Queries & Comments

012

Budding Biblical Archaeologist

I am planning on being a Biblical archaeologist. Next year I’ll be going to high school and will be able to pick some of my classes. When I go to college I plan on taking Aramaic and studying ancient languages of Israel and neighboring lands. Can you recommend some colleges that teach this?

Lots of colleges teach Aramaic and other ancient languages, especially ones like Hebrew and Greek that are also modern ones. Let’s talk again when you’re ready to apply. In the meantime, please continue your interest as you proceed in your high school career.—Ed.

The King James Version Was Good Enough for Jesus

I read your letters to the editor each issue and am always amazed at the criticism of your editorial policy. Are there really still people who believe that the Bible was issued as is from God and that to wonder and examine how it came to be is heretical?

Or, as my Uncle Emil used to say, “If the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us!”

Not Even for Free

I would not have your Anti-Christ magazine in my home if it were given to me. I realize that this magazine in question has to resort to a Collection Bureau for the simple fact that it can’t sell its material as it is.

BAR’s Bias

Please cancel my subscription. Your magazine seems to me a futile attempt to prove many ludicrous concepts of both the Judaic and Christian religions.

Where Credit Is Due

For the benefit of your readers, we request the publication of the following corrections and clarifications of your news item, “The Scrolls Are Here!” BAR 19:04.

The exhibit of the Dead Sea Scrolls in three major cities in the U.S.—Washington, New York and San Francisco—was initiated by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). The material is all from the collections of the IAA and is not simply “scrolls and related artifacts from the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem” (the Rockefeller Museum does not own the scrolls!)

The idea of the exhibition was personally conceived by the director of the IAA [Amir Drori] in order to allow as wide a public as possible to view the material in person. We hope the display will cast light on this intriguing chapter of Jewish history.

The IAA curators of the exhibit, Ayala Sussmann and Ruth Peled, selected the manuscripts and prepared the exhibition catalogue, which also served as a basis for the explanatory notes illuminating the exhibit for the public.

Ears Too High

BAR is a colorful, well-done magazine. The layout is excellent, the color plates are quite good, and I especially like the editorials, which are well written. It is a stimulating publication, and, with nearly every issue, I have been sorely tempted to send in some comments on one or more articles.

My recent retirement has given me sufficient time to study back issues of BAR. I have worked my way backwards and am now reading the 1981 issues. The continuity of such a reading provides an overall impression that cannot be obtained in any other way.

I do have a question concerning the use of computers and data processing in archaeology. Much could be gained by coding the various artifacts, entering the data into a vast data bank, and calling upon various statistical techniques to evaluate it. I realize, of course, that codifying the data would be a monumental task, requiring a great deal of time. However, I am sure it would be worth it.

I would also like to make an observation concerning two ivory carvings. The first is a carving of a woman in a window (“Ancient Ivory—The Story of Wealth, Decadence and Beauty,” BAR 11:05). As I 014studied this picture, I felt there was something wrong with it. Then I saw it—the ears are too high. Ears lie between the eyebrows and the tip of the nose, but this artist has them at least half an ear too high!

As I continued going through back issues, I came upon another ivory carving (“Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10:06) portraying a bearded man dating to the eighth century B.C. from Nimrud. There it was again! The same misplaced ears! Surely, I thought, there is some connection.

I went back to the BAR 11:05 issue with the woman in the window. Sure enough, it was also from Nimrud, ninth or eighth century!

May I venture to guess that these two carvings were from the same hand?

But that is not all. There was something still disturbing about the bearded man grasping the tree (to me, it looks more like a vine). At last I saw it—the hands are reversed. Unless these old eyes are playing tricks on me, the artisan placed the right hand on the left arm and vice-versa!

As an armchair archaeologist, I have deduced that the Assyrian artist was himself not from Nimrud but was actually from Nineveh. For does not the Bible say that great city was the home of more than 120,000 persons who could not discern between their right hand and their left hand (Jonah 4:11)?

Disdain for the Bible?

I love your magazine. When it arrives, I usually read it through from cover to cover. It’s not that I agree with everything that is said, but I do find it helpful in my ministry and interpretation of Scripture.

I found particularly insightful Mr. Shanks’s questioning of the Dothans (“The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 1,” BAR 19:04 and “The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 2,” BAR 19:05) concerning the apparent (and virtually unquestioned) acceptance of how the Sea Peoples (a.k.a. the Philistines) emerged in Palestine as a result of conquest in the hinterland. However, it was abundantly clear that the Dothans do not share the same feeling for the Biblical accounts of the Israelites and their conquests. Without doubt the issues discussed are complex, but the Dothans’ avoidance of Mr. Shanks’s questions appears to show more a bias against a face-value acceptance of the Biblical accounts than any overwhelming evidence from archaeology.

In fact, from reading your magazine over the past dozen years or so, it appears to me that many in the field of archaeology share a disdain for the accounts of the Bible. It is almost as if it is “politically correct” to accept any and all data (and speculative interpretations thereof) from non-Biblical sources about non-Israelites, while going to some lengths either to explain away or to deny outright the Bible accounts. As one with a degree in science, I would suggest that this is terribly unscientific and poor scholarship.

Surprise!

On a whim I decided to request a sample copy of BAR recently. More than ten years ago, I had volunteered several seasons at an excavation. Imagine my surprise and delight when my first issue came with Moshe and Trude Dothan on the cover. The excavation where I worked for four seasons happened to be at Akko with Moshe Dothan. As I read the article (“The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 1,” BAR 19:04), all of my fond memories of Moshe and the rest of my friends from the dig came back. Needless to say, I’m subscribing to your magazine. I’d also like to pass on a sincere hello to Moshe and to all of the great people I met at Akko. Isn’t it time for a reunion?

016

Clarification on Barzel

I very much enjoyed the two-part interview with Trude and Moshe Dothan (“The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 1,” BAR 19:04 and “The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 2,” BAR 19:05), who have long been my friends and colleagues, and with whom I have often had fruitful discussions on the question of the Philistines and the use of iron. I would, however, like to set the record straight on one matter: Contrary to Trude Dothan’s statement (BAR 19:04), I never showed nor attempted to show that the word barzel does not mean iron. What I did point out in From Bronze to Iron, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, vol. 54 (Göteborg, 1978) p. 42, is that the word barzel does not appear in 1 Samuel 13:19–21 and that the meaning of this passage would be the same whether bronze or iron were intended: The Philistines controlled the Israelites’ access to useful metals. According to the archaeological record, at the time in question—the late eleventh century B.C.E.—most tools and weapons were still being made in bronze.

Were the Greeks and Hebrews Brothers?

In the second part of your interview with the Dothans (“The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 2,” BAR 19:05), they state that Egyptian records mention that, along with the Philistines, other Sea Peoples from the Aegean settled in Canaan before 1175 B.C.: the Sikila, the Shardana and the Danuna. And “it is very interesting that the Danuna appear somewhere near Jaffa, precisely where, according to Biblical tradition, the Israelite Danites were supposed to settle.”

This would help to explain something that was a mystery to me until now. During the Maccabean revolt in the second century B.C., the Maccabees sent a letter to Sparta promoting closer ties, stating in part:

“Long ago [i.e., a century and a half earlier] a letter was sent to the high priest Onias from Arius, who then reigned over you, stating that you are our brothers, as the attached copy shows …

“‘Arius, king of Spartans, sends greeting to Onias the high priest. A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham. Now that we have learned this, kindly write to us about your welfare …’” (1 Maccabees 12:7, 1 Maccabees 12:20–22).

A footnote in the New Jerusalem Bible states, “This legend, typical of the diplomatic fictions of the age, was already current in Sparta when Jason took refuge there, 2 Maccabees 5:9.” Maybe the “legend” was based upon information that is now lost.

Anakim Origins

In “The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 1,” BAR 19:04 and “The Philistines and the Dothans—An Archaeological Romance, Part 2,” BAR 19:05, Moshe Dothan suggested that one clue to the Aegean origin of the Sea Peoples was the Greek term Wanax, meaning king or chieftain—a term that Dothan, though with some trouble, believed was “related to the Anakim referred to in the Bible.”

The Anakim and their descendants, centered in Hebron rather than in the Philistine coastal zone, are identified in Numbers 13:33 as being of the Nephilim, who, according to Genesis 6, were upon the earth in the days preceding the Deluge and had taken daughters of Adam as wives. In my book Genesis Revisited (Bear & Co. and Avon Books), I have suggested that Anakim was the Hebrew rendering of the Sumerian Anunnaki, meaning “the gods in their entirety” (Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness) or “the children/offspring of Anu,” the chief Sumerian deity (Samuel N. Kramer, The Sumerians).

Dr. Dothan is right to find difficulties with his own suggestion: Mesopotamian rather than Aegean origins fit better the Anakim and their offspring.

Herod’s “Temple” in England

When “Nowhere” is Right in Your Neighborhood

So I’m reading my favorite archaeology magazine (as I have devotedly and faithfully since Dr. David Grad got me hooked in 1977). And I’m reading about a gentleman who has built a replica of the Temple at his farm out in the boondocks of England (“Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05), and I’m thinking, next time I go to England I must make a special trip to see it, but gosh, it sounds like it’s way out in the middle of nowhere!

And out in the middle of nowhere it is! Fressingfield, a tiny village of about 250, happens to be where my wife’s family lives! I have passed by Moat Farm numerous times but had no idea what treasure lay hidden there. Having lived and dug in Israel, Iran and Egypt, I would not have thought it possible to find Biblical archaeology in East Anglia! Thank you, BAR, for helping me discover something that has been right under my nose for years. I look forward to contacting Mr. Garrard next time I’m in the neighborhood.

Was the Temple’s Facade Plain or Ornamented?

I read with interest Kathleen Ritmeyer’s “Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05. The article raised some questions for me, which perhaps you can answer.

Ritmeyer states that Mr. Garrard was guided by the ideas of Joseph Patrich concerning the Temple sanctuary’s form. While Michael Avi-Yonah’s large model in Jerusalem depicts the Temple’s facade as having pilasters and other ornamentation, Patrich insists that it was a plain 100-cubit square covered with brilliant plates of gold. What research led Mr. Garrard to design the facade as he did, rather than follow Patrich in this regard?

While most have represented the Temple’s rear section as rising with an unbroken wall from the ground to the roof, Patrich argues that only the lower half was surrounded by little chambers and hence there was an intermediate roof on top of them at the base of the Temple’s narrower upper half. It is difficult to tell from the photographs, but the model seems to follow Patrich here. What arguments supported the traditional view (followed by Avi-Yonah and most others) that the wall rose uninterrupted to the roof? What would have been the use of the space directly above the three layers of chambers?

Thank you for your stimulating articles, which shed valuable light on the setting in which Biblical events occurred.

Leen Ritmeyer replies:

We do not know which arguments supported the view that the walls of the Temple rose uninterrupted to the roof. It is clear, however, that this contradicts the description of the Temple in Middot 4.6, which states that, although the Sanctuary was 100 cubits (172 feet) high, the wall built on the 6-cubit high foundation had a height of only 40 cubits. This wall construction, which actually consisted of three walls, supported a roof 5 cubits high. The top of this roof was therefore at a level of 6+40+5=51 cubits above the ground. As shown in my drawings, which I made for Joseph Patrich, a stepped passageway was built between the two outer walls on the northern side of the Temple. Middot 4.5 states that this “passage-way (messibah)went up from the north-eastern corner to the north-western corner, whereby they could go up to the roofs of the cells.” There was therefore an intermediate roof level 51 cubits above the ground. By the way, a similar intermediate roof level, which could be reached from a staircase-tower, was 018planned for the Temple of the Temple Scroll, (see my drawing on pp. 142–143, in Yigael Yadin,The Temple Scroll, [London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,1985]).

An Upper Chamber was built over the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies(Middot 4.5). As the entrance to this Upper Chamber was located in its southern wall, the roof space over the cells must therefore have been used to reach this entrance. Inside this chamber was a ladderlike construction made of two cedar beams by which the upper roof could be reached. If the walls of the Temple had been straight from top to bottom, it would have been impossible to reach this entrance, as its sill would have been located 51 cubits (88 feet) above the ground!

The walls of this Upper Chamber were also 40 cubits high, the roof 5 cubits high, surmounted by a parapet and “scarecrow” of 4 cubits. The total height was therefore 40+5+4=49 cubits. Add this to the 51 cubits of the lower part and a total of 100 cubits is reached. As the Porch was also 100 cubits high, the roof of the Upper Chamber must have been level with that of the Porch.

Alec Garrard’s original model Temple was not built like this. After receiving my reconstruction drawings, on which many parts of the model are based, he built a new Temple, which is pictured on page 62. I do not believe that the Temple facade was bare, as Patrich claims, although no specific mention of any decoration is to be found in the historical sources. Flavius Josephus, of course, relates that the Temple was “covered on all sides with massive plates of gold” (The Jewish War 5.222), but he also says in the same passage that “the exterior of the building wanted nothing that could astound either mind or eye.” A bare facade would not astound anybody; therefore I have always believed that the walls of the Temple were decorated, probably with pilasters and capitals, as in the outer walls of the Temple Mount. According to representations of the Temple that appear on a series of coins from the Bar-Kokhba period, the Temple facade was decorated with four pilasters. I drew a reconstruction of the Temple facade with four pilasters, based on these coins, for Dan Barag (D. Barag, “The Table for Shewbread and the Facade of the Temple on the Bar Kokhba Coins”[Qadmoniot, vol. 20, nos. 1–2, (77–78), 1987, p. 25 (Hebrew)]).

The Temple facade on Alec Garrard’s model conforms more or less with this information.

Separate the Separatists from the Puritans

First, I wish to commend Yoram Tsafrir for his educational and enlightening article on “Ancient Churches in the Holy Land,” BAR 19:05. It was a delight to read.

Second, I enjoyed Ms. Ritmeyer’s presentation of Alec Garrard’s work in preparing a model of Herod’s Temple (“Herod’s Temple in East Anglia,” BAR 19:05). However, please remind Ms. Ritmeyer and her editor that those among the Mayflower passengers who had significant religious convictions were Separatists (“Pilgrims”) and not Puritans. The Puritans followed the Separatist trailblazers to New England.

Capernaum

Smelly Business

The article on Capernaum by John Laughlin (“Capernaum From Jesus’ Time and After,” BAR 19:05) was excellent. However, I was puzzled by his explanation of the murex shell discovery. First, I thought that Murex sp. was a Mediterranean shellfish. In those days of slow land transport, they would have been quite ripe by the time they arrived in Capernaum. And it would not have been terribly efficient either, since the dye represented less than 0.1 percent of the gross weight.

Second, I think that it might have been quite unusual for this particular light industry to be carried out in a domestic context. According to Pliny the Elder, who wrote in the first century C.E., the dye was extracted by removing the dye glands and heating them for ten days in a vat with salt and water. There may be worse smells, but it is hard to imagine this industry being allowed in a domestic area.

John Laughlin replies:

Mr. Foster has raised some interesting questions to which I do not have all the answers. I assume the murex shellfish were transported in containers of salt water (though we found no archaeological evidence for this). Also, Mr. Foster is right that it takes a large amount of the shellfish to produce any significant amount of dye. However, despite all the questions, the facts are: We found many of these shells, all in the same room, and we found dozens of sharp bone needles scattered on the floor with them. That these needles were used to extract the fluids necessary for making the dye seems the most plausible explanation. In all the other rooms, however, we found material commonly associated with domestic activity. As far as the odor produced by this business is concerned, I suppose one becomes “accustomed to the smell!”

Constant Vigilance

Regarding “Capernaum From Jesus’ Time and After,” BAR 19:05, there was no 020Roman emperor “Constantinius.” Of the three sons of the first Constantinus (“Constantine the Great”)—Constantinus, Constantius, Constans—the one referred to in this article as commanding the suppression of the 354–355 revolt was Constantius.

John Laughlin replies:

Mr. Schäffer is correct, of course. The third son of Constantine the Great was Constantius (actually Constantius II; the First was Constantine’s father). The mistake arose because of the addition of this name by a BAR editor, since I made no direct reference to Constantine or his sons in my original manuscript. However, the responsibility for proofreading the final text was mine, and I simply did not catch it. Sorry, and thanks to Mr. Schäffer for pointing it out.

Wrong Wall

I have read every issue of BAR since its inception, and I enjoy it. However, the article on Kfar Nahum (“Capernaum From Jesus’ Time and After,” BAR 19:05) leaves me puzzled. There is substantial disagreement between the plan on page 57 and the photos on pages 54 and 58. The plan shows the long side of the bathhouse running parallel with the wall; the pictures show it at right angles, and the text states: “The bathhouse disappears underneath the wall separating the Greek Orthodox property from the Franciscan property” (p. 57).

Did someone draw the wall in the wrong direction? I am interested, having been there 20 years ago and having seen the beginnings of some of the digs.

John Laughlin replies:

Mr. Zimmt is exactly right! The plan on page 57 erroneously labels the thick black line as “the wall separating the Greek Orthodox and Franciscan sides.” Actually, that line is the sea wall. The wall separating the two properties is not shown, but would be on the western end of the bathhouse if it were.

Ancient Money

Beqa Was a Weight, Not a Coin

I have fallen in love with your magazine. I can’t wait for each issue. It portrays Biblical archaeology in an exciting way that is both readable and enjoyable.

However, you should rectify one small mistake. Oded Borowski (“From Shekels to Talents,” BAR 19:05) states, “The first coins bearing Hebrew script date from the fifth century B.C.E. and are inscribed with the word beqa. … Both the beqa and the yehud coins were minted by permission of the Persians.” This is simply incorrect. There are no ancient Hebrew coins inscribed with the word “beqa.” The first coins with paleo-Hebrew inscriptions were the small silver yehud coins minted in Persian-ruled Judea during the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E. They had “Yehud,” the Persian name for Judea, inscribed in paleo-Hebrew. Later, after the Greek conquest, this was changed to “Yehudah” under Ptolemaic rule.

Perhaps the confusion is with the much earlier (pre-coinage) series of paleo-Hebrew inscribed limestone weights from the First Temple era, in which “beqa,” meaning half a shekel, is clearly carved on the top of the half-shekel weight. Judean coins of the First Revolt against Rome were the only ancient Jewish coins that used the shekel weight system. Even these coins did not display the then-antiquated word “beqa,” but were instead inscribed in paleo-Hebrew with its synonym “chatzi-shekel,” or half-shekel.

(See reply following Russell Stolling’s letter.)

Weighing In With Another Weight

I read with interest Oded Borowski’s article “From Shekels to Talents,” BAR 19:05.

Regarding ancient inscribed Hebrew weights, it is true that the Bible mentions the shekel, beqa, gerah and pim, all of which have been found in excavations. However, the article fails to mention that archaeologists have also uncovered a Hebrew weight from the First Temple period inscribed with the word “netzef.”

The netzef is the only weight not mentioned in the Bible and may be of foreign derivation. It weighs approximately 5/6th of a shekel. Perhaps some BAR readers can shed some light on this interesting enigma.

(See reply following Russell Stolling’s letter.)

Accurate Temple Depiction

Regarding Oded Borowski’s “From Shekels to Talents,” BAR 19:05, the Bar-Kokhba coin pictured on page 70, showing the facade of the Second Temple, may be a more accurate depiction than most people realize.

The Second Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. The Bar-Kokhba coin was first minted in 132 C.E., 62 years later. If the designer of the coin was in his late 60s, he may well have seen the Second Temple prior to its destruction.

083

Many Minas

Professor Borowski’s “From Shekels to Talents,” BAR 119:05, is one of the most concise yet comprehensive introductions to the monies and coinages of Biblical times I have had the pleasure to read. As a numismatist with a special interest in Biblical coinage, I’m pleased that the article added to my knowledge of the subject.

If I may have the pleasure of returning the favor, Professor Borowski might be pleased to learn that the mina (maneh) is mentioned more than “only once” (1 Kings 10:17) in the Bible. Ezra 2:69 details gifts to the Temple, including multiple thousands of minas of silver, as does Nehemiah 7:71–72. Ezekiel 45:12 defines the shekel as 20 gerahs and the mina as 60 shekels (some translations will say 50). In the New Testament, Luke 19:11–27 relates the parable of the nobleman who presented each of his ten servants with a mina for investment.

A monetary term that does, in addition to the pim, appear only once is the thousand “silverlings” in Isaiah 7:23, which in some translations reads as “silver shekels.”

I shall be contacting your subscription services to extend my subscription in an effort to offset at least one of the stiff-necked, gnat-straining, subscription cancelers who appear in every Queries & Comments.

Oded Borowski replies:

I would like to thank the readers who noticed some inaccuracies in my article on money. I admire readers who know so much and are willing to write a letter concerning these matters. I am glad that BAR has such knowledgeable readers. In my defense, I would like to say that the original article was written several years ago and went through the hands of many editors, who edited it and added to it to produce the final manuscript. Upon receiving copies of readers’ letters, I checked the original manuscript and found that the inaccuracies were the result of additions made during the editorial process. However, since the article appeared under my name, I take responsibility for the mistakes because I should have been more prudent when approving it.

More on Bat Creek

The Cherokee Solution to the Bat Creek Enigma

Your discussion of the Bat Creek enigma (“The Bat Creek Inscription—Did Judean Refugees Escape to Tennessee?” BAR 19:04) provides two of three possible interpretations. (1) J. Huston McCulloch’s intriguing “Judean refugees” in prehistoric Tennessee follows suggestions originally made by Professor Cyrus Gordon in 1971 based upon some surprisingly close paleo-Hebrew letter parallels. (2) P. Kyle McCarter’s skeptical reply rejects the inscription as Hebrew on both linguistic and historical geography grounds; he accepts the suggestion of an 1889 hoax by the excavator, John W. Emmert, who may have made an imperfect copy from the Cherokee syllabary. (3) Not mentioned by either author, the best solution may be to consider the Bat Creek stone an authentic native document, a variation of the native Cherokee syllabary dating from the 1820s. This was the original interpretation by Cyrus Thomas in his 1984 U.S. Bureau of Ethnology Report, and it still retains credibility as an explanation.

The Bat Creek stone incisions seem to have been carved with a small steel blade, perhaps a jackknife. Discovered in an area of historic Cherokee settlements through the 1820s, the brief Bat Creek inscription reportedly lay undisturbed beneath the skull of an aborigine wearing wooden earspools, copper alloy bracelets and a stone pendant made from a fossil. The native burial mound in Appalachia is far isolated from any maritime linkage with the Mediterranean, and the artifacts have absolutely no paleo-Hebrew associations, except for surprisingly close letter parallels on the amulet. No Indian mound burials with such ornaments occur in Israel or elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

From the accompanying illustration, the reader can judge some striking parallels between most Bat Creek symbols and one syllabary variant in use during the 1820s by the Cherokee before the federal government forced the majority of Cherokees to move to Oklahoma prior to and during the Trail of Tears (1838–1839). In about 1821, the Cherokee scholar Sequoyah (1770?–1843) completed his syllabary symbols using handwritten variations of the book typeset letters—both upper and lower case forms. Sequoyah’s syllabary had an enormous impact upon contemporary and later Cherokee in Tennessee, Georgia and Oklahoma. Within a few years, in 1827, the 86 character system was set into a special typeset with a changed vocalization. The typeset was used for many years to produce newspapers and missionary texts.

In general, the 1827 typeset version shifted to consonant-vowels and eliminated consonants following vowels. The consonant-vowel clusters also changed. For example the pre-print E sign on the Bat Creek stone is khan, while the printed E symbol represents gu with a short u as in the English word “but” except that it is nasalized.

At best, the Cherokee system was a kind 084of shorthand with too few signs to adequately express the phonetic complexity of the Iroquoian language. Moreover, symbols varied and spelling did not become standardized. Surviving later texts require “decipherment” based upon context rather than simple translation. These difficulties make the syllabary symbols on the Bat Creek stone enigmatic in content.

There is good reason for anthropologists to point out suspicious circumstances surrounding the 1889 Bat Creek Indian mound discovery by John W. Emmert (see Robert Mainfort and Mary L. Kwas, “The Bat Creek Stone: Judeans in Tennessee?” Tennessee Anthropologist 16 [1991], pp. 1–19). A great deal of amateur, and, rarely, professional relic fabrication occurred, as appears in Stephen Williams, Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory (Univ. of Penn. Press, 1991); and Marshall McKusick, The Davenport Conspiracy Revisited (Iowa State Univ. Press, 1991). It may also be noted that the Bat Creek inscription is unique, the only stone having early syllabary characters. Subsequent excavations failed to find other examples. While such rarity is suspicious, it is by no means conclusive. One might anticipate that Emmert would make a readable forgery and follow the published versions of the syllabary. The lack of exact correspondence to known syllabary signs does, however, fit native practice of personal variations in writing.

If the supposition is correct that the Bat Creek stone is authentic and dates from the 1820s, the native Cherokee burial was interred only 60–70 years at the time of excavation in 1889. Such a recent burial explains the otherwise surprising survival of wooden earspools and bark not found with older 086mound burials. Other mound burials in the vicinity were definitely recent Cherokee, including one with surviving buckskin breeches. The dating of the inscription from the 1820s, prior to Cherokee removal from the Bat Creek area, also explains other aspects of the riddle. The carbon date of the wood earspool sample (c. 450 C.E.) is seemingly explained by its context; 19th-century carbon samples are invalid because of contamination of atmospheric reservoir carbon 12 from the burning of coal. The Industrial Revolution also was a time of considerable experimentation with alloys to provide cheaper substitutes and different finishes; the copper zinc-lead bracelets presumably represent one of these alloys.

The paleo-Hebrew letter parallels are startling, but the full Cherokee syllabary shows its derivation from contemporary letters and numbers available to Sequoyah from books. For this reason, the Bat Creek inscription can be oriented correctly as Cyrus Thomas did in his 1894 publication. In my opinion, BAR published the inscription upside down to better match McCulloch’s paleo-Hebrew. The brief Bat Creek inscription has not yet been deciphered as Cherokee and may well be undecipherable because of difficulties with syllabary vagaries. For context, the “Cross of the copper zinc-lead bracelets presumably represent one of these alloys.

J. Huston McCulloch replies to McKusick:

Marshall McKusick’s proposal that the Bat Creek inscription is an early form of Cherokee is a very exciting one, particularly in light of the pre-Columbian carbon-14 date on the associated wood fragments and the 1971 claim by a descendant of Sequoyah that his ancestor merely simplified and popularized a script that had been in use by a secretive scribal society for centuries.¹ In his letter, McKusick fills out his 1979 identification of the Bat Creek inscription as Cherokee, with letter identifications drawn from an early handwritten alphabet.² He finds, with only two exceptions, the same affinities I already did in my 1988 Tennessee Anthropologist article, in which I considered the same handwritten syllabary (McKusick in fact had kindly provided me with a copy of it), as well as the standard printed versions.³ The principal similarity he finds that I had not spotted is that between letter 4 (inverted) and Cherokee quo, which I now grant raises this letter from an “impossible” to a “conceivable” on my admittedly subjective scale. He also identifies letter 2 (inverted) as an h-like yo. However, this works no better than my own suggestion of a (printed) yi, and so does not alter the overall fit.

As English, the Bat Creek stone (inverted) can be forced to read i dh’7NEsb. Unfortunately, the fit as Cherokee in this orientation, even with McKusick’s new suggestions, is about equally forced. No one has ever suggested that it even begins to say anything as Cherokee, any more than as English. In my 1988 paper, I demonstrated that Cyrus Gordon’s reading of its letters as paleo-Hebrew, although imperfect, works far better than Cherokee (or English). Furthermore, it rather clearly contains the intelligible string lyhwd (for Judea), right after the paleo-Hebrew type word-divider.

According to McKusick, the carbon-14 date on the associated wood fragments (427 A.D. calibrated, with a range of 32–769 A.D.) is invalid “because of contamination of atmospheric reservoir carbon 12 from the burning of coal.” It is true that it is difficult to distinguish dates after 1660 A.D. from one another because of this effect.However, this does not affect the Bat Creek date, which lies well outside this flat spot in the dendrocalibration curve. The 088calibrated range of 32–769 A.D. has a few inconsequential problems in it because of small wiggles in the calibration curve, but there is no way this could be a 19th-century sample disguised by modern coal-burning.

A bone implement, probably an awl, was also found with the inscribed stone, brass bracelets and wood fragments. The bone collagen in this could also be isolated and tested.This would provide a very valuable check on the wood date, and professional archaeologists should likewise insist that it be done.

McKusick observes, “The Bat Creek stone incisions seem to have been carved with a small steel blade, perhaps a jackknife.” It may be possible to determine whether a steel, bronze, copper or flint knife was used, but to the best of my knowledge this has never been done. However, such a determination would not tell us much, since even an ancient visitor could easily have carried a steel or bronze knife. I am certain that there is no physical test that could determine whether or not the blade was hinged, so that McKusick’s conjecture that it was a modern jackknife must be viewed as pointless speculation.

Potpourri

The Jewish New Testament

Since you have already received a couple of letters about the “Jewish New Testament” (Queries & Comments, BAR 19:05; Queries & Comments, BAR 19:06), I decided to add my two cents’ worth. I am a gentile, a gentile of the gentiles, of Welsh, Scottish and French descent, who likes to imagine he may be descended (however indirectly) from Owain Fawr and Hywel the Good (all of which merely goes to further confirm my status as one of the goyim). I bought a “Jewish New Testament” months ago, unconnected with any ad in your magazine. I find it to be invaluable in restoring the original milieu in which the New Testament was written.

For example, now, instead of having a “St. Paul” journeying through Greece and Rome, we have Rabbi Shaul visiting diaspora synagogues.

Considering that much of the work is concerned with when the Son of David will appear and when Israel will be restored to greatness, and that all but one of the books were written by Jews and are about Jews and Jewish concepts, there is no need to qualify this as the Jewish New Testament: It was never anything other than a Jewish book, a product of first-century Judaism, and, absent any knowledge of Jewish reference points, will be understood only with difficulty. It would be a shame for such a tool to be ignored or discarded merely because someone is afraid of proselytism.

Foul Imagery

The bird pictured in the mosaic in the lower left corner of page 30 (“Ancient Churches of the Holy Land,” BAR 19:05) is identified as “possibly a hunting falcon.” Look closely at the bird’s lower legs, and, on the back of each, just above the foot, you will see a spur. Hawks and other “birds of prey,” including hunting falcons, are “raptors.” They do not have spurs! Only birds that scratch in the ground and/or fight with their feet have spurs.

The same type of fowl (gamefowl) is pictured on page 31. In the center photo of the chancel screen and in the reconstruction drawings, one can easily see the classic, head-to-head confrontational position of the two gamefowl roosters, just above the encircled cross. This is the position taken by two opposing roosters just before they kick each other with their legs, feet and spurs!

What I would like to see addressed is the significance of gamefowl in religious symbolism. Ever since animal sacrifice was excluded from Judeo-Christian religious 089observance, all forms of animal ritual have been forced out of the mainstream of religious practice. Examples such as these mosaics serve as evidence that the practices and beliefs concerning gamefowl have survived nonetheless.

Let’s Get to the Heart of the Matter

In “Unlocking the Mystery of Rogem Hiri,” BAR 19:04, the author speculates that at the center of the circular complex lies an as “yet-undiscovered burial chamber.” Since the discovery of such a chamber would be key to our understanding of the complex and, given that the first archaeological survey of this complex is now 25 years old, I am curious as to why such an excavation has not been done yet.

Yonathan Mizrachi replies:

Speculations as to an additional burial chamber that may lie within the central cairn of Rogem Hiri are based on data acquired during our 1989 geophysical survey at the site, during which the central cairn was scanned with a ground-penetrating radar and intensively surveyed with a seismic unit, an EM3 (electromagnetic) unit, and a magnetometer. This effort resulted in identifying a number of potential targets within the central cairn. The largest and central target was excavated in summer 1990. (For the geophysical survey and the excavations of the central cairn, see Yonathan Mizrachi, “Mystery Circles,” BAR 18:04.)

With the help of the geophysical data, we were able to “hit” the central target with remarkable accuracy (at the center of a 2-meter-diameter target within a 20-meter-diameter cairn). The central target was found to be a massive oval megalithic chamber (about 1.95 meters in diameter and 1.45 meters high), but, unfortunately, the chamber and the dromos, or entrance chamber, were found looted. Despite the massive plundering of the tomb, three gold earrings, five elongated bronze arrowheads and about a dozen carnelian beads were recovered from the chamber and the dromos. Remains of flint blades and of fragmentary ceramic material were recovered as well.

The date for the assemblage generally appears to be within the chronological confines of the later half of the second millennium B.C. Hence, some of us believe that the burial chamber, and the central cairn as a whole, were constructed sometime in the later part of the second millennium B.C., an idea that seems to be tentatively supported by Professor Aveni’s studies of the geometry of the complex and by the Late Bronze material found all around the central cairn.(For a review of Aveni’s study at Rogem Hiri, see Yonathan Mizrachi, “Mystery Circles,” BAR 18:04.) 090Alternatively, the material found in the chamber may represent a secondary usage of the burial chamber during the Late Bronze Age (a phenomenon observed in other megalithic structures in the Golan Heights), in which case the central cairn and the circular stone walls of Rogem Hiri were contemporary and should all be dated to the third millennium B.C.

As you correctly note, the ideal solution to this dating puzzle could have been provided by excavation of additional (hopefully, undisturbed) burial chambers in the central cairn, if there were any. A fiber-optic camera donated to the project by Olympus Corporation USA was used to examine a number of additional suspected radar targets (on the basis of the geophysical data). The camera is connected to a thin, five-meter-long fiber-optic wire hooked to a sophisticated, tiny, motorized lens. The operator can insert the fiber-optic wire through the stones and look inside the cairn while remotely controlling the lens and taking selected pictures (the camera can also connect to a video recorder). On the basis of these tests and of two additional test pits that were excavated into selected radar targets in the central cairn (designated as Loci 3010 and 3012), we were able to conclude safely that no other burial chambers exist in the central cairn of Rogem Hiri.

Sick and Tired of Shanks

I subscribed to BAR several years ago but canceled because I became extremely tired of Hershel Shanks’s constant interference in the format and context of the magazine.

Several years have passed, and I recently resubscribed, anticipating knowledgeable and informative articles on Bible-oriented archaeology. Instead I have found that the editor has infected the magazine even more than before with his obsessive complaining and judgmental attitudes. I do not know of another magazine where the editor not only writes feature articles, but also irritatingly assumes pious stances on so many issues (“The Shrine of the Book—Where Nothing Has Changed,” BAR 19:05), apparently feels compelled to answer or defend himself in print (“Qimron Obtains Court Order Preventing BAR Editor from Leaving Israel,” BAR 19:05), writes book reviews (“Tapping the Mother Lode,” BAR 19:05) and even prints open letters he has written to other scholars (“An Open Letter to John Strugnell & Elisha Qimron,” BAR 19:05). I cannot read one issue of the magazine without being bombarded with more and more of this type of self-serving behavior and these opinionated perspectives of the Dead Sea Scroll episode and nearly any other issue. He apparently cannot concede graciously that he lost this battle, but feels compelled to inject personal comments into every single issue.

I will think twice about renewing my subscription the next time the flyer appears in my mailbox.

You forgot to mention that he also chooses the letters that get printed.—Ed.

You Don’t Have to Agree with Shanks

Just because you like to read BAR does not mean that you have to agree with the views of [BAR editor] Shanks. Ask yourself, don’t the in-depth articles, the vivid photography and the great book reviews stand by themselves? That’s my opinion. BAR has always welcomed yours.

Reader Gobbles Up Turkey Tour

I enjoyed BAR’s Turkey tour tremendously. Much of the credit goes to Avner Goren, an excellent and thoroughly competent guide, knowledgeable in archaeology and well-versed in history. His unperturbable sunny disposition and his enthusiasm inspired everyone and made the trip an unadulterated pleasure and a truly memorable experience.

005

A Note on Style

B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), used by some of our authors, are the alternative designations for B.C. and A.D. often used in scholarly literature.

Budding Biblical Archaeologist