Visions of the Future: Albright in Jerusalem, 1919-1929. by La Biblia en la Historia

Visions of the Future: Albright in Jerusalem, 1919-1929 Author(s): Neil A. Silberman Source: The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1, Celebrating and Examining W. F. Albright ( Mar., 1993), pp. 8-16 Published by: American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3210356 Accessed: 06-01-2016 03:01 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Biblical Archaeologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Visions

Albright

the

Future:

1919-1929 Jerusalem, by Neil A. Silberman

first training and experience in Biblical Archaeology in the 1970s, William Foxwell Albright was not our teacher; he was something of a patron saint. Although he died in 1971, his image was familiar--especially as seen in the famous photograph of the kindly-looking scholar, with thick wire-rimmed eyeglasses, peering reflectively through a magnifying glass at an ancient manuscript (as below, p. 13 and the frontispiece of Running and Freedman 1975). He seemed to be all things to all people: philologist, orientalist, philosopher, historian-as well as archaeologist (Cf. Van Beek 1989). And despite the fact that many of Albright's archaeological conclusions are now, and were even then, questioned or discarded, his influence continues to be profound. That's why I think it may be worthwhile to examine a particularly formative period in Albright's career-his first ten years in Jerusalem-and suggest that the continuing power of his archaeological reputation may be based just as much on how he did archaeology as on any particular conclusions that he formed. I don't think anyone will take issue with me when I suggest that the decade from 1919 to 1929 was a crucial one for the future of the Holy Land (for recent surveys of the period see, for example, Giladi 1973, Khalidi 1984, Wasserstein 1991). At the time of Albright's arrival in Jerusalem in December 1919, Palestine was still under military occupa8

tion, and the distinct national aspirations of the country's Jewish, Muslim, and Christian communitiesthough mutually, perhaps fatally, in

Melvin Grove Kyle was regarded as a true friend by Albright, who wrote effusively of their relationship in memoriam (Albright 1933). Kyle provided financial backing for their joint expedition to the Dead Sea Valley and subsequently for the excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim.Kyle raised funds by his lectures to church groups across America about archaeology and the infallible truth of the Bible.

conflict-all still seemed achievable (McTague 1983). At the time of Albright's departure from Palestine to accept a professorship at Johns Hopkins in the summer of 1929, the country had undergone a far-reaching economic and demographic transformation (Abu-Lughod 1987; Brawer 1990), and the violence that

was about to explode in Jerusalem and Hebron would mark the end of any hope of peaceful co-existence between Arabs and Jews (Cohen 1988). Regarding the history of our discipline, the decade of the 1920s was no less significant: in those years, W.F.Albright began the transformation of Palestinian archaeology from a semi-official enterprise conducted only by Great Powers, Great Institutions, and Great Fortunes, to a decentralized, heterogeneous activity that could be undertaken and funded by enthusiastic individuals and groups (King 1983). The irony is that Albright never intended to spend more than a few months in Jerusalem-and he certainly never intended to become a field archaeologist. In accepting the Thayer Fellowship at the American School for the 1919-1920 academic year, the 28-year-old Albright admitted that he was anxious to get back as quickly as possible to Baltimore, to his fiancee, and to his academic career (Running and Freedman 1975: 59). He had already begun to make a name for himself as a promising scholar, and the atmosphere in Jerusalem was certainly not conducive to quiet, reflective study. Just two years before, in the midst of the bitter fighting of World War I, Lord Balfour had issued his famous declaration. But now that Great Britain's conflicting promises to the French and to the Hashemites had been uncomfortably revealed, the leadership of the Zionist movement suspected betrayal. Palestinian Christian and Muslim notables

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

moved quickly to assert their traditional power. And a younger generation of Palestinian Arab intellectuals and activists looked northward to Damascus and worked for the incorporation of Palestine within a vast Arab commonwealth (Porath 1974; Maslih 1988; Fromkin 1989). The mix of personalities, ideologies, and intentions at the American School in its first post-war year of operation also reflected the country's political tensions. William H. Worrell, the director, was a Coptic and Arabic scholar well connected and sympathetic to the Arab nationalist cause. Albert Clay, the annual professor from Yale, was an aristocratic, conservative biblical scholar, who resented just about everything Worrell had to say. (King 1983:55-56, Running and Freedman 1975:66-69). From Yale also came Samuel Feigin, a Russian-born Palestinian Jew who taught Albright modern Hebrew, brought him along to Zionist lectures and rallies, and introduced him to another young Jewish activist named Lipa Sukenik. Sukenik would in time become one of the founding fathers of Israeli archaeology in more ways than one. (He was the father of Yigael Yadin. On early Jewish Palestinian archaeology, see Shavit 1987.) Through Worrell, Albright also became friendly with Omar as-Salih Barghuti, one of the leaders of the local Arab nationalist group, al-Nadi al-Arabi(Porath 1974; Maslih 1988). That left little time for serious study. Albright wrote home to his mother that he was "listening sympathetically to all sides, expressing no agreement with any, trying to stay neutral" (quoted in Running and Freedman 1975:70), but the tension was building. On April 2, Albright accompanied Barghuti to watch the Nebi Musa procession and two days later witnessed-to his horror-a wave of looting and violence directed against the residents of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. He briefly considered returning to America even before the end of the academic year (Running and Freedman 1975:73), but the unexpected oppor-

tunity that soon arose from the clash of personalities within the American School convinced him to stay. Then as now, the financial resources of archaeological institutions often fall far short of their trustees' ambitious plans. And so it was with the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem in the early post-war years. While the British School of Archaeology benefitted from an annual budget of $30,000 and the resources of the Palestine Department of Antiquities,

someone with more administrative experience (King 1983:58), William Albright was already in situ. And on June 18, 1920-on the urging of his mentor Paul Haupt at Johns Hopkins (Running and Freedman 1975:7980)-the 29-year old Albright accepted the post of acting director and began to lay the foundations of the discipline we know today. Our understanding of the early years of Albright's tenure in Jerusalem is-like much early 20thcentury Ancient Near Eastern histori-

The staff of the fourth field season (1932) at Tell Beit Mirsimincluded (standing left to right):William Gad (surveyor),CyrusGordon, A. Henry Detweiler (architect),John Bright, W. F.Stinespring, Eugene Liggitt, Vernon Broyles,and Aage Schmidt;(sitting) J. L.Kelso (assistant director), W. F.Albright (director), M. G. Kyle,and Nelson Glueck.

the American School had to make due on $6000-and no government sponsorship at all (Bulletin of the

AmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch [BASOR] 2(1920). By the spring of 1920, therefore, Director Worrell, preoccupied with the school's poor finances and fed up with Professor Clay's constant carping, decided that he would be much happier somewhere else. This left the American School-with all its ambitious plans-without a director. Although the trustees would have preferred

ography-long on dates, placenames, and political history, but painfully short on social nuance. The lists of classes taught, sites visited, and excavations undertaken that were published in BASOR reveal little of the broader cultural context. Yet recent political and economic studies of Mandatory Palestine can give us some welcome background. They stress that in the years immediately after World War I, the country's traditional systems of village life and agriculture underwent a far-reaching BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

change (Stein 1984, Miller 1985). Since late Ottoman times, the economic viability of traditional rural lifeways had been growing more tenuous. Stepped-up enforcement of tax collection and increasing monetarization of the economy had forced many formerly independent cultivators into debt. Add to that the catastrophic effects of the expropriation, deforestation, and natural disasters suffered by the inhabitants of the country during the war years (Stein 1986), and it's easy to understand why many firmly believed in the early 1920s that the traditional way of life of the Palestinianfellahin was about to come to an end. For Albright, who traveled extensively throughout the country during this period, this situation ironically provided an excellent opportunity to make a scholarly contribution with the limited resources available to

him. "Owing to the unprecedented rapidity of the economic and social evolution of Palestine today," he informed the readers of BASOR, "the thorough study of the folklore of Palestine is a matter of imperative necessity" (BASOR 4[1921]:4). Taking his cue from then-accepted anthropological understanding that the simple, "primitive" folk of every country could be seen as fossilized specimens of the ancient, (Kuper 1988, Stocking 1989), Albright was convinced of the importance of folklore study "for understanding the mind of the Palestinian peasant, in so many respects no doubt, like his Israelite and Canaanite predecessors" (BASOR 4[1921]:4). Even though he eventually rejected this Euro-centric leap of faith as being wholly without factual basis, his initial fascination with collecting folklore had lasting effects. Unlike directors of the other

archaeology schools and major excavations who employed locals primarily as foremen, basketboys, and domestics, Albright gathered around him a circle of enthusiastic local scholars-"young Orientals" he called them (BASOR 5[1922]:16)to help him collect and write about Palestinian folklore. This group included Elias Haddad, Tewfik Canaan, Omar as-Salih Barghuti, Hanna Stephen, and Lipa Sukenik (BASOR 5[1922]:16-17), who were among the first of a growing number of local scholars to be deeply influenced by Albright's scholarship and personality. Yet the collection of folklore was not fated to become the main focus of Albright's work. In early November 1920, when he was invited to visit the ongoing British excavations at Ascalon, he discovered what seemed to him to be a new and far more pre-

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

cise tool. In discussions with William Phythian-Adams, a young Anglican cleric who had come out to Palestine to serve as Professor John Garstang's assistant, Albright learned how potsherds, not folktales, might be the key to understanding biblical history. Indeed, Albright would long recall how Phythian-Adams offered him his first introduction to archaeology, confidently demonstrating how the sequence of Ascalon's ceramics revealed a saga of civilization, ethnic migration, and conquest, that began with the arrival of non-Semitic troglodytes and proceeded through successive epochs of Amorites, Hyksos, Canaanites, and Philistinesupward to classical times (Albright 1922). Garstang and Phythian-Adams were trained in an archaeological tradition that placed the stress in historical interpretation on ethnic movement and technological progress

An overview of Jerusalemtaken fromthe tower of the RussianChurchon the Mountof Olivesduringthe yearsof WorldWarI.Albrightarrivedinthe cityjusttwo yearsafter its capturebythe British.Conflictamongthe variousaspirantsfor power-Jewish, Muslin, and Christian-hasbegun to emerge. MandatoryPalestinewas on the brinkof far-reaching social,economic,and politicaltransformation. Photo from the Matson Collection,Libraryof Congress.

(Trigger 1989:196-205). Later Albright identified this tradition with Egyptologist Breasted and disparagingly called it "atheistic humanism" (Albright 1964:6, 217-228). Now Albright was ready to combine his historical understandings with his personal religious belief. Just a few days after visiting Ascalon, at a meeting of the Palestine Oriental Society, he presented his epoch-making paper, "A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology," in which he arranged the great events of biblical history-or as he termed it, "the great drama of salvation," on a neat, chronological scale (Albright 1921).

Weaving a modem folktale of great wars and migrations, Albright evoked then-current historical and racial theories to speak of a great Indo-European inundation toward the Mediterranean where the invaders intermingled with the Semitic scions of an earlier movement from Mesopotamia. It was in this Bronze Age multicultural ferment, he believed, that a new, monotheistic religion did eventually arise. Needless to say, mass migrations, new nations, and new ideologies were subjects of contemporary interest in those heady days of international reallignment after World BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

..",

Av.

QI`-

..Apt I

1; ~

----?---TA

-4e

Ii!

-14

British troops march in a display of military force in Jerusalem. The Mandatory

governmentstruggledto quellthe riotingof 1929.Albrightended histen-yeartenure as Directorof the AmericanSchoolin Jerusalemjust priorto the out-breakof bloody violence.Backin Baltimore,he guardedhisstanceof neutrality. Photo from the Matson Collection,Libraryof Congress.

War I (Fromkin 1989). More to the point, the material illustration of Albright's chronologically detailed, ethnic saga offered an attractive course of action for the struggling American School. Albright became convinced that it was not necessary to assemble huge staffs to excavate great mounds and search for monumental architecture in order to add to the understanding of the biblical world. With the aid of precise pottery 12

analysis, even the most humble ruin could be dated, assigned to a particular ethnic group, and thus be made to reveal its biblical history. Such was the motivation for Albright's first excavation, a project with a budget of only a thousand dollars, carried out at Tell el-Ful (Running and Freedman 1975:101, 106-107). Despite a nasty legal dispute over the lease to the property-highlighted by Albright's brief arrest

by the Jerusalem police on the complaint of disgruntled villagers-he succeeded in defining a ceramic chronology that neatly, if circularly, paralleled the history of the site, which he identified with Gibeah of Saul (Albright 1922). No less important, in his continuing participation in the meetings of the Archaeological Advisory Council of the Department of Antiquities, Albright helped to craft a unique compromise between the terminology of technological, ethnic, and biblical archaeological schemes. In the "Jerusalem Chronology" of 1922, signed by Garstang, Vincent, Albright, and PhythianAdams-a document that serves as

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the basis for our archaeological periodization-the ethnic names of Canaanites, Philistines, and Israelites are neatly nested within the Stone, Bronze, and Iron stages of technological development (Palestine

il ~I

FundQuarterlyStatement Exploration 1923:54-55). Had Albright's archaeological career concluded at the end of the Tell el-Ful excavations, he might be remembered today as an innovative thinker, but hardly comparable in achievement to the excavators of the great Canaanite sites of Megiddo or Beth Shean. But at this point in the story a crucial character enters, a character who gave Albright's scholarly insights a practical, organizational frame. He was Melvin Grove Kyle-Albright's senior by 33 years-president of the Xenia Theological Seminary, active supporter of overseas missionary work, and tireless defender of the Bible's historical authority (Albright 1933). "Science," Kyle once assured his readers in the Sunday SchoolTimeswith breathtakingly circular logic, "when it is true knowledge of the facts of nature, cannot be otherwise than harmonious with any other true statement of facts, as we constantly find the Bible to be." (Kyle 1928:53). And in the winter of 1924, with $1400 raised by his lectures to church groups across America about archaeology and the infallible truth of the Bible, Kyle arrived at the American School in Jerusalem to lead an expedition-an ecumenical expedition-to locate the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by the Dead Sea. Setting off from Jerusalem in midFebruary, the team included Kyle, two of his students from Xenia, Albright, Thayer Fellow William Carroll, geologist Alfred Day from the American University in Beirut, flint expert Phre Alexis Mallon, director of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Inspector Nai'im Makhouli of the Department of Antiquities as expedition liaison, and Lipa Sukenik, formerly of the Hebrew Boys' High School, as expedition surveyor and

Albright's most well-known portrait--magnifying glass in hand-was taken at his desk

at JohnsHopkinsca. 1958.

Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger,Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity.

field botanist (Kyle 1928:24-6). In a month of exhausting exploration, this eclectic group of scholars traveled from Amman down to Kerak and the Ghor es-Safi, discovering the massive Early Bronze site of Bab edh-Dhra and finally concluding that the wicked cities of the plain-so vividly described in the Book of Genesislay submerged somewhere at the southern end of the sea. For Albright the expedition was an incentive for further discovery. "Let us hope that other institutions will see the opportunity for similar joint expeditions," he noted in April 1924, "where we can promise scientific results and

interesting experiences all out of proportion to the modest expenses" (BASOR 14[1924]: 12). Indeed, expenses continued to be a matter of prime concern to Albright. While the major excavations in Palestine could hire a fulltime staff and enlist huge work crews of native diggers, the American School had only a small excavation fund. Most of its resources were devoted to the construction of the new school building in Jerusalem, on the dirt path leading northward from Herod's Gate (King 1983:74). We often fail to take into account this economic factor in tracing the history BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993)

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of Biblical Archaeology. Even the largest projects-Beth Shean, Dor, Megiddo-were not immune to the effects of economic fluctuations. It's ironic that the "golden age" of Palestinian archaeology took place precisely at times of serious unemployment and recession, in the periods 1922-24 and 1926-28 (Halevi 1983). It might even be fair to say that the "goldenness" of that golden age was

summer thus in the bright sunshine and invigorating air of Palestine" (McCown 1943:86). What's more, President Kyle had shown that significant public interest-and financial support-could be raised in America by a direct appeal to Bible. This was, after all, the Age of Calvin Coolidge, Aimee Semple McPherson, and the Scopes "Monkey" Trial (for a survey of the cultural

Tell Beit Mirsim expedition camp as seen

landscape, see Susman 1984:105-121). It was also the era of the first "living history museums," such as Colonial Williamsburg and Greenfield Village, in which tangible artifacts and representations of "everyday life" offered subtle ideological reinforcement of conservative modern notions of gender, work, and family (Wallace 1986:142-149). Thus, the discovery of inscriptions and monumental architecture, while still naturally desirable, were no longer essential in an ongoing project of archaeologically illustrating life in biblical times (Cf. Broshi 1987). An excavation site was quickly chosen: the "Mound of the House of the Fast Camel Driver," better known as Tell Beit Mirsim, southwest of Hebron and at that time confidently identified with the biblical city of Debir (Running and Freedman 1975:143-163).And in the spring of 1926, with a budget of $3000, raised by Kyle lectures and by public sub-

fromthe tell (n.d.). Photo from the ASORIGlueck Collectionon deposit at the HarvardSemiticMuseum.

made possible by a steep drop in the going wage rates for Jewish laborers and fellahin. Yet while the major archaeological employers were hurt by periods of prosperity and rising wages, expeditions like Kyle's, based largely on the participation of scholar-volunteers, were far more adaptable. Albright's successor at the American School, Chester C. McCown, succinctly outlined the advantages of the new method: "During the summer vacation, scholars from Europe and America are glad to join the staff as honorary workers... a man who has the proper historical and philological preparation and interest can find no better opportunity to learn the methods and value of archaeology than to spend a 14

scription, a temporary camp was pitched in a nearby olive grove, workers were hired from the nearby village, and the digging began. The rest, as they say, is history. In the summer of 1929, after almost a decade of faithful service as director of the American School in Jerusalem, Albright left Jerusalem to accept the chair of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University. Before sailing for America with his family, he was honored with gratitude and adulation by his old friends and colleagues of the Palestine Oriental Society and by the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Hebrew University (BASOR 33[1929]:13). In his first ten years in Jerusalem Albright successfully maneuvered through the minefield of political options and, whether by intention or by pure circumstance,

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

after his return to comment on the grim situation in Palestine, he maintained the neutrality that he established ten years before. "I speak the tongues of both races," he told the reporter, "and because I have kept out of politics have been able to keep warm friends among both Arabs and Jews." (quoted in Running and Freedman 1975:171) It's strange that today's Biblical

Aerial view of Tell Beit Mirsim with the exposed portions of the northwest quadrant plainly visible. The mound covers an area of ca. 3 ha. Photo courtesyof RichardCleave.

created a distinctive brand of American progressivist archaeology. And even though, less than a month after his departure, a bitter struggle between Muslim and Jewish factions over possession of the Western Wall plaza exploded in a bloody wave of violence that resulted in the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Motza, Safed, and Hebron, Albright-safely back in America and preparing for the fall semester at Johns Hopkinsstill maintained that a scholar could detach himself entirely from the Holy Land's modern realities. Asked by a Baltimore newspaper reporter soon

ment sanction, employ local workers, and most important of all present a version of the past that is susceptible to modern political interpolation, without contributing-again, knowingly or unconsciously-to the modern political debate? This paper is meant to be a historical preface to what I hope can be a continuing discussion of the modern political and ideological nature

Excavations in progress near the end of the 1932 field season. Workerstoil in the southeast quadrant near the city wall. The fluctuating costs of labor have played a crucial role in archaeological investigations. The huge work crews of native diggers that supplied the muscle for some of Palestine's largest projects during the 1920s were beyond the means of the American School over which Albright presided. Photo from the ASORIGlueck Collectionon deposit at the HarvardSemiticMuseum.

archaeologists-or Syro-Palestinian archaeologists-who likewise take pride in wearing the public badge of scholarly impartiality, don't often acknowledge that there is something more to Albright's legacy than historical ideas. Can a scholar, who is also a product of modern society, with a particular national, religious, and economic position, really enter a strife torn society (like Palestine's in the 1920s) without participatingwillingly or unknowingly-in the political struggle that is going on? Can he or she obtain rights to an archaeological site (which is also a part of the modern landscape), negotiate for goods, services, and govern-

of Albright's legacy. For even though today's scholars may speak in terms more appropriate to CurrentAnthropology than The Sunday SchoolTimes, that difference-I could argue-may be less of political or sociological substance than of literary style. We must, for a moment, look beyond the scholarly etiquette and the sometimes bitter internal polemics of our discipline over matters of methodology to consider what social function we as archaeologists play in the unfolding modern history of the Middle East. We may recognize that the mindset and social role of American archaeologists in the region in the 1990s is-for better or for worse-

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

really not too much different from that established in the 1920s by the kindly, near-sighted gentleman in the famous photograph.

Acknowledgements I would like to express my thanks to Program ChairmanBarryGittlen and Professor William G. Dever for making possible the ASOR session in which this paper was first presented. ProfessorsLeona G. Running, David Noel Freedman,Philip King, and BurkeO. Long were kind enough to discuss with me some of the biographicalissues brought up in this article and share with me insights from their own research.

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, I., editor 1987 TheTransformation of Palestine:Eassays on theOriginand Developmentof theArab-IsraeliConflict.Evanston, IL:Northwestern University Press. Albright, W.F. 1921 A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology,Journalof thePalestine OrientalSociety1:49-79. 1922 The Excavationsat Ascalon. Bulletin of theAmericanSchoolsof Oriental Research6:11-18. 1924 Excvavationsand Resultsat Tellel-Ful (Gibeahof Saul).Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research4. New Haven: ASOR. 1933 In Memoriam Melvin Grove Kyle. BASOR51:5-7. 1940 FromtheStoneAge to Christianity: Monotheismand theHistorical Process.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press. 1964 History,Archaeologyand Christian Humanism.New York:McGraw Hill. Brawer,M. 1990 Transformationof Arab RuralSettlement in Palestine. Pp. 167-180in TheLandthatBecameIsrael:Studies in HistoricalGeography, edited by R. Kark.New Haven: YaleUniversity Press. Broshi,M. 1987 Religion, Ideology, and Politics and Their Impact on Palestinian Archaeology.IsraelMuseumJournal 6: 17-32. Cohen, N.W. 1988 TheYearAftertheRiots:American Responsesto thePalestineCrisisof 1929-30.Detroit:Wayne State University Press. Fromkin,D. 1989 A PeaceToEndAll Peace:Creatingthe ModernMiddleEast,1914-1922.New York:Henry Holt.

Giladi, Dan 1973 JewishPalestineDuringtheFourth Alia Period(1924-1929):Economic and SocialAspects.TelAviv: Am Oved (Hebrew). Halevi, N. 1983 The Political Economy of Absorptive Capacity:Growth and Cycles in Jewish Palestine under the BritishMandate, MiddleEastern Studies19:456-469. Khalidi, W. 1984 BeforeTheirDiaspora.Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies. P.J. King, 1983 AmericanArchaeologyin theMideast: A Historyof theAmericanSchoolsof OrientalResearch.Philadelphia:The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Boarding a flight in New York in 1953, Albright returnsto Jerusalem after an absence of nearly two decades. He returned again a few years later to accept an honorary doctorate from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Photo courtesyof the FerdinandHamburger, Jr.Archivesof the Johns HopkinsUniversity. Kuper,A. 1988 TheInventionof PrimitiveSociety: Transformations of an Illusion.London: Routledge. Kyle, M.G. at Sodom:TheStoryof 1928 Explorations AncientSodomin theLightof Modern Research.London: The Religious TractSociety. McCown, C.C. 1943 TheLadderof Progressin Palestine. New York:Harper. McTague,J.J. 1983 BritishPolicyin Palestine,1917-1925. Lanham,MD: University Press of America.

Maslih, M.Y. 1988 TheOriginsof Palestinian Nationalism.New York:Columbia University Press. Miller,Y. 1985 Government and Societyin Rural Palestine,1920-1948.Austin: University of TexasPress. Porath, Y. 1974 TheEmergenceof thePalestinian NationalMovement,1918-1929.London: Cass. Running, L.G.,and Freedman,D.N. 1975 WilliamFoxwellAlbright,A Twentieth CenturyGenius.New York:Two Continents Publishing Group. Shavit, Y. 1987 "TruthShall Spring Out of the Earth:"The Development of Jewish Popular Interest in Archaeology in Eretz-Israel.Cathedra44:27-54 (Hebrew). Stein, K.W. 1984 TheLandQuestionin Palestine,19171939.Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress. 1986 The Political Implications of Palestine's Rural Economy (1917-1930). Cathedra41 (1986):133-154 (Hebrew). Stocking, G.W. 1989 The EthnographicSensibility of the 1920s and the Dualism of the Anthropological Tradition.Pp. 208276 in RomanticMotives:Essayson Anthropological Sensibility.History of Anthropology,6. Edited by G.W. Stocking. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Press. Susman, W.I. 1984 Cultureas History:TheTransformation of AmericanSocietyin the Twentieth Century.New York:Pantheon Books. Trigger,B.G. 1989 A Historyof Archaeological Thought. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Van Beek, G.W.,editor 1989 TheScholarshipof WilliamFoxwell Albright,An Appraisal.Harvard Semitic Studies, 33. Atlanta, GA: ScholarsPress. Wallace,M. 1986 Visiting the Past:History Museums in the United States. Pp. 137-161in PresentingthePast:Essayson history and thePublic,edited by S. P. Benson, S. Brier,and R. Rosenzweig. Philadelphia:Temple University Press Wasserstein,B. 1991 TheBritishin Palestine:TheMandatoryGovernmentand theArab-Jewish Conflict,1917-1929.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.

BiblicalArchaeologist56:1 (1993) This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Wed, 06 Jan 2016 03:01:34 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions