, notes taken in the field, discussions in the field and in the lab, unpublished photos and drawings, personal correspondence, etc., the revised chronologies are based primarily on the published evidence. The problem for the revised chronologies is that archaeological data deteriorate from excavation to publication, which means that the two sides of the debate are not basing their conclusions on the same evidence. Using unpublished data from the Khirbet Shemaʿ and Gush Ḥalav excavations, this article shows why traditional print archaeological publications are insufficient as sources of data when writing alternative interpretations of archaeological evidence. It also provides evidence that pushes the dating of the Khirbet Shemaʿ and Gush Ḥalav synagogues in the direction of the excavators' original conclusions.
Copyright 2016 American Schools of Oriental Research