Laura Carlson Hasler's Archival Historiography in Jewish Antiquity examines how the diverse array of texts found within Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther seeks to imitate ancient Near Eastern archival spaces. The book is part of a larger constellation of research examining how biblical texts function mimetically to enshrine the vast range of imperial tools, objects, and sites—often as means of resistance, legitimation, and (in a postexilic context) restoration. Carlson Hasler's unique contribution to this conversation, which she clearly articulates in her introduction, is that the form of Ezra-Nehemiah eschews narrative continuity in favor of mirroring an archival space. She proposes the term “archival history” for this mode of composition, in which cited documents, such as lists, decrees, and letters, are inserted into an otherwise coherent narrative, as one might collect documents in a physical archive. She ultimately suggests that archival history is “a hybrid mode of history writing that blurs the line between story and space” (110), particularly within the context of imperial resistance.

Chapter 1 explores the characteristics and contents of Mesopotamian imperial archives from the first millennium BCE Mesopotamian empires. Carlson Hasler establishes a profile of common archival practices, drawing on a range of material evidence and archaeological records from across the ancient Mediterranean, including Nineveh, Sippar, and Persepolis. The second chapter narrows its focus to articulate how the qualities of Mesopotamian physical archives are reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah. The evidence she uses to support this proposal includes not only references to documents being stored in archives (Ezra 4–6), but also archives of artifacts other than documents (e.g., temple vessels) and documents without reference to their storage in facilities (e.g., genealogies).

The heart of Carlson Hasler's argument occurs in the third chapter, which examines various archival texts embedded within Ezra-Nehemiah. She contends that the decrees, letters, and lists within Ezra-Nehemiah disrupt the “narrative coherence” (52) of the text. She maintains that the inclusion of these citations is part of a concerted effort to rebuild a community with a purely textual—not architectural—archive at its center. Scholars whose critical inquiries are buttressed by the presumption or pursuit of narrative coherence elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, for example, pentateuchal criticism, will likely appreciate this argument.

Chapter 4 discusses the notion of archive in the MT and Greek versions of Esther. Here Carlson Hasler proposes that the various editions of Esther are similar to the archival historiographic efforts found in Ezra-Nehemiah, for instance, in their presentation of imperial reliance on the archive as a cognitive prosthesis for Persian kings. Still, the archival function in Esther diverges in its concern for promulgating “textual counterclaim[s]” (95) rather than accumulating archival documents as in Ezra-Nehemiah. This distinction is all the more conspicuous in the Old Greek of Esther, which appends various documents only mentioned in the MT. Carlson Hasler presents their inclusion as a survival strategy to resist “threats of erasure” (96) by ensuring documents—letters, edicts, etc.—are significant enough to maintain, but also perpetually available to the community's constituent members.

The final chapter explores the effects and function of archival historiography in Ezra-Nehemiah. Carlson Hasler argues that archival historiography “facilitates the recovery of Judean identity in the shadow of empire” (110). Of course, an argument concerning recovery necessitates a discussion of loss, which the bulk of the chapter investigates. The short epilogue expands on the suggestion that this collection of texts functions in lieu of spaces. It ends by briefly gesturing toward other biblical and Jewish texts (Exodus, Chronicles, Maccabees, and Josephus) that may perform a similar function.

Carlson Hasler's suggestion that Ezra-Nehemiah is intentionally mimicking the archival space is intriguing and provocative, leaving room for development in a number of promising ways. One might, for instance, press this point by asking how archival histories would potentially interact with archival spaces. That is to say, at some point these archival histories and/or their component parts existed as material artifacts, thus necessitating their storage—presumably in a physical archive. If so, is there a functional redundancy in this proposal of a textual archival history being stored within an established architectural archive (i.e., concentric archives)? One might also ask how we can access the individual deposits within archival history and whether or not a clear line can be drawn between archivists and their social circumstances. Putting aside the thorny question of whether we, as modern scholars, are able to detect or critique coherency in ancient texts, another formidable possibility still exists: Might the presence (or absence) of seams or coherence in an otherwise cohesive work—and thus an archival quality—have little to do with the self-conscious creation of a new genre or any sort of intentional anti-imperial effort? Perhaps these characteristics are simply the natural consequence and outgrowth of a multistage redactional process spanning decades or centuries. It might also be worth comparing how texts from Mesopotamian and other empires embed archival documents; for instance, certain royal inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III organize his campaigns geographically rather than chronologically, but also embed lists of collected tribute. Equally parallel might be the diverse pentateuchal materials (genealogies, narrative, legal materials, poetry, etc.). Either case warrants further consideration of whether archival historiography is truly rooted in anti-imperial resistance or whether it might also be mimicking and participating in imperial exercises to realize the ambitious goals of its architects.

Carlson Hasler's contribution will surely provide a strong foundation for further research in a number of adjacent fields. Many interested in the mnemonic function of archives—both physical and textual—will likely find parallels in the sociological work of Maurice Halbwachs, Pierre Nora, and Aleida Assmann, the latter of whom is periodically cited throughout. In particular, Assmann's concepts of functional and stored memory may support Carlson Hasler's claim of archives operating as a cognitive prosthesis. Numerous recent scholars have explored the role of social remembering in biblical texts. Finally, those interested in the effects of empire and trauma on the production of biblical texts will find Carlson Hasler's proposals suggestive. In particular, the recent work of Steed Davidson (Writing/Reading the Bible in Postcolonial Perspective [Leiden: Brill, 2017]) holds much promise for how these topics might be further developed.