Editors’ Page: Is Silence Golden?

004

You’ve probably noticed that our sister magazine Biblical Archaeology Review has been in the news lately, having broken the story, if you’ll excuse the expression, about the bone box inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” (The box developed serious cracks in transit to the Royal Ontario Museum, in Toronto, for exhibition; these cracks, however, were quickly mended, and the exhibit went on as planned).

Numerous questions have been raised about the bone box, or ossuary, and its inscription: Does the box in fact date to the first century? Is the inscription authentic or a modern forgery? Are these three names the people mentioned in the New Testament? What are the theological implications? Who is this James, the brother of Jesus?

But the “discovery” of this ossuary has also brought to the fore issues that have been the subject of extensive concern in the pages of Archaeology Odyssey: What is the relationship between looting and the antiquities market? How can we reduce looting? How should scholars treat objects that surface on the antiquities market?

This ossuary was not professionally excavated; it came to public attention via the antiquities market. It is what scholars call “unprovenanced.” The collector says he’s owned it since the early 1970s without realizing its significance—until he showed it to the world-famous Semitic paleographer André Lemaire, who wrote the article in Biblical Archaeology Review.

To some extent, we agree with the position taken by the leaders of the Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) and the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR, the professional organization of American Near Eastern archaeologists). We too despise looting and looters. We too want to reduce, if not eliminate, looting. We agree that we would know more if we knew where an object came from and what was found with it—what professional archaeologists call the “context” of the artifact.

Where we part company with the AIA and ASOR leadership (we speak only of the leadership, not the majority of their members, who, we believe, would adopt a different policy in an open, fair vote) is what to do about looting. The policy of both societies is to pretend looted objects don’t exist: Simply avert your eyes. Articles about unprovenanced objects—even extremely significant objects—cannot be published in their professional journals. Papers about unprovenanced objects cannot be presented at their meetings.

That this position is ineffective is demonstrated by the fact, as everyone acknowledges, that looting is worse than ever. Vilifying collectors and antiquities dealers and museums that purchase unprovenanced objects only drives the market underground. We never hear about the objects. Instead of going to a collector in London who will encourage scholars to study and publish it and allow museums to share it with the public, an 060unprovenanced piece will go to Basel or Tokyo and be secreted for the pleasure of a hidden few.

The AIA and ASOR policy makes no distinction between a looted pot and the Dead Sea Scrolls. As I have often said, looted objects may be worth less because they are without context, but, contrary to the Pooh-Bahs of these professional societies, they are not worthless. There is much we can learn from such objects.

The Biblical Archaeology Society (the publisher of Archaeology Odyssey and Biblical Archaeology Review) arranged to have the James ossuary exhibited at the Royal Ontario Museum because several events were already scheduled there in November—the Fifth Annual Bible and Archaeology Fest sponsored by the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS), the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and the ASOR annual meeting. BAS scheduled a private showing at the museum for participants in its Fest. SBL also arranged a showing, at which it asked me to say a few words, and organized a special session in which a panel of scholars discussed the implications of the ossuary and its inscription.

In contrast, ASOR simply ignored the ossuary. No visit to the museum. No formal discussion of the ossuary at any of its sessions. No acknowledgment of its existence. (Yet many ASOR members decided to sneak over to the museum to take a surreptitious peek.)

If you want to know the truth, I welcome this—because it brings the problem into the open. In the past, the AIA has refused even to discuss the issues, as if there were no other side. When I asked to address the AIA committee on professional responsibilities, AIA vice president Ricardo Elia told me: “Your views on the antiquities trade are well known to most of us. I don’t think it would be productive to reiterate them before the committee.” (The distinguished British archaeologist Colin Renfrew, by contrast, is quite willing to engage in a discussion, even a heated discussion; see the ongoing conversation in the Looting Forum, sidebar to The Forum) Until now, Archaeology Odyssey and Biblical Archaeology Review have been the only major venues for a discussion of the issues. Now other media are getting into the act. For example, the National Review recently featured an article on the subject. So did the PBS television program Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, where both sides were heard.

The looting problem and the antiquities market are made up of many different problems that must be dealt with differently. We believe that a variety of market-based solutions could substantially reduce looting. But the AIA and ASOR can see only one solution: Vilify collectors, dealers and museums so that the market will dry up.

If anyone believes that this moral posturing can make even a dent in demand, I would like to speak to him—about a bridge in Brooklyn that I have for sale.

Frankly, I find it mind-boggling that these people will not even officially acknowledge the existence of the ossuary that may once have held the bones of Jesus’ brother James, the leader of the Jerusalem church. They will not discuss the scholarly implications of its inscription. Nor will they discuss the wisdom of a policy that demands silence instead of discussion. My prediction is that they will soon be forced to reconsider whether this policy should be modified.

(Incidentally, if you would like to have the issue of Biblical Archaeology Review with the articles on the ossuary—or, better yet, if you want to subscribe to the magazine and get this issue as a free gift with your paid subscription—place your order on our Web site [archaeologyodyssey.org]; write us at 4710 41st St., NW, Washington, DC 20016; or call us at 1–800-221–4644. The price of a single issue is $4.50 plus $3.00 shipping and handling, a total of $7.50. For just $14.97, order a full year’s subscription and get the ossuary issue as a free bonus.)

You’ve probably noticed that our sister magazine Biblical Archaeology Review has been in the news lately, having broken the story, if you’ll excuse the expression, about the bone box inscribed “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” (The box developed serious cracks in transit to the Royal Ontario Museum, in Toronto, for exhibition; these cracks, however, were quickly mended, and the exhibit went on as planned). Numerous questions have been raised about the bone box, or ossuary, and its inscription: Does the box in fact date to the first century? Is the inscription authentic or a modern forgery? Are […]