Debating Ancient Synagogue Dating: The Implications of Deteriorating Data
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. Jod...
| Publié dans: | Bulletin of ASOR |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
The University of Chicago Press
2016
|
| Dans: |
Bulletin of ASOR
Année: 2016, Numéro: 376, Pages: 83-100 |
| RelBib Classification: | HD Judaïsme ancien HH Archéologie KBL Proche-Orient et Afrique du Nord |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
EXCAVATION
B Methodology B Synagogues B Jewish History B Archaeology B digital archaeology B Publishing B ancient synagogues B Problem solving B Chronology B Archives B Dating B EXCAVATING machinery |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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on evidence that includes the excavation experience, notes taken in the field, discussions in the field and in the lab, unpublished photos and drawings, personal correspondence, etc., the revised chronologies are based primarily on the published evidence.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 Using unpublished data from the Khirbet Shema? and Gush ?alav 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 Shema? and Gush ?alav synagogues in the direction of the excavators' original conclusions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2161-8062 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: American Schools of Oriental Research, Bulletin of ASOR
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5615/bullamerschoorie.376.0083 |