Is Withholding Pictures of Archaeological Finds Justifiable?

030

We are delighted to report that Professor Nachman Avigad has published in a recent issue of the Israel Exploration Journal a report and picture of the “Justinian” inscription which he found in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Professor Avigad’s article in that distinguished scholarly journal is entitled “A Building Inscription of the Emperor Justinian and the Nea in Jerusalem (Preliminary Note).” In the first paragraph he states “The purpose of this paper is to report briefly on this inscription in order to communicate it to interested readers as soon as possible.” We think Professor Avigad is quite right to make this material available before all of his thoughts about the inscription and research concerning it have been completed. Any qualifications or additional ideas will be welcome at a later date. In the meantime, everyone now has access to the preliminary information.

We hope that Professor Avigad will do likewise with pictures of the Jerusalem Cardo showing its full expanse and the Babylonian arrowheads which were shot at Jerusalem’s defenders during the siege of 586 B.C. These finds were uncovered by Professor Avigad several years ago.

As for Professor Avigad’s comments published elsewhere in this issue, we confess to being upset and disturbed. In our March 1978 issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 04:01), we said of Professor Avigad:

“We yield to no one in our admiration for Professor Avigad as a scholar and as a warm, kind human being. On the matter of his refusal to release pictures of his finds, however, we must take a stand.”

This continues to be our position, despite Professor Avigad’s uncharacteristically vituperative response.

What is most significant about Professor Avigad’s response is that (1) he does not deny that he is withholding pictures, (2) he makes no defense of this practice, and (3) he gives us no idea as to when he will release these pictures.

Professor Avigad refers to our publication of a recently found Jerusalem mosaic which we could not have printed if it had been found in his dig. “The general reader,” Professor Avigad states, “would profit much more by being shown this mosaic somewhat later, accompanied with reliable and meaningful interpretation rather than being misled by information gathered in haste.”

First, as to our error in dating the mosaic: We stated (p. 21): “[Gershon] Edelstein [the excavator] thinks it probably dates from the Herodian period” (italics supplied). We have no hesitation in publishing the fact, as Archaeologist Edelstein now advises us, that Byzantine pottery was found under the mosaic so it dates from the Byzantine period. Indeed, from this our readers can learn that it is not yet possible to date a mosaic such as this on stylistic grounds alone; some of the motifs in the mosaic may have been used for hundreds of years. Moreover, Edelstein tells us that he can still not give us an exact date for the mosaic or buildings associated with it. The best he can say even now is that “the mosaic and buildings may be dated any time from the 4th to the 6th centuries C.E.” Does this mean that we should refrain from publishing the mosaic for several years until the study of all the pottery 031and other archaeological data has been completed and we will have a more exact date for the mosaic? Surely not.

We agree with Archaeologist Edelstein who wrote us “I do believe that the work of an archaeologist should not be a well-guarded secret; it is his duty to give information to the public about new discoveries.”

With respect to this mosaic, Professor Avigad writes that it is “certainly not ‘the most beautiful and best preserved (sic!) mosaic ever exposed in Jerusalem’ (p. 21). You seem not to know all the mosaics found in Jerusalem.” It is unusual for a scholar as careful as Professor Avigad surely is to misquote, but he has done so here. We never said the mosaic was “the most beautiful … ”; we said only that it was “one of the most beautiful … ” (p. 21).

But, to return to the central issue, the fact that the study of a find has not been completed and therefore much information remains in doubt, should not justify an archaeologist’s withholding whatever information he does have. He may easily give appropriate indication of the tentative nature of what he knows or a frank statement of what he does not know.

An archaeologist is not necessarily the best judge of what information “the general reader” (as Professor Avigad calls him) would “profit” by and what information should be withheld from him, presumably for his own good.

Professor Avigad’s preliminary publication of the Justinian inscription before he has completed his study of it indicates he may agree with us that, at least in some instances, publication of the find should not await the completion of its study.

But this discussion of a possible justification for withholding information from the public has no application whatever to the pictures of the Jerusalem Cardo which show its entire expanse and the pictures of the Babylonian arrowheads shot against the Israelite defenders in the siege of 586 B.C. Professor Avigad is not withholding these pictures because he is not sure of their date or their significance. He has already published or released descriptions and discussions of these finds. Frankly, we cannot understand why he refuses to release these pictures.

We are always honored to publish anything Professor Avigad writes for us. But we would have preferred to have evoked a reasoned defense of his refusal to release these pictures rather than the angry response which appears in “‘Your Journal Is Not to My Taste.’”

Professor Avigad’s letter does point to some errors which we are happy to correct. The Capernaum discussion did take place after Professor Avigad’s lecture.

Dr. Tsafrir was under the impression that Professor Avigad had expressed himself on the date of the Capernaum synagogue (in support of a late Roman date), but is willing to accept Professor Avigad’s correction.

Dr. Tsafrir continues to maintain, however, that the Capernaum problem is relevant to the Cardo problem. As Dr. Tsafrir states, “There is indeed a methodological similarity between the two cases.” Because Dr. Tsafrir believes (with many Israeli archaeologists) that the Capernaum synagogue building dates from the late Roman period despite the fact that its pavement is Byzantine, so the Jerusalem Cardo may have been constructed in the late Roman period despite the fact that its pavement is Byzantine.

Professor Avigad speaks of a Byzantine date only for the pavement of the Capernaum synagogue. He refrains from taking any position with respect to the Capernaum synagogue building.

Subsequent information which was not made available to Meir Ben-Dov or to BAR indicates that the Justinian inscription was contemporaneous with the construction of the Nea church.

Otherwise BAR sticks by its stories.

031

Still Time to Excavate in Jerusalem This Summer

You can still make arrangements to dig this summer—at what may be the most exciting archaeological site in Israel, the ancient City of David or Biblical Jerusalem.

Plans for the new excavation were reported in the last issue of BAR. Now Archaeological Director Yigal Shiloh has issued a call for volunteers.

Digging begins July 3 and ends September 15. Volunteers must stay a minimum of two weeks. Make your own arrangements for accommodations in Jerusalem. The only charge for the opportunity to dig is a $10 registration fee.

Field tours of other archaeological sites in Jerusalem, as well as lectures on the history and archaeology of Jerusalem, will be given to volunteers.

We are delighted to report that Professor Nachman Avigad has published in a recent issue of the Israel Exploration Journal a report and picture of the “Justinian” inscription which he found in the Old City of Jerusalem.