Kathleen Kenyon Replies to the “BAR”
As reported in the December issue of the BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 01:04), at the time we went to press with that issue, we had received no reply from Kathleen Kenyon to the articles in our September issue (“Kathleen Kenyon’s Anti-Zionist Politics—Does It Affect Her Work?” BAR 01:03), although we had written Dr. Kenyon offering “to publish any response you, or someone else on your behalf, may wish to make.”
Shortly after we went to press with the December issue, we did receive a reply from Dr. Kenyon. However, it was specifically stated to be “not for publication”.
We promptly replied that we would “of course, respect your wishes”. We also suggested a number of matters to which Dr. Kenyon might reply for publication:
“For example, your use of Magen Broshi’s excavation evidence; how all of Weill’s tombs can be cisterns. It would also be helpful to discuss your use of ‘civilization’ in regard to 10th century Israel. You might explain why you regard E, DI, DII, and B [Kenyon’s soundings on the eastern slope of Mount Zion] as representative of all of the southern part of Mount Zion in light of the fact that these soundings missed Broshi’s 7th century buildings.”
Dr. Kenyon then replied with the following letter:
To the Editor:
You ask for a reply to your so-called reportage that you can print. You may print this letter. I am afraid that I think that it is such an insult to my professional integrity to suggest that I twist archaeological evidence to support the political views you ascribe to me that I completely refuse to discuss your observations. In Digging Up Jerusalem I have tried very carefully to give the evidence for my conclusions, and this I should have thought would have been clear to any competent archaeologist. In any case, I told you in my last letter that all real archaeologists would consider it quite unprofessional to enter into an argument with a critic, except on details of fact. You ask some specific questions.
1. Why did I not use Dr. Broshi’s excavation evidence on the western ridge? You continually forget that Digging Up Jerusalem, published in 1974, had the preface written (the last stage) in March 1973, and the body of the text went to the publishers in August 1972. Dr. Broshi’s excavations, concluded between July 1971 and December 1972, had not yet been fully published, though referred to in Jerusalem Revealed and I.E.J. 24.1. The only evidence I had available was from a visit to the site in 1971, when I understood from Dr. Broshi that no actual building had been found. Only one building has in fact been found (Jerusalem Revealed), and Dr. Broshi does not himself believe that this area was within the city.
2. I have never said that I regarded my sites “E, DI, DII and B as representative of all the southern part of Mount Zion”, only of the eastern slope of the western ridge. A more careful reading of Digging Up Jerusalem would clear your mind on the subject. Your query why the soundings missed Broshi’s buildings is idiotic. The area was in no-man’s land. Again, read Digging Up Jerusalem.
3. I am sorry my use of civilization in connection with 10th century Israel offends you. I certainly was referring only to material civilization, with which alone can archaeology be concerned.
4. My suggestion that Weill’s Royal Tombs were cisterns. See Digging Up Jerusalem pp. 31–2. The tunnel-like structures were certainly used as cisterns at some stage, for they have traces of the typical cistern mortar lining.
I do not know whether you claim to be a professional archaeologist. If you do, perhaps you might wonder whether your Pro-Zionist Politics affect your work.
Wrexham, England
Hershel Shanks replies:
Dr. Kenyon’s suggestion that I consider whether my pro-Zionist views affect my work is a legitimate one—though not of much importance. (The answer is that they probably do, although I made a conscious effort in my article, as I shall explain, to present both sides of the question fairly, despite my political differences with Dr. Kenyon.)
However, it is of much more importance whether the anti-Zionist views of one of the world’s leading Biblical archaeologists affects her work.
The interpretation of archaeological evidence is not yet an exact science—and probably never will be. For this reason, one’s predilections—sometimes unconsciously—can affect one’s conclusions. Most archaeologists consciously try to guard against this. But it is always a legitimate question to ask how far they have been successful.
For almost 30 years now archaeologists have been strenuously debating whether the religious background and theological orientation of many Biblical archaeologists has affected their work. In 1960, Prof. G. Ernest Wright, of Harvard University, wrote a famous article entitled “Is [Nelson] Glueck’s Aim to Prove the Bible True?” More recently, in 1973, Prof. William G. Dever, then Director of the William F. Albright School of Archaeological Research, in his Steloff lecture at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, discussed at some length whether the religious orientation of many Biblical archaeologists affected their work. Many archaeologists have pointed, for example, to the frequent arbitrary links which have been drawn between Biblical events and archaeological finds. The point here is not that a religious orientation does or does not affect an archaeologist’s work but that the question is a legitimate one—the question is one that may properly be posed.
What offends me about Dr. Kenyon’s letter is the implication that it is improper to ask the question which I asked. Indeed, it seems to me that it is improper and cowardly—to fail to ask the question.
No one has ever suggested that these religiously oriented archaeologists deliberately misinterpreted the evidence to support the accuracy of the Biblical record. Predilections operate more subtly than this. By suggesting that I accused her of “twist[ing] archaeological evidence to support [her] political views,” Dr. Kenyon has created a straw man which she may then knock down. I never accused Dr. Kenyon of “twisting” archaeological evidence; that would imply a deliberate distortion, scientific dishonesty. There is nothing I know of that would suggest this of Dr. Kenyon. Dr. Kenyon takes umbrage at a charge that was not made, perhaps because that is easier than discussing the question that was raised.
There is another reason why the question is a legitimate one in Dr. Kenyon’s case. My article did not raise a new issue. It presented both sides of an issue which is widely discussed within the archaeological community. Within that community Dr. Kenyon is almost universally regarded as strongly anti-Zionist, and naturally the next question in archaeological discussions where this is referred to, is how, if at all, this affects her work as an archaeologist.
Thus, it seems to me, the question is a legitimate one for discussion in a magazine like the BAR.
Whether in fact Dr. Kenyon’s anti-Zionist views affect her work is no more provable with certainty than whether an archaeologist’s religious views affect his work.
But my article raised a question. It did not purport to provide a definitive answer. I tried to present the evidence fairly on both sides. Nowhere did I suggest that the evidence was conclusive, one way or the other. In the last issue of the BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 01:04), a letter from Reader Hines stated that “after beginning the article with such an uncomplimentary title, you go on to qualify almost every statement you make to back up your premise.” Mr. Hines suggests that the article’s title—“Does it affect her work?”—means that I am out to prove it does. Then because I qualify almost every statement I make, Mr. Hines concludes I failed in what I set out to prove. In fact, the title was intended to raise an honest question—just as Prof. Wright’s title, “Is [Nelson] Glueck’s Aim to Prove that the Bible Is True?”, raised an honest question. Prof. Wright concluded that Dr. Glueck was not out to prove the Bible true. I concluded that the evidence regarding Dr. Kenyon was suggestive, but inconclusive.
To be entirely fair, I even discussed a number of disagreements Dr. Kenyon has with Israeli archaeologists that could not conceivably be affected by Dr. Kenyon’s political views. So the “qualifications” which reader Hines criticizes me for are simply my effort to make a fair presentation.
Moreover, that part of the evidence in my article which suggests that Dr. Kenyon’s political views may affect her work has not been shown to be wrong in any particular.
For example, Dr. Kenyon says she is sorry that her use of civilization in connection with 10th century Israel offends me, that she meant only that Israel did not have much in the way of material civilization, “with which alone can archaeology be concerned.” But Dr. Kenyon’s concerns and judgments are broader. As reflected in the quotation on pp. 10–11 of my article, Dr. Kenyon bases her judgment of the low state of Israelite civilization not only on the “archaeological” evidence, but on the “literary” evidence, as well. Many scholars attribute some of the Psalms to David’s time. What literary evidence, one may ask, suggests that Israelite civilization remained at a low level during King David’s reign, as Dr. Kenyon says it did.
Dr. Kenyon’s conclusions as an archaeologist/historian on broad questions of history are only one aspect of the matter. Another is her attitude toward Israeli archaeology generally. In defense of Dr. Kenyon, Reader Himes suggests that “the contention between Kenyon and the Israeli archaeological community appears to me to be based on her criticism of Israeli excavation techniques. It is unfortunate that when one thinks of current excavations in Israel [Mazar’s] Temple Mount [excavations] most often come to mind.”
Whatever Mazar’s shortcomings as a field archaeologist (and they were recognized in my article), there is no excuse for someone as sophisticated as Dr. Kenyon confusing Mazar with Israeli archaeology generally. It so happens, that there is another archaeologist working in Jerusalem who Kenyon refers to frequently—by the name of Nachman Avigad. He is generally recognized to be a superb field archaeologist, meticulous, painstaking, careful. By anyone’s standards—even Kathleen Kenyon’s—Avigad is a first rate stratigraphical digger, If she has criticism for Mazar where is her praise for Avigad as a field archaeologist—or for any other Israeli archaeologist, for that matter?
Where Dr. Kenyon refers to Israeli archaeologists generally, she says only that “I regret to learn that this tendency [the “cardinal sin” of digging a trench along the face of a wall] is growing amongst Israeli archaeologists.” (p. 76). There is no Israeli archaeologist that I know of who advocates digging a trench along the face of a wall. If Dr. Kenyon knows some, she should tell us who they are. If not, Dr. Kenyon’s remark can only be interpreted as a gratuitous slur against Israeli archaeologists generally. There may be and, in fact, there are many legitimate methodological issues that can profitably be debated between Dr. Kenyon and Israeli archaeologists, but the wisdom of digging a trench along the face of a wall is not one of them.
In her letter Dr. Kenyon denies that she regards “E, DI, DII, and B [her soundings on the eastern slope of the western ridge] as representative of all the southern part of Mount Zion.” These soundings, she says, provide evidence “only of the eastern slope of the western ridge.” But the fact remains that in Digging Up Jerusalem Dr. Kenyon used these limited soundings as evidence that the entire southern part of the western ridge was unoccupied until the 1st century A.D.:
On page 160, Dr. Kenyon states:
“I am very prepared to accept that there was some expansion from the eastern ridge onto the western ridge at its northern end [where Avigad found his evidence of 8th century B.C. occupation]. All the evidence of the 1961–67 excavation [Dr. Kenyon’s excavation] goes to show that this expansion did not reach the summit of the western ridge” [Emphasis on last sentence added].
Where is this “evidence” from the 1961–67 excavation regarding the summit of the western ridge? Dr. Kenyon did not dig on the summit. If she is relying on some evidence other than her soundings on the eastern slope of the western ridge, I for one have no idea what it is.
Again, on page 148, Dr. Kenyon discusses the path south which was taken by the eighth century wall which Avigad discovered. Avigad suggests this wall followed the summit of the western ridge. (See the mapin my article.) Dr. Kenyon rejects this suggestion:
“Professor Avigad … suggests that [the wall] continued south along the flank of the western ridge to enclose the Pool of Siloam. This it certainly did not, for this is the area tested in 1961–62, and the evidence was firm that there was no occupation here until the first century A.D. [Emphasis added]
What “firm evidence” was there from the 1961–62 seasons that this area was unoccupied, except Dr. Kenyon’s soundings on the eastern slope of the western ridge referred to above. If there is such “firm” evidence, I would certainly like to know what it is.
The fact is that areas E, DI, DII and B are the only areas within the city according to Avigad’s map of the later Judean monarchy which could speak to the question of the settlement of the southern part of the western ridge. (Kenyon’s area L, further to the north and to the west, lies on the western edge of the western ridge in an area which Avigad does not include in the City).
(I add, parenthetically, that if I have misunderstood Dr. Kenyon as relying on her soundings E, DI, DII and B to prove that the southern part of the western ridge was unoccupied before the 1st century, A.D., I am not the only one who misunderstood her in this way. In Jerusalem Revealed, Dr. Yigal Shiloh of Hebrew University, currently on sabbatical at Harvard, summarized these soundings on the eastern slope of Mount Zion and the conclusions Dr. Kenyon drew from them:
“Areas B, D1, D2, E (on slope of Mt. Zion: In excavator’s opinion, no remains earlier than period of Agrippa I found; thus earliest settlement on Mt. Zion and its fortifications no earlier than mid-1st cent. C.E. [emphasis added])
Moreover, in her book Dr. Kenyon attempts to use Broshi’s excavations on the summit of Mount Zion to support her position that “on the summit of the western ridge there was “no occupation within the period of the monarchy of Judah” (pp. 147–8; emphasis added). In her letter, she repeats this error, although somewhat more subtly.
In her letter, Dr. Kenyon attempts to explain her use of Broshi’s evidence. However, this is an explanation, not an excuse. Why does she not now come out and say that this evidence demonstrates that the southern part of the western ridge was—or at least, may well have been—occupied during the Judean monarchy, and that this makes Avigad’s plan of the city wall during the late monarchy much more likely.
Instead, in her letter, Dr. Kenyon tries to minimize this evidence by pointing to the fact that Broshi found only one building from the later Judean monarchy. This seems to suggest that there was minimal evidence of occupation, i.e. only one building.
On the contrary, Broshi states in Jerusalem Revealed, “In every spot where we approached bedrock, typical Israelite remains were found, … indicating that this location was settled already in the 7th century B.C.E.” (emphasis supplied). Thus, it is clear that extensive occupational remains were found. Broshi also explains the likely reason for his failure to find more buildings: “It would seem that the builders of the period of the Second Temple destroyed most of the earlier buildings here.”
Whether the area was within the city wall at this time is not certain. The evidence from Avigad’s excavations on the northern part of the western ridge shows that initially that part of the city was settled as a kind of suburb outside the walls, and later in the monarchic period was included within the walls. So the area on Mount Zion where Broshi dug could be a settlement outside the city wall or inside it. The line of the city wall according to Avigad’s map runs almost through Broshi’s excavation, and moving the wall a few feet one way or the other could mean the area of settlement Broshi found was either within or without the city wall.
In either event, it seems clear that this area was settled at least in the 7th century, B.C.; Dr. Kenyon has still not confronted this evidence.
New Aid for Scholars
One of the world’s great Biblical and oriental libraries is housed in the École Biblique et Archéologique Française in Jerusalem. Its unusual card catalog lists not only 55,000 books but also each of the articles in the over 300 different periodicals to which the library subscribes. Each book and article is listed by subject as well as by author. In addition, each book of the Bible is treated as a separate subject, with each chapter and verse having a separate subheading.
This catalog is now available in book form in 13 volumes. The price is $1240 in the United States. The publisher is G. K. Hall & Co., Boston. Massachusetts.