The Love-Hate Relationship of Archeology and Religion

This post is concerned with how archeology has made several strides towards historical validity with the help of religious groups. While this relationship exists, there are times when religion has held archeology back. Secular Jews believed that Orthodox Jews would reject archeological findings in fear that it would conflict with the Torah or their beliefs (Shavit, p. 54). Archeological findings validate bible events as historical and can provide further discussion about them (Shavit, p. 55). As the Bible becomes more historically accurate, there is a higher demand for archaeological discovery, which will lead to a more accurate Bible; a cyclical relationship (Shavit, p. 56). I think this is interesting as both fields benefit one another creating a positive relationship. What I wonder is what happens when one field changes. This may ruin the perfect cyclical relationship. Another positive is that archeology is a way of unifying the people with the landscape and its history (Shavit, p. 57). Ultra-Orthodox Jews have changed a bit in that they have protests against archeological digs. They now show a strong aversion for excavation at burial sites (Shavit, p. 59). Which is expected as a group of religious people may dominate the relationship which was mostly secular Judiasm for so long. Messianic Jews have used archeological findings to push their narrative. In response, the secular community pushed back against archaeology instead of the abuses of it. And now they even side with traditional-orthodox Jews claiming that there is no need to validate spiritual values with artifacts (Shavit, p. 59). They have lost sight of the original importance of archeology. Also interesting how religion had a way of reducing the historical importance of findings and made a religious connection to them, which in the end hurt the field of archeology. During the seventh century, the main source of competition and clash between the religions was not over practice and beliefs, but instead was over holy sites for pilgrimage (Silberman, p. 65) Archeology started after the first protestant explorers ventured to Jerusalem. This was helped started by Dr. Edward Robinson who was largely criticized for questioning the historical validity of the pilgrimage sites (Silverman, p. 65). This criticism of Robinson is particularly interesting because it seems that existing findings (i.e. Via Dolorosa sites) are largely connected current religious beliefs. For findings like these it is less about the historical validity and more about how the community views it. European archeologists would handle archeological findings with not the best care and possibly file monuments. This enraged the Jewish community (Silberman, p. 68). I find it odd that archeologists who are supposedly interested in the historical validity of these findings are at the same time treat artifacts poorly. We should try to keep monuments and artifacts in their best condition to preserve the history. All in all, archeology has had support from both religious and secular groups. Both camps are guilty of abusing archeology, but have both had moments where harmony was reached.