116 Bl:J\('EENTEXTANDARTIFACfdisappearedamongpracticingfieldarchaeologistsanclbiblicalhistorians.
Whatfollowsisthebriefestofsummariesofthesedevelopments.^2
[ntheNewWorld,dissatisfactionwiththemoretraditionalarchaeolog-
icalmethodsled 10 a revolulionofsorlsmadepopularbyLewisBinford
andhisdisciplesinthe19605.Dubbedthe"NewArchaeology"or"proces-
sualarchaeology," thisapproachsoughttoprovideuniversalexplanations
for the archaeological record and toshun hislO!)'writing based upon
archaeologicaldara.Toachievethisgoal,methodswereborrowedfrom
olherdisciplines,especiallyanthropology.Furthermore,inadditiontothis
pardeligmshift,newerfieldtechniquesweredeveloped(e.g.,groundradar,
infra-redphotography,paleobotany),andmultidisciplinarystaffsbeganto
beintroducedintofieldwork.TherationaleandmethodbehindthisNew
Archaeologybegan to be introduced intodiscussionson NearEastern
archaeologyprimarilythroughthepublicationsofWilliamG.Dever)While
theinnllcnceoftheNeworprocessllalarchaeologycannotbedenied,it
toohasbeenchallengedrecentlybysuchpeopleasIanHodderinGreat
l3ritain and even by Dever in America.^4 For these scholars, we have
entereda "postprocessllal"erathatrecognizesthatarchaeologicaldatado
allowforhistoricalreconstructionsofancientsocieties,atleastonabroad
scale.However,asDeverhaspointedout,thispostprocessualagendahas
notyelbeenwidelyadoptedbythosewhoengageinNearEasternarchae-
ology.Ir he,Ilodder,andothersinthefieldarcright,thennotonlydocs
archaeologyholdgreatpotentialrorunderstandingthehistoryorancient
Israel,butitmayalsobeouronlyreliablesourcegiventbedebateoverthe
"nonhistoricity"ofthebiblicaltexis.
Regmdlessortheoutcomeorthesesometimestedious,albeitimpor-
tant,theoreticalmethodologicaldiscussions,a historicaldescriptiononlyof
thechanges(especiallypolitical)seeninthearchaeologicalrecordorpromi-
nenttells,measuredbylx>thstratigraphical profilesandceramicanalysis,can
nolongersuffice.Contemporatyarchaeologistsandhistoriansnowattempt
toproVideamoreholistice:>.plallatiollofpastsocietiesthatincludesnot
only political but alsoenvironmental, social, economic, religious and
2 Fora helpful pcrsJX'Clive on lhi~ hiSlory. Sl.:C Colin R.:nfrcw and Paul Balm.
Arch(u.'Ology:7]x'On'ei\Ak4brxl,alldPmCliceOded.:London:nl;lIne~&Hudson2000),38-44.
3 WilliilrnG.Dever,"1rnp;t<:tofth.:'NewArchaeology:"in Benchmarksil/Timealld
Clllillre:AliIlIlrodl/{;/iotl 10 Pa/(.'slilJi(lIIArchaeologyD(x!ic(l/edtojosephA.Callal/'ay(cd.
J.F.DrinkardJr..G.l..M,mhingJy,:mdJ./II.l\'liller~SBI.AIlS1;Albnt;tScholarsPress.1988),
337-52.
4 SecI;mHodder,R!.'adillgIhePasl:Cllrr!.''''ApproachestoInfel1)retaliollillArc!)(/(.'O/ogy
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniver~ilyPres~.1986);WilliamG.Dever, II'lhmDidIheBibliC(/1
tVritel5Kllou'(jlldII'lbellDid'Ib(.yKl/owll?II'l/m/Archa(.'OlosyGallTellUsaOOUlII)eRealil)'
ofAI/cleWIsmel(Gr:mdRapids:Eerdm,ms,2001).53-SH.