Syrian Ambassador to U.S. Asks BAR to Print Ebla Letter Rejected by New York Times

015

BAR’s article, “Syria Tries to Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02, reported on Syrian government efforts to pressure Ebla scholars into emphasizing the Ebla tablets’ importance for “proto-Syrian” history and to play down the tablets’ Biblical connections.

BAR’s article received world-wide publicity. Stories based on it appeared in scores of American and foreign newspapers and magazines. Interviews on the BAR article were aired throughout Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and in Britain by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Interested organizations reprinted the article and sent it to their members. Editorials agreeing with BAR appeared in papers like the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Star.

The New York Times printed a lengthy six-column story written by its highly respected science writer Boyce Rensberger.

Harvey Weiss of Yale University, who excavates at Tell Leilan in Syria, wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times objecting to the coverage given the BAR article, and sent a copy of his letter to the Syrian ambassador to Washington, Dr. Sabah Kabbani.

Professor Weiss’ letter was not printed by the Times—some may say because the Times did not want to give a hearing to both sides of the story; others, because the letter did not add anything new to the debate.

In any event, Ambassador Kabbani sent a copy to BAR with a request that BAR reprint it “in the interest of presenting a balanced view.” “BAR’s charges,” the ambassador wrote, “are utterly unfounded, and serve political ends rather than scientific ones.”

Professor Weiss’s letter is reprinted below:

To the Editor of the New York Times:

I was disturbed to find that Boyce Rensberger, on April 17th, had once again been allowed to publish misinformed and misconceived opinions as if they were the views of Near Eastern archaeologists and cuneiformists. A few years ago Mr. Rensberger published a major, front page second section article publicizing the views of a quack star gazer who believed that a prehistoric celestial event had been recorded, thousands of years later, by a Mesopotamian scribe. Now Mr. Rensberger reports, on the front page of the “Science” section, “Syria Accused of Sealing Archaeology Data,” and begins his story with “A leading archaeology journal has charged … ”

The “journal” in question, The Biblical Archaeology Review, is a slick new magazine featuring popular, non-scholarly articles mostly written by the magazine’s editor. In the world of scholarship concerned with the ancient Near East, The Biblical Archaeology Review occupies a position comparable to that occupied by the National Enquirer in the world of journalism. The editor of this magazine has no known academic credentials as an archaeologist, yet the story which he has written and published in his magazine is cited authoritatively to cast aspersions on the integrity of archaeologists and philologists working at the site of ancient Ebla and the Directorate General of Antiquities in Damascus which is ultimately responsible for the discoveries there.

As the director of the Yale University archaeological project in Syria, I have spent several months conducting archaeological research in that country and am quite familiar with the scholarly issues and the personalities involved in the accusations which Mr. Rensberger has publicized. His article provides the much sought after publicity for the views of a small group of well endowed “Biblical archaeologists” in the United States, but in no way reflects the integrity of scholarly research in Syria as conducted by archaeologists from around the world.

The significance of Ebla, for both scholars and the world at large, resides in the revolutionary discovery that this 016ancient city and its hinterland were a powerful political and cultural center in the third millennium B.C. Prior to the discoveries at Ebla such early centers were only known from Sumer and Akkad in southern Iraq. Avowedly publicity seeking statements by “Biblical archaeologists” in this country, however, have obscured the nature of this discovery and have focused public interest on the belief of “Biblical archaeologists” that the cuneiform texts from Ebla verify the historicity of the Biblical patriarchs and point to Ebla as the “home” of the Hebrews. Given the abuse of other ancient texts by Israeli politicians to justify their retention of Syrian and Palestinian territory, it should come as no surprise that Syrian officials wish to protect the Ebla texts from a similar fate.

Through the cooperation of the Directorate General of Antiquities in Damascus, therefore, all of the Ebla texts are now being prepared for publication by an international team of highly respected philologists convened by Professor Matthiae, the director of the excavations at Ebla. It is only through such an effort that the tens of thousands of cuneiform documents retrieved from Ebla will see publication in our lifetimes in scientific editions available to all. Notice of the composition of this international team of scholars has been published in all the scholarly journals concerned with cuneiform documents.

The “Biblical archaeologists” are not very happy about this. They would prefer that organized, systematic, scientific research on the archives at Ebla stop while such individual texts as they have heard might mention personal names or place names of concern to them be published immediately. In an attempt to blackmail the Syrian government from the pursuit of internationally accepted scholarly practice, they are now accusing the Syrians of political interference. Mr. Rensberger, taken in by The Biblical Archaeology Review, furthers this cause through publication of such accusations. We can only hope that serious scholarship, which ultimately enlightens all, will prevail through the dedication of the Syrian government.

Although the New York Times did not publish this letter, Rensberger himself responded to Professor Weiss as follows:

017

Dear Professor Weiss:

Your recent letter complaining about my report in the New York Times on the controversy about the Ebla tablets was sent to me.

I am sorry that my report upset you but I am comforted by the fact that you do not cite a single factual error in my writing. Indeed, as I interpret your letter, you confirm that Syrian political forces have at least attempted to intervene in what you, rightly, say should be a strictly systematic, scholarly project.

However, you also assert that everything the Syrians have done is “internationally accepted scholarly practice.” There may be other instances of similar political meddling and scholars may have resigned themselves to it as one of the costs of doing business, but I really doubt that the practice is either welcome or proper, at least in a world where academic freedom is valued.

As for the suggestions of Biblical links with Ebla, these, as you surely know, came first from Matthiae [chief archaeologist at Ebla] and Pettinato [chief epigrapher at Ebla before his resignation] and were widely quoted in the general press. I cited them in an article I wrote in 1976 after interviewing Matthiae, but played them down because, frankly, I couldn’t care less about it. Such matters clearly take a back seat to the archaeosociological issues. I used much the same emphasis in another Ebla article I did in The Times a few months ago. What made Shanks’ allegations newsworthy was the matter of political interference in scholarship and science. I find it quite curious, at the least, that Matthiae and, to a greater extent, Pettinato have changed their public pronouncements on the significance or likelihood of Biblical connections.

That Shanks lacks credentials or that Biblical Archaeology Review is not a journal of original articles, matters not. The magazine reports news of interest to the field and has a wide circulation.

I would like to deny your allegation that I have erroneously reported opinions as if they were those of Near Eastern archaeologists and cuneiformists. I clearly presented the opinions as those of Hershel Shanks who, incidentally, does not write most of the articles in his magazine. Shanks’ article is well documented and I think there can be do doubt that Syrian politics has been allowed to interfere with scholarly research.

In a response to Rensberger (May 17, 1979), Weiss invited Rensberger to come to Syria. “I am sure you will find the Syrians, including the Director General of Antiquities, worth your while,” Weiss wrote. At the same time, Weiss advised the Syrian ambassador of the invitation extended to Rensberger and asked the Syrian Ambassador to let him (Weiss) know if a trip by Rensberger to Syria “would not be useful.”

In this same letter to Rensberger, Weiss also stated that “certain Biblical archaeologists” have “distorted” the Ebla tablets “for political purposes.”

Weiss does not identify these “Biblical archaeologists,” but it is clear that he includes Professor David Noel Freedman, Vice President of the American Schools of Oriental Research, who has written and spoken widely on the Ebla tablets and their Biblical implications.

Weiss is privy to efforts to reduce the influence of these “irresponsible” Biblical archaeologists.

“Some attempts are being made,” Weiss wrote to Rensberger, “to remove the irresponsible and self-serving persons involved in this from the positions of ‘power’ which they now hold, but the money behind these persons has considerable clout.”

Because Weiss is now excavating in Syria, we will have to wait for his return to learn more about the attempts to remove these irresponsible Biblical archaeologists from power.

BAR’s article, “Syria Tries to Influence Ebla Scholarship,” BAR 05:02, reported on Syrian government efforts to pressure Ebla scholars into emphasizing the Ebla tablets’ importance for “proto-Syrian” history and to play down the tablets’ Biblical connections. BAR’s article received world-wide publicity. Stories based on it appeared in scores of American and foreign newspapers and magazines. Interviews on the BAR article were aired throughout Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and in Britain by the British Broadcasting Corporation. Interested organizations reprinted the article and sent it to their members. Editorials agreeing with BAR appeared in papers like the Los Angeles […]