Toto

Religious and Political Agendas in the Funding of “Biblical” Archaeology

Rachel Hallote defends the excavators of the City of David against criticism that the work is funded by Elad, which has a religio-political agenda, by saying that all Biblical Archeology is funded by someone with an agenda.

How is this a defense?

avi

I agree with you.

Here is another quote from Rachel's article:
There is an element of candor here, that is not incorrect.

The real question then, from my perspective, is this: how reliable, how secure, how faithful are any archaeological excavations, regardless of the source of financial assistance, and irrespective of the academic stature of the investigators?

In her article, which Toto quoted above, one reads,
Well, this is surely a minor error, nothing major league. She means to write, "tenth-century BCE", a trivial mistake, but one which relates to the concern about reinterpreting evidence to fit modern day political agendae.

My concern about ALL excavations is security. Given the enormous wealth transferred as a result of "discovering" an ostensibly genuine artifact of prior civilization, there is a huge incentive on ALL digs, to produce something noteworthy. This financial incentive extends even to journalism, where reporting a major discovery can assist a budding career, better than any letter of recommendation.

In short, there is a perpetual danger of manufactured evidence being "discovered" and/or reported. In my opinion, this problem is far greater in scope than generally acknowledged, and widespread, throughout the whole of archaeology, not just limited to excavations in the "holy land". What about fossil evidence unearthed in China? Ditto for North Africa? Early man in Tanzania.... Mayan civilization in Guatemala....etc......

Doug Shaver

For me, it would depend on just what she is trying to defend. If she is claiming that bias is not a problem because all archeology is biased, then that isn't going to work.

But I'm hoping that all she is saying is something like, "Yes, our sponsors have an agenda, but so do everybody else's sponsors. If other archeologists can deal with it and still do good research, then so can we."

Toto

She never actually gets to the point of claiming that other archeologists can take their money and still do good research that follows the evidence.

semiopen

I'm not sure how archaeologists get hired, but it seems to me that if I am putting up money for a dig, I'd need an archaeologist and I'd take prudent steps to ensure that the people and institutions involved were people who I approved of.

As long as the finds are accurately reported, maybe it's not a big deal as the details get debated academically anyway.

I get a picture in my mind of some dirt with a sign in the middle saying "Unexcavated tenth century (BCE) site"

Too many Mel Brooks movies maybe.

Doug Shaver

Whether she says it or not, I think it's a defensible position to take.

A fact, once discovered, remains a fact regardless of who paid for the discovery. And the fact either will or will not support some given theory when considered in the context of all other facts relevant to that theory, again without regard to where the money came from.

To claim that "X paid for this research, and therefore the research is of no scholarly value" is a blatant commission of the genetic fallacy.

Toto

It the facts were clearly facts, it wouldn't matter who discovered them. But a lot of archeology is subjective interpretation, and we know that interpretation is subject to bias, spin, and other impediments.

The problem is similar to that of research funded by drug companies or other profit making entities. Studies have shown that the studies funded by drug companies are more favorable that studies with independent funding. That's why medical and scientific journals now requite disclosure of all financial interests, at least.

If we had enough workers in the field, and enough interpreters interacting and debating questions, the biases might have an opportunity to sort themselves out. (Or if researchers could follow Jesse Unrhuh's rules on lobbyists.) But I don't think you can claim that is the case in archeology (or modern pharmaceutical or other research.)