Yigal Shiloh Objects to BAR’s Coverage of His Jerusalem Dig

056

I was sorry to find in the recent edition of BAR the four-page article ostensibly attempting to clarify our work in the City of David under the pretense of correcting the New York Times. (“New York Times Misrepresents Major Jerusalem Discovery,” BAR 07:04). Most archaeologists do not undertake the task of correcting reports published in general publications no matter how important or inexact these reports may be. Professional differences are aired either in scientific publications and/or within the framework of professional convocations. Although it is clear to me that this article was published with good intentions, our experience with BAR’s editorial practice of interfering with problems of continuing research, has achieved negative results. Besides the fact that we never sought BAR’s help in explaining this matter, we specifically asked BAR not to publish this kind of article. Were we of the same mind, we would now publish an article in another journal entitled, “BAR Misrepresents Major …” However, instead of doing this, we prefer to refer readers to extracts from our own articles reflecting our opinions on this subject. An article summarizing the results of the third season of excavation (1980) in the City of David, and dealing with this subject, is due to appear shortly in the Biblical Archeologist. In spite of the fact that BAR’s conclusions appear to come from me, readers should not rely on second-hand information. Hershel Shanks’s reactions or corrections to The New York Times, which are only partially correct, were compiled on the basis of information gleaned from my lectures, from visits to the site, and from private conversations with me. Although I appreciate the great pains which the editor took in composing this article, I do not appreciate the negative results which have derived from it.

The City of David Project does not hide information; from the first season of work we have diligently strived to publish the results of our work as soon as possible, and BAR has always been among the first to receive this new material. In 1978 BAR published the preliminary report, along with schematic plans, field photographs, and pictures of the principle finds from the first season of excavation. Therefore, BAR has had no reason whatsoever to publish, as it did, a photograph of one of our areas of excavation without our permission. In so doing BAR has anticipated other articles of our own. The minimal amount of accepted archaeological ethics dictates that publications such as BAR submit a formal request for permission to publish photographs from any area of our site, and especially from one in which we are now working on a day-to-day basis. To my sorrow, BAR has not even upheld this minimum standard of behavior. Because of my sympathy for the positive actions which BAR undertakes, I would not like to see the readers of this magazine lose important first-hand information through the refusal of field archaeologists to work with a publication which ignores this basic principle. I hope to see a positive change in BAR’s attitude which will enable us to continue working together in the future.

The Editor replies:

Yigal Shiloh invites the press on a tour of his City of David excavation in Jerusalem. He shows them an unusual monumental structure and explains its significance. The New York Times (and other papers on the tour, including The Jerusalem Post) publish articles about this monumental five-story-high structure. The New York Times, however, inaccurately reports in a front-page article that Israeli archaeologists believe the monumental structure was probably the palace-fortress of King David or King Solomon. The inaccurate New York Times story is reprinted throughout the United States. BAR readers write asking about King David’s or King Solomon’s palace-fortress. BAR writes an article for its readers explaining The New York Times story’s inaccuracy. The BAR article then attempts to explain the true significance of the monumental structure which Shiloh showed to the press, while giving readers an explanation of its 057significance.

According to Dr. Shiloh, BAR acted improperly—perhaps unethically—in publishing its story. We had no right, he says, either to publish a correction of The New York Times’s inaccurate report or to attempt to explain the correct significance of this monumental find.

We fail to follow Dr. Shiloh’s reasoning. The propriety of our publishing this article can be questioned only if Excavation Director Shiloh has the absolute right to determine who says what about his excavation, even though he has released the information to the press. We respectfully, but unequivocally, reject this premise.

Dr. Shiloh seems to assume that the sensational, although inaccurate, page-one report is simply a matter between himself and The New York Times. But this inaccurate report, once published, becomes a public matter, not a private matter. Surely after The New York Times publishes its article based on materials supplied and explained by Dr. Shiloh himself, BAR has the right to publish its own article pointing out the inaccuracy and explaining the significance of the structure. BAR has an obligation to its 65,000 subscribers and over 150,000 readers who depend on BAR to report and explain significant events in the world of Biblical archaeology.

When The New York Times reports that Israeli archaeologists believe they have found King David’s or King Solomon’s palace-fortress, this becomes an important event in the world of Biblical archaeology and our readers naturally expect a prompt report in BAR about the find.

(Incidentally, we are the only magazine in the world that undertakes to cover the entire spectrum of Biblical archaeology. Professional journals print only material that has not appeared elsewhere. BAR, on the other hand, undertakes to report whatever is significant to Biblical archaeology, regardless of whether it has appeared elsewhere. Most professional journals are expensive and have a circulation of under 2,500. The largest has fewer than 10,000 subscribers. For this reason, even professional archaeologists have come to depend on BAR’s overall coverage.)

The question should not be BAR’s right to publish this article, but Dr. Shiloh’s right to try to stop us from publishing it. Dr. Shiloh correctly states that he “specifically asked BAR not to publish this kind of article.” Why? By what right does Dr. Shiloh assert that we may not tell our readers that The New York Times was inaccurate and that we may not explain to our readers the significance of this monumental find which he described for the press?

Instead of trying to stop us from publishing the story, why didn’t Dr. Shiloh offer to go over the manuscript and make sure it was accurate—as we would have liked?

Dr. Shiloh tells us that he “appreciate[s] the great pains which the editor took in composing this article,” but nonetheless, he says, it contains mistakes which he does not identify. Instead of gloating over our errors, why not help us to be accurate? At least tell us our mistakes.

Dr. Shiloh is right that great pains were taken to write this article. The editor relied not only on Dr. Shiloh’s lectures, on site visits and on private conversations with Dr. Shiloh, but also on published scientific reports by Dr. Shiloh. Twice in his letter, Dr. Shiloh refers to the “negative results which have derived from” the BAR article. What “negative results”? How has our article harmed anyone or anything? Dr. Shiloh charges BAR with an “editorial practice of interfering with problems of continuing research.” How have we interfered?

Finally, Dr. Shiloh accuses us of being unethical for publishing a picture of the monumental structure. Here is a structure five stories high, which Dr. Shiloh himself has shown and explained to the press. Hundreds of tourists see it every day, and BAR cannot show its readers a picture of it? Moreover, Dr. Shiloh himself published a picture of the structure in a scientific journal (the Israel Exploration Journal). Why can the 2,000 scholarly subscribers to the Israel Exploration Journal see a picture of this monumental structure and not the 65,000 subscribers to BAR? Even assuming Dr. Shiloh has the right to control who publishes what about his dig—a right which we vigorously contest—why should he attempt to orchestrate in such detail what appears about his excavation? What’s wrong with our publishing this beautiful picture, especially when Dr. Shiloh himself has published a picture of it elsewhere?

BAR is the only magazine in the world which brings to a mass lay audience comprehensive coverage of recent developments in Biblical archaeology. Why doesn’t Dr. Shiloh help us, instead of trying to stop us from providing comprehensive coverage? Dr. Shiloh recognizes that fully half of his volunteers came to work at his dig through BAR. Isn’t full presentation of his work in BAR a way to repay the hundreds of volunteers who have helped him?

We greatly appreciate the contributions Yigal Shiloh has made to BAR. We are especially distressed to have this public disagreement with him when he is being unfairly and viciously attacked by ultra-orthodox elements who wish to stop his dig (see “Politics at the City of David,” BAR 07:06). We have the greatest respect for Dr. Shiloh’s views. On the matter discussed here, however, we respectfully disagree. We hope this disagreement will not prevent Dr. Shiloh and BAR from continuing to work together on future articles as we have worked together in the past.

I was sorry to find in the recent edition of BAR the four-page article ostensibly attempting to clarify our work in the City of David under the pretense of correcting the New York Times. (“New York Times Misrepresents Major Jerusalem Discovery,” BAR 07:04). Most archaeologists do not undertake the task of correcting reports published in general publications no matter how important or inexact these reports may be. Professional differences are aired either in scientific publications and/or within the framework of professional convocations. Although it is clear to me that this article was published with good intentions, our experience with […]