Old historian Jona Lendering recently wrote the book 'De klad in de classicen', in which he denounces the sad state of archaeology at Dutch universities. conflict with the laws of nature, so that shouldn't be in a book. Period."
In your recent book, The Draft in the Classics, you write that academic archeology is a dead end, a sinking ship. Why are you so gloomy about your own field?
“There are two problems. The first is a fundamentals crisis. Archaeology (ie archaeology, ancient history and ancient languages) has claimed since the early nineteenth century that the Greeks, Jews and Romans laid the foundation for Western culture. Then you assume continuities of twenty centuries. The social sciences have highly problematized this. You have to prove that a phenomenon, which has manifested itself in many different forms over the centuries, has a core that has always remained the same. That is not so easy, but there are still countless people who without thinking claim Greece as our cradle.”
“Comparisons between then and now are also more problematic than is believed. You cannot simply compare the warfare of the Homeric warriors of the Iliad, living in a pastoral culture, with warfare in post-industrial society. However, these kinds of comparisons are made all the time.”
“This problem is ignored by archaeologists. Logical too, because in order to continue to be eligible for subsidy, you have to claim some kind of relevance, so you don't start doubting yourself out loud. The structure of the scientific company thus influences the research choices. But in fact you are doing violence to the past if you study it with something in the back of your mind that subsidies should not be jeopardized.”
“This contributes to the second problem. Too much falsehood is told about the old world. Now I know that "the" truth has been problematized, but that's no excuse not to strive for it. And apart from that, some things, by any practical definition of truth, are simply not true. The fact that the Greek engineer Archimedes set fire to Roman warships with mirrors is not mentioned in the sources and is contrary to the laws of nature. That shouldn't be in a book, period."
Why is it that stories made up in the Middle Ages and Renaissance – such as Archimedes' burning mirrors – about Antiquity are still considered true by many people?
“I don't understand those mirrors either. In any case, it's not because it would be an innocent mistake. Whoever ignores the laws of nature is a pseudoscientist. When recently in Delft an information officer in his spare time told them to believe in UFOs, they set up an advisory committee there. The Dutch ancient historians are intelligent people who know very well that it is bad for the reputation of the profession if a colleague publishes pseudoscience. But unlike those Delft residents, they do nothing."
“They don't seem to be interested in how the field is presented. If they explain anything at all, it's along the lines of "these are the facts, and that's what you should do." The method is never explained, so many people think that anyone can write a history book. Explain the method, I would say, and you will take the wind out of the sails of quack historians like Tom Holland.”
“And above all, explain how the methods have contributed to European culture. The Reformation is a result of the emergence of textual criticism; the secularization of the worldview follows Scaliger's study of ancient chronology; we define the kinship between peoples by the similarities between their languages; Darwin's theory of evolution is inconceivable without the Lachmann method of textual criticism; the Aryan myth arose from the careless reading of Tacitus; the liberal belief in progress had no basis until the archaeologists laid it. All inconceivable without breakthroughs in archaeology. So it is clearly a relevant field.”
“But the antiquarians, alas, are silent. Part of the explanation is that although universities have three legal obligations – research, teaching, transfer – funding and supervision are limited to the first two. You don't get any money for public information and it isn't monitored. And so the citizen becomes the final item in the budget.”
Who exactly should do what to improve the public's correct knowledge of archaeology?
“Ultimately, everything revolves around the willingness of the universities to pass on information. That is not the case now. Academic archaeology, for example, shines on the Internet in its absence, while everyone can tell you that most historical knowledge is transferred there. The Flemish do it better, just take a look at the website of the University of Leuven about the Olympic Games. To ignore the internet is like working with quill pen and parchment when the printing press has already been invented.”
What would you like to tell (prospective) students of classical languages or ancient history?
“Ah, a question of conscience! Archeology is a mighty beautiful subject. Every student will have a good time, and then after four years find that the teachers have not got around to the way in which the antiquity method helped shape Europe. That is unsatisfactory, but looking for the core of the matter yourself means that you run into the slow study fine. This also applies to other subjects. Anyone who used to obtain an MO certificate (teacher training for secondary education, ed.) Dutch could and knew more than a master's degree now."
“It would be unjust if I kept silent about the fact that literature education does not go far enough at the moment and that students who do want to deepen their knowledge will go bankrupt. Literature education may still be reforming, but at the moment I would advise against studying for everyone. I'm not happy to say that, but the most honest advice for a student is to stay away."
But despite all that, isn't it just a very nice field?
"Yes, of course. We just need to think very carefully about whether the university is still the best institutional embedding for the humanities. Hence my book."
“The reviews mostly focused on side issues. That the social sciences have come to conclusions that are at odds with the axioms of archaeology, that there is a cloud of misleading nonsense surrounding archaeology, and that the transfer of information is not controlled, nobody seems to want to refute. That surprised me.”
If universities are no longer the right place to practice archaeology and the humanities in general, how would you prefer to see the future of your field?
“First of all, archaeology must once again present itself as a science. Antiquarians should no longer be in the press with trivialities such as 'mother-in-law jokes they already had in Athens'. It should revolve around the theoretical contributions. Then people will understand that archaeology is a real science, that subject theory is important, that you cannot be a good historian without that professional knowledge, that not everyone can write a history book and that the professional courses serve something. Rens Bod has done the work with his book The Forgotten Sciences that should have been done thirty years ago."
“I also think that there should be a financing model in which the transfer of information to society – again:a legal obligation – is given a more important place. As long as there are books in the public library stating that the course of the Persian Wars was of decisive importance for European culture, citizens will not receive adequate information in return for their tax payments and archaeology subsidies will be ineffective.”
“And that is not necessary, because there is money to be made with adequate transfer. A lot of money, because a lot of people are interested in antiquity. I can make a living from my work as a popularizer. The money they now spend on the books of quack historians can also go to our universities. The investment in books and websites that are good simply pays for itself.”