Historical Evidence and Argument

7. Destroying in Order to Save

7 DESTROYING IN ORDER TO SAVE What the right story is can be contested ground: contested by archaeologists with differing theoretical and methodological positions; increasingly contested by different political factions at the local and national level; and sometimes contested between archaeologists and indigenous people. Presenting the past we think we see must be done with an awareness that the ground is contested and who the combatants are. If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a foot-note. And if is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it. I In 1998 Biblical Archaeologist changed its name; it was now to be called Near Eastern Archaeology. As the editor put it, the “decision . . . emerged from a lengthy and agonizing process.” Earlier, the title change had been described as “emotionally difficult,” and it ran against the grain of subscriber sentiment.1 The purpose was to “reach a wider audience,” but the change was also emblematic of a longstanding debate having little to do with audience.2 One group of archeologists championed the change because they objected to the notion that the purpose of their work was to validate the biblical version of history in Palestine for the last two millennia BCE. Those who voted to retain the old name charged their 65 opponents with failing to give due credit to the only written historical source, at least for Palestine, for most of this period, certainly the only source that purported to deliver a continuous history. The name change was a pre-emptive strike as well. Those advocating it sought middle ground to defend against the arguments of a newly-coalesced group of scholars. Called “revisionists” and “minimalists,” or in certain contexts “nihilists,” they attribute a late date for the Hebrew Bible’s composition and question the historicity of almost everything mentioned in the Old Testament. Drawing away from the appearance of being bible-ridden offered those opposed to the new school to widen options, as was demonstrated in an article in the maiden issue of Near Eastern Archaeology.3 II Ronald Mason characterizes archeology as “a primitive science with high aspirations .”4 The lengths to which we will go to learn about the past is illustrated most unequivocally in archeology, where the cost-benefit ratio would be unacceptable to any bottom-line enterprise. As Deetz put it, “. . . historical archaeology is the most expensive way in the world to learn something we already know.”5 The benefits , on the other hand, at times seem miniscule, indeed non-existent, which goes a long way toward explaining why archeological explanation differs so much from that in history. History and archeology have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship, but on an epistemological level there are striking differences. Historians can only marvel at the enormous gap between the means with which archeologists work and what they make of their results. Historians have much more evidence, both in content and contextually, from which they tend to draw conclusions that seem modest in comparison. Conversely, even the most fortunate and most cautious archeologist must make one leap of faith after another. This is compellingly demonstrated in an article co-written by an anthropologist and two archeologists, who make the following claim about retrieving the past through archeological means: “[w]hile it is true that not all archeological sites survive in the strict sense, the truth is that usually it is only the small campsites of nomadic foragers that are likely to disappear from the archeological record.”6 A view as polyannic as this will only encourage those who rely heavily on archeological evidence. But how true is this claim? For that matter, how true can it be? It implies that eventually archeologists’ patience will be rewarded as long 66 ❖ Chapter 7 as they are not working among “nomadic foragers,” and that the heavy costs of archeological work will usually bear fruit sufficient to warrant them. Historians, and for that matter many archeologists, are likely to find this claim risible, not from inclination but from bitter experience and reasoned thinking. For instance, it is estimated that from 1000 to 2000 actual and potential archeological sites have been or will be inundated by Three Gorges dam project on the Yangtze river. This is just the latest in a series of similar planned inundations: most famously, the Aswan dam in Egypt, but also...