A Plea for Information

003

The press error reported elsewhere in this issue (“Tight-Lipped Archaeologists—How the Press Erred”) would never have occurred if Professor Avigad had been willing to speak for publication at the time the original story appeared.

Prof. Avigad is not alone in withholding certain information or pictures from the general public. Indeed, a substantial number of archaeologists have taken this stance. We do not mean to single out Prof. Avigad—a great scholar, and a wise and gentle man—except to the extent he gives us an occasion to say something which has long been on our mind.

We would simply like to plead with archaeologists to make available to the public information and pictures whenever a journalist makes an inquiry.

We believe that early, popular treatment of a discovery heightens, rather than lowers, interest in the subsequent technical report. We believe that as far as the archaeologist is concerned, he arouses interest in his work when he cooperates with the press in promptly reporting finds. He does not, as some archaeologists fear, miss a scoop.

We believe that the public has a right to know and to see promptly what the archaeologist uncovers. These finds are our heritage. They belong to us all. They are not the private treasure of the archaeologist to withhold or release according to his calculation of what the public should know or when he is able to complete his scientific publication.

We realize that a field archaeologist cannot take the press with him every day into the square. Often, the archaeologist is not sure for some time what he has or the period to which it should be attributed. Perhaps there are times when some modest delay in announcing finds is justified. But for the most part, the archaeologists’ protection, when he is not sure, is a simple statement that he does not yet know what he has or the period to which it should be dated. This same caution frequently appears even in his technical reports.

We are also sympathetic to the plea that the field archaeologist cannot spend time educating the press. But the lay public is not to be altogether spurned either. Too many scholars are concerned only with what their small coterie of fellow scholars think about their work.

We are grateful to the many leading scholars—Prof. Avigad among them; see the lead story in our December 1976 issue (“How The Wealthy Lived in Herodian Jerusalem,” BAR 02:04) authored by Prof. Avigad—who have shared their insights with our readers. We look forward to publishing other articles by Prof. Avigad. But we also wish he would give us a picture of the Babylonian arrowheads he found in 1975 which were shot at the Jerusalemites when the Babylonians besieged and then destroyed the city in 586 B.C. (See “Found in Jerusalem: Remains of the Babylonian Siege,” BAR 02:01, which contained only a drawing of these arrowheads and even this was based on a sketch by one of Prof. Avigad’s fellow archaeologists who had seen the originals. As in the case of our Cardo story, the source of the drawing must remain confidential.)

It is sometimes said that an archaeologist assures accurate press coverage by waiting until the publication of the scholarly report. The Cardo incident demolishes this argument.

In a free society, the sources of news cannot set themselves up as guardians of press accuracy. Indeed, the archaeological press tries very hard to be accurate—and does a pretty good job.

Certainly there is no excuse for withholding information or pictures when the scholarly 031publication is delayed—for whatever reason—for 10 and sometimes 20 years.

At the present time, we are trying to obtain some plans and drawings of an excavation that was done in the 1960’s in order that our readers can better understand pictures of the site. But so far the archaeologists have refused to release these drawings because their own report has not yet been published—and will not be for several years. This is only one of several examples we could cite.

It seems strange to read in an archaeological journal of stories that have been “leaked” and obtained from “unauthorized sources”, of reporters who refuse to divulge the source of their information in order to protect their source—as if an archaeological find was a state secret whose divulgence might threaten national security. It is time for professional archaeologists to end this foolishness and to share more readily the fruits of their labors with the lay public—a lay public that has an intense desire to learn and understand.

P.S. We also want to thank the many archaeologists who have been so generous in making available to us their unpublished finds.

The press error reported elsewhere in this issue (“Tight-Lipped Archaeologists—How the Press Erred”) would never have occurred if Professor Avigad had been willing to speak for publication at the time the original story appeared.