from such works as the four-volume Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan (1982– 1992). There is no biblical archaeology of any persuasion in Jordan.

Archaeology in Syria has scarcely been covered because Palestine has loomed relatively larger in terms of interest and fieldwork. Yet coastal, central, and southern Syria (plus modern Lebanon) constitute the major part of ancient Canaan, or the southern Levant. The relative neglect is probably because of the area’s isolation from Albright’s original concept of Syro-Palestinian archaeology because of modern Middle Eastern politics and the instability of the region. Nevertheless, large and important excavations have been carried out in the above areas of Syria and Lebanon since the 1920s. The sites include American work in the Amûq and at Sarafand (the latter in Lebanon); Italian work at Tell Mardikh/Ebla; French work at Ugarit, Byblos (now in Lebanon), Qatna, Qadesh, and many other sites; Danish work at Hama; German work at Kamid el-Lôz and the Bega Valley (in Lebanon); and more recent Syrian-sponsored excavations, especially at Islamic sites. American work has been undertaken recently only on a small scale, principally in connection with the international salvage campaign when the Al-Thawra dam was being built on the Upper Euphrates (1963–1971).

The Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums continues the traditions of the long French Mandate. There are major museums in Aleppo and Damascus, and important publications include the periodicals Syria and Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Potentially far richer in archaeological remains than Palestine, Syria may well have spectacular prospects in future. In any case, Albright’s early intuition that Syria and Palestine were part of the same cultural sphere in antiquity, and should be studied in conjunction, appears to have been well founded, despite the modern political fragmentation of the area. The same may yet be true of Lebanon (part of ancient greater Syria or Canaan), where disruption of the country since the early 1970s has hampered almost all archaeological activities.

Current Status of the Discipline

In the post-biblical archaeology era, the fact that Syro-Palestinian archaeology is no longer a province of biblical studies but a discipline in its own right poses a challenge that must be faced. The only way to relate this new/old discipline and its results to biblical studies is through an interdisciplinary dialogue among professionals. That prospect may seem threatening to some, but there is no acceptable alternative. Certainly the professionalization of Syro-Palestinian archaeology is the only way to guarantee the survival of the field in the United States (as has long since been recognized in the Middle East), and it is also the only means of ensuring healthy growth in all the interrelated disciplines.

What, then, remains of biblical archaeology? What is it, or What can it be? Biblical archaeology, or, to put it more accurately, “the archaeology of Palestine in the biblical period,” is not a surrogate for Syro-Palestinian archaeology, or even a discipline at all in the academic sense. It is only a branch of biblical studies, an interdisciplinary pursuit that seeks to utilize the pertinent results of archaeological research to elucidate the historical and cultural setting of the Bible. In short, biblical archaeology is what it always was, except for its brief bid for dominance of Syro-Palestinian archaeology during the Albright-Wright era. The crucial issue for biblical archaeology, properly conceived as a dialogue, has always been (and is even more so now) an understanding and use of archaeology on the one hand, an understanding of the issues in biblical studies that are fitting subjects for archaeological illumination on the other, and the proper relationship between the two.

What are the prospects for the discipline of Syro-Palestinian archaeology now that it has come of age? First, it is obvious that with the colonial era long since past, the various national schools in the Middle East will increasingly dominate the scene. That is already true in Israel, and with the maturation of the national schools in Jordan and Syria it will soon be true in those countries as well. European and North American archaeology will thus inevitably become somewhat peripheral, based less on fieldwork and firsthand materials and becoming more synthetic