First Person: Funders, Politics and Bias

006

In a BAR column, David Ilan has recently raised the question of whether archaeologists should accept funding from institutions that have a political agenda.^a In his case, he objected to the archaeologists digging in the City of David accepting funds from Elad, whose chief goal, as Ilan puts it, is “the Judaization of East Jerusalem.”

In a subsequent issue, Rachel Hallote recounts the 200-year history of archaeology in the Near East and notes that “funders invariably come with agendas and always have.”^b

In short, all funders have agendas—even the institution where David Ilan teaches. Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem trains rabbis in the Reform Jewish tradition, which it propagates. And even funders who claim no bias, except pure archaeology, have agendas. If Ilan’s rule were to be universally applied, there would be little, if any, funding available for archaeology.

Much archaeology in Israel, for example, is funded by evangelical Christians. (And much of the archaeology is performed by Christians with this theological commitment.) But there is general agreement that the evangelical Christians who fund excavations have no say in what happens in the field.

The real question, then, is whether the funder tries to influence the archaeologist it is funding. Even Ilan does not make this suggestion regarding the distinguished archaeologists excavating in the City of David.

But the truth is that even archaeologists have biases. We all do—even you and I, dear reader. Greeks, Italians, Cypriotes and Jordanians are all digging in their own countries with a special interest: It is their country. Is this illegitimate? Isn’t this pride in country praiseworthy? Some people come to archaeology in Israel because of their interest in the Bible; to this extent they are biased in favor of the Bible. Others, especially today, are biased against the Bible. And of course most Israelis take pride in their country’s history.

Some of these biases are praiseworthy; others, not—depending on your point of view. But we all have them.

And it is true, especially in the past, that biases have affected the view of archaeologists and what they have done. Consider Leonard Woolley’s “discovery” of evidence of Noah’s flood. Or John Garstang’s excavation of the tumbled walls of Jericho that succumbed to the Israelites’ trumpets. Hopefully, we no longer come to the field with these kinds of biases.

But biases are still there. And we must conscientiously expose them and suppress them.

Indeed, David Ilan has his own bias. He is so disturbed by the thought that Palestinians may be displaced by the City of David excavations that he opposes otherwise-legitimate excavations there. He has no objection to the quality of the archaeological work being done at the site. Indeed, he could not. The archaeologists digging there are first-rate. He does not even suggest that the bias of the funder affects the archaeological work. He is clear: He objects to the excavations for openly “political” reasons. In his view, the archaeologists are participating in an act of “ethnic cleansing” of the Palestinians living in the City of David.

He is entitled to his views. And he legitimately expresses them. Where he errs is in supposing that the City of David funders are any different from other funders in having an agenda. Or in supposing that he is himself free of a bias.

The important thing is to recognize that we all have our biases and that we need consciously and constantly to examine them, to make sure, so far as is humanly possible, that they do not affect our work. This is tough to do. We sometimes do not do it adequately. That is why we have people like David Ilan (and BAR) to be on the lookout for biases that have 082an illegitimate effect, where archaeologists cross the line.

It is not easy to be continually watching for our own biases. It is much easier to look for biases in others. Biases are of many different kinds—and not only doctrinal. How often does an archaeologist overinterpret his evidence in order to get media attention? When is speculation about a Biblical connection justified? On the other hand, isn’t it biased (in the other direction) not to speculate when a Biblical connection is plausible?

We must be constantly vigilant. It’s not easy. But that’s the best we can do. Blame it on the human condition.

In a BAR column, David Ilan has recently raised the question of whether archaeologists should accept funding from institutions that have a political agenda.a In his case, he objected to the archaeologists digging in the City of David accepting funds from Elad, whose chief goal, as Ilan puts it, is “the Judaization of East Jerusalem.” In a subsequent issue, Rachel Hallote recounts the 200-year history of archaeology in the Near East and notes that “funders invariably come with agendas and always have.”b In short, all funders have agendas—even the institution where David Ilan teaches. Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem […]