Integrating Textual and Archaeological Data
Feb 20, 2009 3:11:28 GMT -5
Post by us4-he2-gal2 on Feb 20, 2009 3:11:28 GMT -5
Thread Orientation: On this thread we can discuss the relationship (often dysfunctional) between Archaeology and Philology.
Today I am looking through the book The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twentieth Century and I am specifically interested in a 20 page contribution by RIchard L. Zettler entitled Written Documents as Excavated Artifacts.
An "Institutionalized division of labor between Assyriologists and Archaeologists/
Zettler had been tasked with focusing "on the integration of textual and archaeological data" , basically this relates to the very old problem of cooperation between philologists who read the texts and archaeologists who deal with these and other artifacts (and their excavation). Zettler briefly looks at the history of this problem, noting that the division began with pioneers such Layard, Loftus and Rassam (excavators) and their contemporaries such Henry C. Rawlinson (an early decipherer.) This view of the field, as two different spheres of related yet separate activity, came to typify the mindset of experts on both sides and is even made explicit in some published material, such as comments made by A. Leo Oppenheim (who was vocal about his belief in the the superiority of written evidence.)
Toward the Integration of Material/
Zettler next discusses some of the positive influences in ANE studies who have moved toward or even achieved an integration between textual and archaeological data in their studies. First he mentions:
Thorkild Jacobsen: The man seems like a magnet for praise, but here we have yet another reason. Zettler explains that Jacobsen (who doesn't know this) always had a keen interest both written documents and archaeology. At Ishchali he was epigrapher and director of excavations, and at Nippur he recorded detailed archaeological information, sketched tablet finds spots and at the same time was making excellent transliterations. He served as supervisor to Penelope Weadocks 1958 dissertation on the Giparu at Ur which Zettler describes as "one of the first major efforts to integrate texts and archaeology."
Archaeologists and Assyriologists who have followed this example in the last 10 years are given as:
Zettler's View/
Zettler sees the integration of Textual and Archaeological sources as a study with utilizes more Archaeological context then examining simply the findspot of a tablet or tablets. He believes an integrated study should utilize both inscribed and uninscribed artifacts in order to reconstruct "the whole picture".
To show this concept in motion, the author refers to one of his own studies in this case an examination of Area TB on Tablet Hill in Nippur. He notes that this same area had been examined numerous times before in studies which focused particularly on the architecture of the site - conclusions varied about the nature of the building found in Area TB, some ventured to declare a private house features in this section, others called it an extended family house where still others determined it was a palace. In Zettler's own treatment of the evidence of this site however he undertook to consider not only the Architecture of the ruin, but the various finds found there: The pottery, clay figurines, plaques and seals and some 75 tablets. After consideration of the artifacts and contents of the texts found on site, Zettler suggests the building had a dual purpose: one half was the private residence of Ur-Suen, the other served as a public building to do with administration of agricultural lands and production (though he maintains some reservations naturally.) The difference in approach, incorporating all evidence native to the site, we can assume allowed Zettler to see "the whole picture."
Integration as The Way of the Future/
Zettler: "If, then, the integration of textual and other material culture remains is not just a "wave of the future" but an imperative, how can we facilitate it? The single most important way, of course, is in training at the graduate level. We have to set an example by being open and training students to be open to integration and fluent in the methodologies of historians, language specialists, and archaeologists. Ideally, archaeologists from whatever disciplinary background, whether anthropology, art history, or history, should have some background in ancient languages, and those working in historical periods a grounding sufficient to evaluate critically the work of Assyriologists, if not an ability to read and work with written sources materials firsthand. At the same time, historians and language specialists should be trained in archaeology, both its method ad theory, world archaeology and the area-specific archaeology of the Middle East, and have at least some field experience. I recognize, however, that given the current emphasis even i major research universities on shorter and shorter time-to-degree programs, such stringent requirements are not likely to be enacted... short of the ideal, we should provide students, regardless of their interests and specializations, with training as well rounded as possible."
Zettlers two main suggestions to facilatate integration:
Still to come.... Further perspectives on Philology and Archaeology
Textual and Archaeological Integration
Today I am looking through the book The Study of the Ancient Near East in the Twentieth Century and I am specifically interested in a 20 page contribution by RIchard L. Zettler entitled Written Documents as Excavated Artifacts.
An "Institutionalized division of labor between Assyriologists and Archaeologists/
Zettler had been tasked with focusing "on the integration of textual and archaeological data" , basically this relates to the very old problem of cooperation between philologists who read the texts and archaeologists who deal with these and other artifacts (and their excavation). Zettler briefly looks at the history of this problem, noting that the division began with pioneers such Layard, Loftus and Rassam (excavators) and their contemporaries such Henry C. Rawlinson (an early decipherer.) This view of the field, as two different spheres of related yet separate activity, came to typify the mindset of experts on both sides and is even made explicit in some published material, such as comments made by A. Leo Oppenheim (who was vocal about his belief in the the superiority of written evidence.)
Toward the Integration of Material/
Zettler next discusses some of the positive influences in ANE studies who have moved toward or even achieved an integration between textual and archaeological data in their studies. First he mentions:
Thorkild Jacobsen: The man seems like a magnet for praise, but here we have yet another reason. Zettler explains that Jacobsen (who doesn't know this) always had a keen interest both written documents and archaeology. At Ishchali he was epigrapher and director of excavations, and at Nippur he recorded detailed archaeological information, sketched tablet finds spots and at the same time was making excellent transliterations. He served as supervisor to Penelope Weadocks 1958 dissertation on the Giparu at Ur which Zettler describes as "one of the first major efforts to integrate texts and archaeology."
Archaeologists and Assyriologists who have followed this example in the last 10 years are given as:
- Aage Westenholz - Old Sumerian and Old Akkadian Texts in Philadelphia (Nippur under the Dynasty of Akkad)
- Maria de J. Ellis - The Archive of the Old Babylonian Kititum Temple and Other Text from Ishali (JAOS 106)
- Elisabeth Stone - Texts, Architecture and Ethnographic Analogy: Patterns of Residence in Old Babylonian Nippur (Iraq 43)
- D. Charpin - Le clerge d'Ur au siecle d'Hammurabi
- In addition, various works by Irene Winter
Zettler's View/
Zettler sees the integration of Textual and Archaeological sources as a study with utilizes more Archaeological context then examining simply the findspot of a tablet or tablets. He believes an integrated study should utilize both inscribed and uninscribed artifacts in order to reconstruct "the whole picture".
To show this concept in motion, the author refers to one of his own studies in this case an examination of Area TB on Tablet Hill in Nippur. He notes that this same area had been examined numerous times before in studies which focused particularly on the architecture of the site - conclusions varied about the nature of the building found in Area TB, some ventured to declare a private house features in this section, others called it an extended family house where still others determined it was a palace. In Zettler's own treatment of the evidence of this site however he undertook to consider not only the Architecture of the ruin, but the various finds found there: The pottery, clay figurines, plaques and seals and some 75 tablets. After consideration of the artifacts and contents of the texts found on site, Zettler suggests the building had a dual purpose: one half was the private residence of Ur-Suen, the other served as a public building to do with administration of agricultural lands and production (though he maintains some reservations naturally.) The difference in approach, incorporating all evidence native to the site, we can assume allowed Zettler to see "the whole picture."
Integration as The Way of the Future/
Zettler: "If, then, the integration of textual and other material culture remains is not just a "wave of the future" but an imperative, how can we facilitate it? The single most important way, of course, is in training at the graduate level. We have to set an example by being open and training students to be open to integration and fluent in the methodologies of historians, language specialists, and archaeologists. Ideally, archaeologists from whatever disciplinary background, whether anthropology, art history, or history, should have some background in ancient languages, and those working in historical periods a grounding sufficient to evaluate critically the work of Assyriologists, if not an ability to read and work with written sources materials firsthand. At the same time, historians and language specialists should be trained in archaeology, both its method ad theory, world archaeology and the area-specific archaeology of the Middle East, and have at least some field experience. I recognize, however, that given the current emphasis even i major research universities on shorter and shorter time-to-degree programs, such stringent requirements are not likely to be enacted... short of the ideal, we should provide students, regardless of their interests and specializations, with training as well rounded as possible."
Zettlers two main suggestions to facilatate integration:
1. .. We ought to give high priority in the coming years to systematic explication of ancient Mesopotamian material culture and technology.
2. .. We need to begin to recognize the biases of the archaeological
record (and I used the term archaeological record in a general sense to include texts) and eliminate them to the extent we are able.
2. .. We need to begin to recognize the biases of the archaeological
record (and I used the term archaeological record in a general sense to include texts) and eliminate them to the extent we are able.
Still to come.... Further perspectives on Philology and Archaeology