Is Politics Clashing with Archaeology in the Holy Land?
Terrasanta.net | July 19, 2010
East Jerusalem. Palestinian village of Silwan, outside the Old City's walls.
(Milan/e.p.) - Often in recent years the media has run headline-grabbing stories of archaeological discoveries in the Holy Land. But are these findings more influenced by modern political agendas and showmanship rather than by scholarship?
Matthew Kalman, writing this week in AOL News, suspects political motivations are behind them and to give an example, he refers to the latest discovery: what archaeologist Eilat Mazar of the Hebrew University announced as "the oldest written document ever found in Jerusalem", discovered between the Temple Mount and the City of David, in Jerusalem.
Others, he continues, also hyped Mazar’s finding, which is only a very small piece from a clay tablet. “Within hours,” Kalman writes, “experts on ancient Jerusalem were wondering how such a tiny fragment could produce such a wealth of history.”
He claims this is not the first time Dr. Mazar has exaggerated her archaeological discoveries, and adds that “many scholars are concerned that archaeology is being used to score political points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Quoting Jim West, adjunct professor of biblical studies at the Quartz Hill School of Theology, he writes that some recent announcements have been tainted with "exaggeration and speculation the likes of which haven't been seen since pieces of the 'true cross' were found all across Europe in the Middle Ages.”
This is particularly common, Kalman says, “around the City of David, a rich archaeological mound just south of the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque identified in the 19th century as the possible site of King David's ancient city, now covered with crowded Palestinian housing.”
He points out that the City of David is in the village of Silwan in east Jerusalem, which has been occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War but which Palestinians considered the only acceptable capital of an independent Palestinian state. “Because of its historical significance, the site has been declared an Israeli national park, but it is managed by El-ad, a right-wing Israeli group that also seeks to move Israeli residents into the contentious neighbourhood,” he writes. “Some find the mix of politics and archaeology combustible.”
But not everyone sees the political motivations so clearly. Professor Todd Bolen of Plano, Texas, who has spent many years living in Israel, writes on his blog BiblePlaces.com: “Everybody wants a sensational story. The public doesn’t want to read about a clay tablet, they want to hear about the oldest inscription ever found in Jerusalem. Journalists and their publishers want stories that sell.”
He adds some claims have concerned him in the past but that in his experience, archaeologists in Israel generally present their work in an appropriate way that doesn’t overstate the evidence. Rather, he says, it is the media and misleading headlines that cause the hype although occasionally other motives can be involved. “Shimon Gibson announced his discovery of the “Cave of John the Baptist” at the same time that his book was released,” he writes, “but I don’t know of any archaeologists who find his evidence compelling.”
He concludes: “Are there problems with archaeologists hyping archaeological discoveries? Yes. Are they systemic and primarily motivated by politics? I hardly think so.”
Father Eugenio Alliata Ofm, professor of archaeology at the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, also doubts overriding political motivations in these discoveries, although he concedes that they – and other factors – can sometimes play a role. “Professors and technicians do not necessarily identify with the ideas of political associations,” he wrote on Terrasanta magazine, “even if they share ethnicity.”
But he added it is clear that “archaeology, politics and the Bible, publicity and financing, meet or collide in Jerusalem against the backdrop of a situation already filled enough with tension.” He said that “a form of collusion between the scientific and the political seems to occur which is certainly undesirable and not inevitable, as shown by the frequent accusation of favoring "certain" findings and neglecting "others".”
But he said every university ensures – though cannot assure – that an archaeologist is “free from prejudices and preconceptions and assesses all findings in the same way and gives them equal importance.”
As an example of what should preoccupy a good archaeologist, he quoted Father Sylvester Saller (1895-1976), who was one of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum’s leaders in the field. “To those who asked him what he was digging, he used to reply, in his usual gruff voice: "Whatever is there!"”, Fr. Alliata said. “What he meant was that he was seeking none other than the truth. An objective lesson in impartial humanism.”