Archaeology’s Dirty Secret

063

What may turn out to be a historic meeting took place at Lehigh University last May. Eight senior scholars convened to face what one participant called the profession’s “dirty secret”: Archaeologists love to dig, but hate to write publication reports. As a result, final reports are lacking for a substantial number of archaeological digs, even for some major excavations. And the information is lost forever.

To the scholars at the session, it was not a dirty secret. They all knew about it, only too well.

The meeting on archaeological publication preceded a public three-day colloquium presented by the Philip and Muriel Berman Center for Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania’s Lehigh University in cooperation with the Philip and Muriel Berman Center for Biblical Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Since the scholars had gathered for the public colloquium, an unpublicized session to address the profession’s “publication problem” was easily arranged for four hours prior to the public conference.

The participants included Ephraim Stern, Amihai Mazar and Amnon Ben-Tor, all of Hebrew University; Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University; William G. Dever of the University of Arizona; Joe D. Seger of the Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University; and Gus Van Beek of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. The moderator was Philip J. King of Boston College. In addition to this distinguished group of senior archaeologist/scholars, I was invited to participate as editor of BAR.

Eight papers were read. There was universal agreement about the seriousness of the problem, which plagues archaeologists all over the world, not only those who excavate in the Near East. “We don’t want to embarrass anyone,” said Philip King in opening the session. “No one is without sin.” As recently noted by Shimon Gibson of the Palestine Exploration Fund, “We all carry around with us, like millstones around our necks, this terrible burden of unfinished or unwritten excavation reports.”¹

Ephraim Stern decried the fact that the subject had been almost “completely neglected” by the profession. He recounted his efforts over the past decade to get the subject on the profession’s agenda, all unsuccessful. He read to the group passages from an article he wrote eight years ago:

“The greatest deficiency of Israeli archaeology is in its failure to present to the scientific world the complete results of its research. This is its Achilles’ heel, and in the last few years it has reached catastrophic proportions. In this matter it is a full partner in the dilemmas facing archaeological study in general … Almost no final reports of the scores of large excavations carried out in the past few decades have appeared, and only a few will probably be published in the near future. Those which have been published can almost be counted on the fingers of one hand.

“Anyone, including the present writer, who has attempted to summarize the material culture of a particular period [Stern is the author of Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, Aris and Phillips/Israel Exploration Society, 1982] or has done research on a subject connected with a comparative study of the results of several excavations, is well aware that the major part of the material one seeks is lying concealed in the archives of the various excavators from whom one must beg the key. If this is the case with pure archaeological subjects, how much greater are the difficulties when the subject is an archaeological-biblical one or another interdisciplinary combination.”²

“Nothing has changed since these words were written,” said Stern. “The problem is a very grave one.”

Stern noted that the only exception to this dismal situation was on Cyprus during 1963–1989, when Vassos Karageorghis was director of the island’s antiquities department. Karageorghis insisted on the completion of final reports; he refused to issue excavation permits to laggards; and he set an exemplary personal standard.

To illustrate the dimensions of the problem, Stern called attention to a forthcoming article by Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze’ev Herzog,³ who surveyed the number of excavation reports that had been published on sites excavated in Israel. Over the years the proportion of excavations for which no reports have been published has steadily increased. In neighboring countries, the situation may be even worse. The failure to publish is a disease not only of local archaeologists, but also of foreigners working in those countries.

064

063

It was agreed that no names would be mentioned at the meeting, and none were (“We all know who they are” was a common refrain). But some famous archaeologists of the past may be mentioned here as examples. Kathleen Kenyon of Great Britain, Roland de Vaux of France, Ernest Wright and Nelson Glueck of the United States, and Yigael Yadin of Israel all failed to publish final reports of major excavations, in some cases at more than one site.

Amnon Ben-Tor explained why it is becoming more and more difficult to publish the results of an archaeological excavation: The material recovered from an excavation is growing by leaps and bounds, as are the various ways to process it. Ben-Tor, who is directing a major new excavation at Hazor, limits his summer seasons to six weeks, rather than eight or nine—because in six weeks the diggers uncover so much material that it requires the rest of the year to process it. For example, in one six-week session, his team excavated in 338 loci. They recovered 1,660 buckets of pottery containing over 20,000 potsherds, of which about 1,000 must be drawn and about 30 restored; 686 buckets of animal bones that need to be analyzed both osteologically and statistically; 215 buckets of other organic materials like seeds and pollen; 39 buckets of metal objects, 31 buckets of flints; and 221 buckets of other kinds of objects and artifacts. In all, there were 2,963 different groups of materials to be studied—from a single six-week session.

“We collect more and do a lot more with it than our predecessors,” Ben-Tor said. “We have an impossible task.”

Yet the task must be undertaken. Ben-Tor explained how archaeology differed from other sciences, where a short article can explain a major successful experiment. Other researchers may then replicate it—or fail to. Archaeology, however, is the only discipline in which researchers destroy their evidence. If the archaeologist does not publish all the evidence on which conclusions are based, the validity of the conclusions cannot be tested; no one can replicate the work.

To publish properly requires an enormous amount of what Ben-Tor called 064“wood-chopping.” “There are no shortcuts,” he said. And processing the material is very expensive. Fully 45 percent of his budget is devoted to processing and publication.

“I don’t think I have any solutions,” he concluded. He suggested three ways to deal with the situation: (1) pray for a technological breakthrough; (2) die and let someone else worry about it; or (3) refuse to issue a permit to excavate until the archaeologist has fully published his or her previous dig. Ben-Tor admitted he didn’t want to die or to stop excavating. This left him with prayer as the only solution.

William Dever commented that this points up the fact that we are digging too much. “We should stop digging,” he said.

Ami Mazar acknowledged that the subject is “most painful; it is a very serious problem.” He characterized the failure to publish final reports as a “professional disease.” Mazar noted that it has been impossible to excavate in Iran since the Shah was overthrown 15 years ago. So the archaeologists who had been digging there had plenty of time to work on their publications. Yet in this 15-year period, most of these terminated excavations still remain without final reports.

Mazar recommended withholding permits for field work unless the dig director can demonstrate adequate progress toward publication. This was how Karageorghis managed to accomplish so much on Cyprus. Mazar also suggested the possibility of confiscating excavated materials after a specified number of years, to allow people other than the excavator to work on and publish the results.

Finally, Mazar noted that many excavations get in trouble because they make no provision for financial support after field work ends. They are therefore left with a mammoth publication task, but without funds to support it.

Israel Finkelstein attributed most of the difficulty to two factors. First, there is the human factor—problems archaeologists face as individuals. “It’s not a matter of money,” he said, “it is rather a problem of the excavator’s being in the right state of mind.” Finkelstein described what he had done to obtain work from certain co-authors of one of his final reports—from begging to threatening a lawsuit. Second, there is leniency with regard to senior members of the profession—Israel sometimes fails to enforce the law that final reports must be published within ten years from the end of an excavation.

Publication is becoming more of a team effort, Finkelstein noted, with multiple authors. Before the Second World War, most excavation reports were by one author. In 1973 the Tel Mevorakh report had 11 authors; 1987 the Tel Qiri report had 18 authors; in 1993, the Shiloh excavation report had 21 authors.

William Dever spoke of his “despair” at finding a solution. Echoing Finkelstein, Dever said he is “almost at wit’s end” in trying to get the contributions of some co-authors of the final report for the Gezer excavation, which began 30 years ago. Now, long after the excavation has ended, there are no funds to support the write-up of the material; he must do much of it—even the smallest details—by himself and without any compensation. The only solution for American archaeologists, Dever believes, especially in light of the general lack of support for the discipline, is to “shrink archaeological fieldwork.” “We should go into the field only with a clear and limited research design,” he said. “We need smaller and tighter projects, with more specific questions to be answered.”

Dever pulled no punches when he described two kinds of archaeologists: responsible archaeologists—those who publish; and irresponsible archaeologists—those who do not.

Joe D. Seger reiterated Dever’s view that money is a problem in the United States. Processing finds and writing up the results take time and therefore money. There is virtually no support for this in the United States, except in a few well-funded excavations.

Seger demonstrated to the group new computer techniques for statistically analyzing the enormous quantities of material, especially potsherds, that modern excavators unearth. Statistical study of the material produces some extraordinary insights hitherto unavailable. We can expect much more of this in the future, he said.

Gus Van Beek also demonstrated how he was able to use a computer to draw pottery, a very time-consuming part of writing up all excavation reports.

The final speaker was the editor of BAR. For the most part, I agreed with the other speakers, especially about needing financial support for the discipline. Money won’t solve the problem by itself, but it is a sine qua non to any solution.

While previous speakers emphasized the need for sanctions against laggards, I suggested the availability of a less severe sanction: publicity. Why not publish a comprehensive list of sites with excavation dates and citations to any reports produced. This would constitute a prod in itself, but it would also provide a better idea of the dimensions of the problem and how to solve it.

I also recommended the creation of a new 079profession: archaeology editor/writer. Archaeologists who fail to publish are not intentionally evil. Most of the time they are not even lazy. They simply cannot do it, for one reason or another. They need help. The new profession—archaeology editor/writer—could provide it to them, in the form of specialists who know how to publish reports.

At present, there is nowhere a person can study to become an archaeology editor/writer. Even the teaching materials must be created. The first step should be identifying several well-qualified archaeologists who have earned respect in the field and who are able to create these materials and become the first members of the profession. They must be diplomatic as well; everyone knows that dig directors are often prima donnas, and dig directors must continue to have the last word regarding what goes into the publication. Archaeology editor/writers must also be good administrators, because they must harness the capabilities of many people and many disciplines. They must also have writing and editing skills, although they don’t require the creativity of a George Bernard Shaw.

Initially, several people should be trained (or train themselves) so that the experiment doesn’t depend on a single person. The profession should be of high status. The persons chosen should be assured of jobs and teaching positions so that once they create materials defining the profession, they can teach others and continue their profession.

There is plenty of material to work with—from the hundreds of unpublished excavations in the files of antiquities departments, to current excavations that would welcome their help.

I closed with a procedural admonition: Without follow-through, this conference would be worthless. Talk is not enough. It would be helpful if there were an international organization of Near Eastern archaeologists to represent the profession and assure that it addresses the issues facing it. In the absence of such an organization, however, it is necessary to act on an ad hoc basis.

After the session, the participants agreed that their talks should be published, and the chairman of the session, Ephraim Stern, undertook to organize this. There will also be a more extensive session on publication problems and solutions next April in Jerusalem in conjunction with another major colloquium of scholars presenting papers on Mediterranean archaeology.

What may turn out to be a historic meeting took place at Lehigh University last May. Eight senior scholars convened to face what one participant called the profession’s “dirty secret”: Archaeologists love to dig, but hate to write publication reports. As a result, final reports are lacking for a substantial number of archaeological digs, even for some major excavations. And the information is lost forever. To the scholars at the session, it was not a dirty secret. They all knew about it, only too well. The meeting on archaeological publication preceded a public three-day colloquium presented by the Philip […]