Student Blog: Dori Tennenbaum - Report from ASOR 2009
24/Nov/2009 09:22 Filed in: Education, Archaeology, Qeiyafa
Hey y’all,
I have just come back from the 2009 ASOR conference in New Orleans and have just had a chance to put pen to paper so to speak. In general, the ASOR conference is amazing. There are always interesting new topics being discussed with top scholars in the field. It is an amazing experience for students to have the opportunity to be in a room with these scholars and interact with them and hear what they have to say.
This year, Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Fortress excavation) was given two (two hour) time slots with nine speakers. The first session had Prof. Yossi Garfinkel presiding and giving the first talk. He spoke about the findings of the 2009 season and passed around a rough draft of the first khirbet Qeiyafa publication on the 2007-2009 seasons of the dig which will be published in about two weeks. Next was Paul Bauman who spoke about the different aerial photographic and geophysical investigations that have been used at Khirbet Qeiyafa. It was interesting to hear some of the processes and which ones had good results and which ones did not. After that Michael Hasel spoke about area D of the site which he was in charge of during the 2009 excavation season. They excavated four rooms in the three weeks they were there with interesting results. The final speaker for the first session was Saar Ganor who gave his presentation on the two gates at Khirbet Qeiyafa and their findings with the subsequent identification of the site with the biblical city of Shearayim- which a literal translation means two gates.
The second session was presided over by Michael Hasel. The first speaker was David Adams who went into depth on the identification of the site. He started off with a list of possible cities it could be, and went on to say that the city that seems to fit the best is Shearayim. It was really interesting to hear why certain possibilities were discounted and gave the audience the understanding of the process of site identification. Next up was Hoo Goo Kang who gave his presentation on the early Iron IIA pottery found at the site. Hoo Goo managed to keep the audience’s attention on a topic that could have been very dull. There was much praise by other scholars in the room for his well done presentation. After Hoo Goo, came David Ben Shlomo who spoke about the petrographic analysis at the site. The next speaker was supposed to be Haggai Misgav, the epigrapher, speaking about the ostracon found in the 2008 season. Due to some unfortunate events he was unable to attend but his paper was still read. I believe this was one of the more anticipated papers of the conference. Everyone wants to know what the inscription says. Unfortunately, the inscription is very difficult to translate, but some of it has been released as an early draft. There is an article in the Khirbet Qeiyafa publication from Haggai and others on the translation of the inscription. The last speaker was William Dever who was the respondent. Both question and answer periods raised many good questions which tested the scholarship of the speakers and they all answered very well. They knew what they were talking about and it was truly an amazing experience to be there.
I have just come back from the 2009 ASOR conference in New Orleans and have just had a chance to put pen to paper so to speak. In general, the ASOR conference is amazing. There are always interesting new topics being discussed with top scholars in the field. It is an amazing experience for students to have the opportunity to be in a room with these scholars and interact with them and hear what they have to say.
This year, Khirbet Qeiyafa (Elah Fortress excavation) was given two (two hour) time slots with nine speakers. The first session had Prof. Yossi Garfinkel presiding and giving the first talk. He spoke about the findings of the 2009 season and passed around a rough draft of the first khirbet Qeiyafa publication on the 2007-2009 seasons of the dig which will be published in about two weeks. Next was Paul Bauman who spoke about the different aerial photographic and geophysical investigations that have been used at Khirbet Qeiyafa. It was interesting to hear some of the processes and which ones had good results and which ones did not. After that Michael Hasel spoke about area D of the site which he was in charge of during the 2009 excavation season. They excavated four rooms in the three weeks they were there with interesting results. The final speaker for the first session was Saar Ganor who gave his presentation on the two gates at Khirbet Qeiyafa and their findings with the subsequent identification of the site with the biblical city of Shearayim- which a literal translation means two gates.
The second session was presided over by Michael Hasel. The first speaker was David Adams who went into depth on the identification of the site. He started off with a list of possible cities it could be, and went on to say that the city that seems to fit the best is Shearayim. It was really interesting to hear why certain possibilities were discounted and gave the audience the understanding of the process of site identification. Next up was Hoo Goo Kang who gave his presentation on the early Iron IIA pottery found at the site. Hoo Goo managed to keep the audience’s attention on a topic that could have been very dull. There was much praise by other scholars in the room for his well done presentation. After Hoo Goo, came David Ben Shlomo who spoke about the petrographic analysis at the site. The next speaker was supposed to be Haggai Misgav, the epigrapher, speaking about the ostracon found in the 2008 season. Due to some unfortunate events he was unable to attend but his paper was still read. I believe this was one of the more anticipated papers of the conference. Everyone wants to know what the inscription says. Unfortunately, the inscription is very difficult to translate, but some of it has been released as an early draft. There is an article in the Khirbet Qeiyafa publication from Haggai and others on the translation of the inscription. The last speaker was William Dever who was the respondent. Both question and answer periods raised many good questions which tested the scholarship of the speakers and they all answered very well. They knew what they were talking about and it was truly an amazing experience to be there.