What do you think?
Rate this book
Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology
Before the 1970s, "biblical archaeology" was the dominant research paradigm for those excavating the history of Palestine. Today this model has been "weighed in the balance and found wanting." Most now prefer to speak of "Syro/Palestinian archaeology." This is not just a nominal shift but reflects a major theoretical and methodological change. It has even been labeled a revolution. In the popular mind, however, biblical archaeology is still alive and well.
In Shifting Sands , Thomas W. Davis charts the evolution and the demise of the discipline. Biblical archaeology, he writes, was an attempt to ground the historical witness of the Bible in demonstrable historical reality. Its theoretical base lay in the field of theology. American mainstream Protestantism strongly resisted the inroads of continental biblical criticism, and sought support for their conservative views in archaeological research on the ancient Near East. The Bible was the source of the agenda for biblical archaeology, an agenda that was ultimately apologetical.
Davis traces the fascinating story of the interaction of biblical studies, theology, and archaeology in Palestine, and the remarkable individuals who pioneered the discipline. He highlights the achievements of biblical archaeologists in the field, who gathered an immense body of data. By clarifying the theoretical and methodological framework of the original excavators, he believes, these data can be made more useful for current research, allowing a more sober, reasoned judgment of both the accomplishments and the failures of biblical archaeology.
In Shifting Sands , Thomas W. Davis charts the evolution and the demise of the discipline. Biblical archaeology, he writes, was an attempt to ground the historical witness of the Bible in demonstrable historical reality. Its theoretical base lay in the field of theology. American mainstream Protestantism strongly resisted the inroads of continental biblical criticism, and sought support for their conservative views in archaeological research on the ancient Near East. The Bible was the source of the agenda for biblical archaeology, an agenda that was ultimately apologetical.
Davis traces the fascinating story of the interaction of biblical studies, theology, and archaeology in Palestine, and the remarkable individuals who pioneered the discipline. He highlights the achievements of biblical archaeologists in the field, who gathered an immense body of data. By clarifying the theoretical and methodological framework of the original excavators, he believes, these data can be made more useful for current research, allowing a more sober, reasoned judgment of both the accomplishments and the failures of biblical archaeology.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
Thomas W. Davis
10 books3 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 23, 2025
A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIELD
Archaeologist Thomas Davis wrote in the Preface to this 2004 book, “The current generation has witnessed great changes in the archaeology of Palestine. Before the 1970s, biblical archeology was the dominant research paradigm. Today, biblical archaeology has been ‘weighed in the balance and found wanting.’ … [Most] American archaeologists in Syria/Palestine… now prefer [the title] ‘Syro-Palestinian archaeology’… This … reflects a major theoretical and methodological change that has been labeled a revolution … A new consensus has formed around principles articulated by the anthropological archaeologists working in the United States…. Why, then, look at the old?... The new paradigm … carries the stamp of its parent, biblical archaeology. The senior figures in the field, those who brought about the change in paradigm, are all products of biblical archaeological training. In the popular mind, the biblical archaeology paradigm is still alive and well, as witnessed by the success of the ‘Biblical Archaeology Review.’ (Pg. vii)
He continues, “This study elucidates the changes that did occur during the lifetime of biblical archaeology… this study highlights the field aspect of biblical archaeology… William Foxwell Albright brought biblical archaeology into the mainstream by conducting field research to ultimately aid biblical scholars. Biblical archaeology gained its prominence … due to Albright’s brilliant breakthrough in field methodology. Ironically, Albright’s student, George Ernest Wright, would bring about the demise of classic biblical archaeology by continuing the tradition of methodological experimentation.” (Pg. viii)
He goes on, “biblical archaeology was almost exclusively an American endeavor. American Protestantism strongly resisted the inroads of continental biblical criticism, and research in the ancient Near East became a potential source of support for the conservative opponents of critical study. Biblical archaeology became a weapon in theological debate, ultimately being very closely linked to the biblical theology movement by George Ernest Wright. The practitioners of biblical archaeology believed... that biblical faith… depends on the historical reality of the events that displayed the Hand of God. If the events … have no basis in reality, then there is no basis for believing in the biblical witness… The archaeology of Palestine, the Land of the Bible, became biblical archaeology.” (Pg. viii)
He adds, “Biblical archaeology still has validity as a name for the sphere of interaction of archaeology and the Bible. The new biblical archaeology is currently wracked by fierce polemics… Ironically, archaeology is once again a weapon to be used to further particular biblical perspectives. The ‘maximalists’ accept a certain level of validity in the biblical witness… the ‘minimalists’ reject any historicity associated with the Hebrew Bible and consider it to be a product of later Judaism… both sides in the debate employ archaeology in the same way… as a source of objective data… Biblical archaeology as understood by Albright and Wright is no more. Today, the field and its practitioners are often vilified. I hope that this study will allow a more sober, reasoned judgment of the achievements and the failures of biblical archaeology to be made.” (Pg. ix-x)
He recounts, “Edward Robinson is the prototyp[ical] biblical archaeologist … Robinson came to Palestine expecting to find support for his conservative views on the Bible. He came with a closed mind regarding the accuracy of Scripture, and despite evidence to the contrary, as in the Sinai, he did not change his view. This did not cause major problems for him, because nothing was known to contradict him. Only later would the tools of archaeology be honed enough to check his results.” (Pg. 10)
He says of the first excavator of Palestine, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, “Although his work was revolutionary in 1890, Petrie never advanced beyond it. When he returned to Palestine in the late 1920s, his methods had been surpassed. He never changed his style…” (Pg. 31)
He notes, “William Foxwell Albright developed his archaeological expertise through a combination of surveys, excavations, and publications.” (Pg. 66) Later, he sums up, “By the late 1930s, Albright’s unchallenged mastery of the pottery of Palestine came together with economic and political factors to ensure his dominance of the field. The man who began the ‘golden age’ as a folklorist … and linguist had become its leading archaeologist. Ironically, at the pinnacle of his archaeological influence Albright turned away from fieldwork and preferred to be called an ‘Orientalist.’” (Pg. 74)
He explains, “The fundamentalist-modernist debate influenced archaeology in Palestine, where Fundamentalism developed an apologetical school of archaeology that desired to use archaeology to support an inerrant, literal interpretation of the Bible… [Melvin Grove] Kyle, a Presbyterian clergyman, was one of the apologists with archaeological experience… For Kyle, the only motivation for archaeology in Palestine was its ability to defend the Bible.” (Pg. 77)
He reports, “After World War II, archaeological liberalism was dead in Palestine. The theological movement was crumbling before neo-orthodoxy and had little time or energy to invest in archaeology. The leaders of liberal archaeology did not return to the field in the first generation after World War II, effectively negating their influence… Liberal archaeology has returned … in the current minimalist movement in biblical studies, which has used archaeology to support an ultracritical view of the Old Testament.” (Pg. 79)
He recounts, “Albright viewed the biblical data as an Orientalist, particularly when dealing with the Patriarchal narratives… Wright came to the Bible as a theologian, seeking to elucidate the historical events that Hebrew tradition interpreted as actions of God. They shared a high regard for the basic historicity of the biblical narratives based on the conviction that archaeology had provided innumerable examples of support for them. The men shared the belief in archaeology as … 'realia' on which they built biblical archaeology.” (Pg. 110)
He reports that Albright “responded to what he considered a ‘nihilistic’ assessment … by the German scholar Martin Noth… Noth challenged the basic historicity of the Conquest, contending that most of the stories relating to the Conquest … were made up to explain a name of a natural feature… [Albright] based his challenge on his belief in archaeology: ‘The ultimate historicity of a given datum is never conclusively proved or disproved by the literary framework in which it is embedded; there must always be external evidence.’” (Pg. 117) Nevertheless, “Jericho continued to provide a stumbling block for the Albright-Wright model. [Kathleen] Kenyon’s work at Jericho … challenged [John] Garstang’s conclusions about the destruction of the city.” (Pg. 119) He adds, “Interestingly, Wright rejected the internal biblical chronology for Conquest … Wright offered his own calculations to arrive at a late date for the Exodus.” (Pg. 120)
He explains, “Joseph P. Free became a leading spokesman for the Christian fundamentalist position in archaeology, who did set out to ‘prove’ the Bible… Free totally rejected higher critical thinking. He claimed that the confirmation of the Bible was not his primary aim, but the thrust of his study is totally apologetical.” (Pg. 126-127)
He points out that in his 1968 Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary, Wright “‘concluded that the problem of the Scripture’s truth and validity cannot be solved’… Despite decades of research, the goal of biblical archaeology, to ground the Scripture in realia, was no longer possible. Wright had come full circle. His theology had originally provided the impetus for his archaeological research. Now, that same research forced him to abandon his theological stance.” (Pg. 137-138)
He briefly mentions several recent scholars: Thomas Thompson, John Van Seters, and William Dever: “Dever… challenged Albright’s Patriarchal model… Thompson, Van Seters, and Dever disagreed over aspects of the EBIV period… but were united in their view that Albright’s Patriarchal model was a distortion of the archaeological record. Van Seters was more concerned with questions of biblical criticism; and it was primarily Thompson and Dever who critiqued Albright’s archaeological data.” (Pg. 140-141)
He concludes, “Biblical archaeology as defined in the field by Wright and Albright is gone. Even the visible remains of the once dominating edifice---the Patriarchal model and the Conquest model---have been removed. Biblical archaeology has been dismissed as parochial, lacking in theory and method, and reactionary… This characterization has obscured the positive legacy that biblical archaeology has passed on to Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” (Pg. 152)
This is an excellent, and largely balanced historic al survey of the field of Biblical Archaeology.
Archaeologist Thomas Davis wrote in the Preface to this 2004 book, “The current generation has witnessed great changes in the archaeology of Palestine. Before the 1970s, biblical archeology was the dominant research paradigm. Today, biblical archaeology has been ‘weighed in the balance and found wanting.’ … [Most] American archaeologists in Syria/Palestine… now prefer [the title] ‘Syro-Palestinian archaeology’… This … reflects a major theoretical and methodological change that has been labeled a revolution … A new consensus has formed around principles articulated by the anthropological archaeologists working in the United States…. Why, then, look at the old?... The new paradigm … carries the stamp of its parent, biblical archaeology. The senior figures in the field, those who brought about the change in paradigm, are all products of biblical archaeological training. In the popular mind, the biblical archaeology paradigm is still alive and well, as witnessed by the success of the ‘Biblical Archaeology Review.’ (Pg. vii)
He continues, “This study elucidates the changes that did occur during the lifetime of biblical archaeology… this study highlights the field aspect of biblical archaeology… William Foxwell Albright brought biblical archaeology into the mainstream by conducting field research to ultimately aid biblical scholars. Biblical archaeology gained its prominence … due to Albright’s brilliant breakthrough in field methodology. Ironically, Albright’s student, George Ernest Wright, would bring about the demise of classic biblical archaeology by continuing the tradition of methodological experimentation.” (Pg. viii)
He goes on, “biblical archaeology was almost exclusively an American endeavor. American Protestantism strongly resisted the inroads of continental biblical criticism, and research in the ancient Near East became a potential source of support for the conservative opponents of critical study. Biblical archaeology became a weapon in theological debate, ultimately being very closely linked to the biblical theology movement by George Ernest Wright. The practitioners of biblical archaeology believed... that biblical faith… depends on the historical reality of the events that displayed the Hand of God. If the events … have no basis in reality, then there is no basis for believing in the biblical witness… The archaeology of Palestine, the Land of the Bible, became biblical archaeology.” (Pg. viii)
He adds, “Biblical archaeology still has validity as a name for the sphere of interaction of archaeology and the Bible. The new biblical archaeology is currently wracked by fierce polemics… Ironically, archaeology is once again a weapon to be used to further particular biblical perspectives. The ‘maximalists’ accept a certain level of validity in the biblical witness… the ‘minimalists’ reject any historicity associated with the Hebrew Bible and consider it to be a product of later Judaism… both sides in the debate employ archaeology in the same way… as a source of objective data… Biblical archaeology as understood by Albright and Wright is no more. Today, the field and its practitioners are often vilified. I hope that this study will allow a more sober, reasoned judgment of the achievements and the failures of biblical archaeology to be made.” (Pg. ix-x)
He recounts, “Edward Robinson is the prototyp[ical] biblical archaeologist … Robinson came to Palestine expecting to find support for his conservative views on the Bible. He came with a closed mind regarding the accuracy of Scripture, and despite evidence to the contrary, as in the Sinai, he did not change his view. This did not cause major problems for him, because nothing was known to contradict him. Only later would the tools of archaeology be honed enough to check his results.” (Pg. 10)
He says of the first excavator of Palestine, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, “Although his work was revolutionary in 1890, Petrie never advanced beyond it. When he returned to Palestine in the late 1920s, his methods had been surpassed. He never changed his style…” (Pg. 31)
He notes, “William Foxwell Albright developed his archaeological expertise through a combination of surveys, excavations, and publications.” (Pg. 66) Later, he sums up, “By the late 1930s, Albright’s unchallenged mastery of the pottery of Palestine came together with economic and political factors to ensure his dominance of the field. The man who began the ‘golden age’ as a folklorist … and linguist had become its leading archaeologist. Ironically, at the pinnacle of his archaeological influence Albright turned away from fieldwork and preferred to be called an ‘Orientalist.’” (Pg. 74)
He explains, “The fundamentalist-modernist debate influenced archaeology in Palestine, where Fundamentalism developed an apologetical school of archaeology that desired to use archaeology to support an inerrant, literal interpretation of the Bible… [Melvin Grove] Kyle, a Presbyterian clergyman, was one of the apologists with archaeological experience… For Kyle, the only motivation for archaeology in Palestine was its ability to defend the Bible.” (Pg. 77)
He reports, “After World War II, archaeological liberalism was dead in Palestine. The theological movement was crumbling before neo-orthodoxy and had little time or energy to invest in archaeology. The leaders of liberal archaeology did not return to the field in the first generation after World War II, effectively negating their influence… Liberal archaeology has returned … in the current minimalist movement in biblical studies, which has used archaeology to support an ultracritical view of the Old Testament.” (Pg. 79)
He recounts, “Albright viewed the biblical data as an Orientalist, particularly when dealing with the Patriarchal narratives… Wright came to the Bible as a theologian, seeking to elucidate the historical events that Hebrew tradition interpreted as actions of God. They shared a high regard for the basic historicity of the biblical narratives based on the conviction that archaeology had provided innumerable examples of support for them. The men shared the belief in archaeology as … 'realia' on which they built biblical archaeology.” (Pg. 110)
He reports that Albright “responded to what he considered a ‘nihilistic’ assessment … by the German scholar Martin Noth… Noth challenged the basic historicity of the Conquest, contending that most of the stories relating to the Conquest … were made up to explain a name of a natural feature… [Albright] based his challenge on his belief in archaeology: ‘The ultimate historicity of a given datum is never conclusively proved or disproved by the literary framework in which it is embedded; there must always be external evidence.’” (Pg. 117) Nevertheless, “Jericho continued to provide a stumbling block for the Albright-Wright model. [Kathleen] Kenyon’s work at Jericho … challenged [John] Garstang’s conclusions about the destruction of the city.” (Pg. 119) He adds, “Interestingly, Wright rejected the internal biblical chronology for Conquest … Wright offered his own calculations to arrive at a late date for the Exodus.” (Pg. 120)
He explains, “Joseph P. Free became a leading spokesman for the Christian fundamentalist position in archaeology, who did set out to ‘prove’ the Bible… Free totally rejected higher critical thinking. He claimed that the confirmation of the Bible was not his primary aim, but the thrust of his study is totally apologetical.” (Pg. 126-127)
He points out that in his 1968 Sprunt Lectures at Union Theological Seminary, Wright “‘concluded that the problem of the Scripture’s truth and validity cannot be solved’… Despite decades of research, the goal of biblical archaeology, to ground the Scripture in realia, was no longer possible. Wright had come full circle. His theology had originally provided the impetus for his archaeological research. Now, that same research forced him to abandon his theological stance.” (Pg. 137-138)
He briefly mentions several recent scholars: Thomas Thompson, John Van Seters, and William Dever: “Dever… challenged Albright’s Patriarchal model… Thompson, Van Seters, and Dever disagreed over aspects of the EBIV period… but were united in their view that Albright’s Patriarchal model was a distortion of the archaeological record. Van Seters was more concerned with questions of biblical criticism; and it was primarily Thompson and Dever who critiqued Albright’s archaeological data.” (Pg. 140-141)
He concludes, “Biblical archaeology as defined in the field by Wright and Albright is gone. Even the visible remains of the once dominating edifice---the Patriarchal model and the Conquest model---have been removed. Biblical archaeology has been dismissed as parochial, lacking in theory and method, and reactionary… This characterization has obscured the positive legacy that biblical archaeology has passed on to Syro-Palestinian archaeology.” (Pg. 152)
This is an excellent, and largely balanced historic al survey of the field of Biblical Archaeology.
September 7, 2025
Good overview of the field! Had way more details of inter-personal drama between the archaeologists than I anticipated haha. Highlights key figures and their strengths and weaknesses in the field of biblical archaeology, in addition to how they shaped its history. Also contains information about different methodologies, but not any super technical descriptions or anything. Readable! Had a good number of pictures of the people it talked about.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews