Editors’ Page: AIA Does Dallas

004

For years, as editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, I have attended the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and written about my impressions of these meetings. Since we launched Archaeology Odyssey, I have also been attending meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), and several people have asked me to review these meetings in the magazine. I’m not sure I want to do that, but I thought I would share some of my reactions to the AIA meeting in Dallas that took place in late December 1999.

Actually, it’s a joint meeting of the AIA and the American Philological Association (APA), which concentrates on classical (Greek and Latin) texts, leaving archaeology largely to colleagues in the AIA. I enjoyed sessions of both learned societies.

Comparison with the biblical meetings is inevitable. The people at the AIA meeting are better dressed. Most of the men wore ties and jackets. And they are a younger crowd.

The opening reception, at the Dallas Art Museum, was a rip-off. For $25, I thought there surely would be enough finger food to constitute a modest supper. The tiny hors d’oeuvres were tasty but quickly ran out, leaving only a hot mush and flatbread, of which there was plenty. After the first free drink, it was four dollars for a soft drink. Beside that, nothing. No dessert, not even coffee. Many of the younger academics stayed away; they had learned from previous receptions what to expect. But I had a good time despite the fact that the occasion was culinarily challenged. I chatted with old friends and met some new ones.

What about the scholarly papers delivered over the three-day period? Unlike many of the papers at SBL meetings, the presenters all kept to the time scheduled. Not on a single occasion did the presider have to call time. And the AIA papers were shorter than at the biblical meetings—15 and 20 minutes as opposed to the half-hour presentations at SBL meetings.

The AIA papers, however, were exceedingly narrow. There were almost no papers by senior scholars addressing larger questions. And there were too many papers of questionable quality by graduate students. I wonder if these are the reasons attendance was down to about half of what it had been the year before. Some people told me that the meeting was so poorly attended because it occurred (December 27–30) too close to the turn of the millennium. Still others said people don’t like to come to Dallas—why, I’m not sure. At any rate, a preponderance of papers with titles like “The Artificial Construct of Roman Female Hair” (I don’t mean to criticize this paper, for I didn’t hear it) will not bring in the crowds.

Another impression: An awful lot of attention was given to sex—or gender, as it was sometimes called. I mentioned this to someone who told me that it was me, not the sessions, who was thus preoccupied. An entire session (six papers) was devoted to “Representation of 060Gender in the Greek and Roman World,” another to “Homosexuality and Education in the World of Classics.” One APA session was entitled “Bodies and Sexuality.” Some of the papers—and the presentations—were so explicit that I refrain from mentioning them. But there I was in the audience! And some were indeed enlightening and worthy. But even the books in the exhibits seemed to emphasize sex: At one booth (Princeton University Press), I browsed through titles like Before Sexuality, Sexual Symmetry and The Poetics of Eros.

By contrast, not a single paper dealt with the problems of looting or the antiquities market. There was no discussion of the issues that divide museums, on the one hand, from archaeologists who subscribe to the official position of the AIA, on the other.

A year ago, when the meeting was held in Washington, Peter Young, the editor of the AIA’s popular magazine Archaeology, and Phyllis Katz, the magazine’s long-time publisher, came to see me in my office. I was honored and delighted to see them. They are charming and highly competent. We had a warm, wonderful hour-and-a-half together. One of the subjects we discussed was the problem of looting and how to stop it. The official AIA position is that we can only stop archaeological looting by eliminating trade in antiquities: No antiquities market, no incentive to loot. The AIA, therefore, wants to put all antiquities dealers out of business and to stigmatize collectors.

We believe that this policy has failed, miserably. Looting is worse than ever. Our ideas are different: Use the market to reduce, if not eliminate, looting; sell low-end duplicates we have by the thousands; excavate scientifically sites that are being plundered; and fund these excavations by enlisting the help of museums and collectors.

Peter, Phyllis and I agreed on one thing (actually many): Let’s have a conference, jointly sponsored by AIA and the publisher of Archaeology Odyssey, the Biblical Archaeology Society. I saw Peter in Dallas and asked him what had happened to the idea. “It wasn’t pushed by the right people,” he said. “Is it dead?” I asked. “Yes,” he replied.

Yet when I talked to several prominent figures in the AIA, they expressed support for the idea. A member of the AIA’s Governing Board told me that the idea of a joint conference had never been brought before the board. A member of the Professional Responsibilities Committee, which deals with the problem, chimed in that the suggestion had never been brought before that committee either. Someone else noted that a recent past president of AIA was a serious collector, whose home, I was told, resembled a museum. The director of a foreign archaeological institute expressed his support for the conference. So did the head of a well-known American archaeological institute that works in the Mediterranean region. Truth to tell, I met no resistance to the idea, only support. Perhaps I was talking to the wrong people. I know that some AIA leaders would avidly oppose the idea of opening up the discussion. But my sense is that the vast majority of AIA members—being scholars who thrive on the free market of ideas—would welcome such a discussion. Let’s hope that the idea at least makes it to the appropriate committee.

Regardless of these criticisms, an academic meeting like the Dallas gathering, where people of good will talk about scholarship, is almost always exciting. The Dallas meeting certainly was. And Archaeology Odyssey readers will see some of the results in future issues.

For years, as editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, I have attended the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and written about my impressions of these meetings. Since we launched Archaeology Odyssey, I have also been attending meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA), and several people have asked me to review these meetings in the magazine. I’m not sure I want to do that, but I thought I would share some of my reactions to the AIA meeting in Dallas that took place in late December 1999. Actually, it’s a joint meeting of the AIA […]