Stones and Walls do Not Speak for Themselves

[volgadon]

In light of the recent discussion on archaeology we've been having on this board, here is what biblical scholar Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger wrote on the limitations of archaeology. The context is the debate on whether or not there was a state in ancient Israel, and archaeology is an important component of the various arguments pro and con.

"Stones and walls do not speak for themselves and even their descriptions are not unambiguous. Data derived from archaeological artifacts exist only in linguistic form. Being elements of a linguistic structure, however, they are subject to an interpretation as well. The description of archaeological findings is already interpretation and it is subject, like any other literary form of expression, to the singular choice of the narrative procedure, to the concept of explanation, as well as to the value-orientation of the descriptive archaeologist. And—depending on the perspective of the describer or the observer—there are various interpretational levels which can be differentiated, ranging from the singular data to the immediate context, or from the immediate and the extended environment to a geographical region or even beyond. The answer to the question whether there were centrally organized fortifications in Israel-Judah during this time period is not only dependent on material findings, but is determined largely by the conception of the term 'state', by the understanding of society, as well as by the evaluation of biblical texts used as historical sources."

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, volgadon said:

In light of the recent discussion on archaeology we've been having on this board, here is what biblical scholar Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger wrote on the limitations of archaeology. The context is the debate on whether or not there was a state in ancient Israel, and archaeology is an important component of the various arguments pro and con.

"Stones and walls do not speak for themselves and even their descriptions are not unambiguous. Data derived from archaeological artifacts exist only in linguistic form. Being elements of a linguistic structure, however, they are subject to an interpretation as well. The description of archaeological findings is already interpretation and it is subject, like any other literary form of expression, to the singular choice of the narrative procedure, to the concept of explanation, as well as to the value-orientation of the descriptive archaeologist. And—depending on the perspective of the describer or the observer—there are various interpretational levels which can be differentiated, ranging from the singular data to the immediate context, or from the immediate and the extended environment to a geographical region or even beyond. The answer to the question whether there were centrally organized fortifications in Israel-Judah during this time period is not only dependent on material findings, but is determined largely by the conception of the term 'state', by the understanding of society, as well as by the evaluation of biblical texts used as historical sources."

Brilliantly said.

Some serious chops there. 

[volgadon]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Brilliantly said.

Some serious chops there. 

I thought you would appreciate it. The German philosophical tradition definitely shows.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, volgadon said:

I thought you would appreciate it. The German philosophical tradition definitely shows.

Archaeology as a literary form.

Love it!!!  Exactly what I have been trying to get across.

[Guest]

I have had a lot discussions concerning such things. The common fact that I point out, is that just because a building or a wall spoken of in the Bible, are located, does not prove what took place here (or in of course "there"). Yes; they may indeed walk where Jesus walk, as again these ruins can get logistics...but only faith, fasting and prayer to recieve the revelations concerning what miracle took place there. And ditto, rep point to OP writer. Wish I could also visit Jursalam and study as Vol has done. 

God bless you brother. 

[Ahab]

18 hours ago, volgadon said:

In light of the recent discussion on archaeology we've been having on this board, here is what biblical scholar Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger wrote on the limitations of archaeology. The context is the debate on whether or not there was a state in ancient Israel, and archaeology is an important component of the various arguments pro and con.

"Stones and walls do not speak for themselves and even their descriptions are not unambiguous. Data derived from archaeological artifacts exist only in linguistic form. Being elements of a linguistic structure, however, they are subject to an interpretation as well. The description of archaeological findings is already interpretation and it is subject, like any other literary form of expression, to the singular choice of the narrative procedure, to the concept of explanation, as well as to the value-orientation of the descriptive archaeologist. And—depending on the perspective of the describer or the observer—there are various interpretational levels which can be differentiated, ranging from the singular data to the immediate context, or from the immediate and the extended environment to a geographical region or even beyond. The answer to the question whether there were centrally organized fortifications in Israel-Judah during this time period is not only dependent on material findings, but is determined largely by the conception of the term 'state', by the understanding of society, as well as by the evaluation of biblical texts used as historical sources."

I await the 'Archaeology for Dummies' version of this talk before I expect to fully understand what she said.

All I'm getting so far is the idea that we need people called archaeologists to tell us what stones and walls are saying because... well, stones and walls don't speak for themselves

Hopefully an archaeologist will write the Dummies book soon.

[volgadon]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I await the 'Archaeology for Dummies' version of this talk before I expect to fully understand what she said.

All I'm getting so far is the idea that we need people called archaeologists to tell us what stones and walls are saying because... well, stones and walls don't speak for themselves

Hopefully an archaeologist will write the Dummies book soon.

It is a reminder to biblical scholars and archaeologists that archaeology cannot settle a question like the existence or not of a centralised state in ancient Israel because archaeology is a highly interpretative discipline. Even the act of describing findings likes walls and such is interpretation.

[Ahab]

Oh.  Okay

I'm glad they have somebody to remind them of that.