Queries & Comments

010

Very Mature Suggestions

My name is Amelia Acker. I am nine years old. I get your magazine. I really enjoy it. I would like to be a Biblical archaeologist when I grow up. Even though your magazine is for adults, I still read it. I think you should do a issue on the Canaanites. I also think you should put in a game or a crossword puzzle at the end of your magazine, maybe even a kid’s page.

These are excellent ideas. We’ll give them serious consideration. Thank you.—Ed.

Poor Reading

As a Bible student and an intense Israel-watcher for at least 50 years, and as a 10-year subscriber to BAR, I have found this last years’ issues less interesting than any of the previous ones.

Second, even with good eyesight—THE PRINT IS TOO SMALL! I have subscribed for ONE MORE year—hoping for improvement in these areas.

We’ll work on your first suggestion, but I fear the print is going to continue to appear smaller. It’s happening to me, too.—Ed.

Loves BAR, Loves the Letters, Loves Goren

I was introduced to BAR several years ago by a friend who presented me with a 1983 issue, which she found in a used-book store. Who with an amateur interest in archaeology could resist subscribing? I have found BAR to be an outstanding journal with excellent articles and illustrations.

But I found the letters to the editor to be the most educational and entertaining. The heated discussions and differences of opinion were illuminating to this archaeological novice.

I was then moved to go on your recent tour of Turkey with Avner Goren. It was one of the greatest experiences of my life. Avner Goren is a true archaeological treasure. He is one of nature’s rare and gifted teachers. His is a brilliant intellect, superbly trained and disciplined and made radiant with a love of archaeology and life.

I am renewing my membership with the hope that I may have the great pleasure of seeing and hearing him during the coming season discussing his work in Sinai.

How Old Is Glass?

What is the earliest known date for the invention of glass? Specifically, more or less clear glass? I always presumed it was a rather modern invention.

Professor James F. Strange, of the University of South Florida, replies:

Glass is first found in the form of beads in Mesopotamia and Egypt in contexts dating to about 2300 B.C.E. Around 1500 B.C.E., glass vessels make their first appearance, also in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but of blue and yellow. Clear glass seems to be a product of the Hellenistic glass makers of the Phoenician coast about the second century B.C.E. In Roman contexts, clear glass is well known. Beautiful clear glass bowls of 125 C.E. are known from the Cave of Letters near Ein Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea. According to ancient Jewish sources, Tiberias was famous for the manufacture of a very clear glass vessel by which one could check the correct color of wine. Glass is mentioned in Job 28:17 with gold, which indicates the value it held before the invention of glass blowing.

Pagan Religions Get Rotten Press

In your July/August 1993 issue, BARlines reported on the 4,300-year-old sculpture of a horse found in Syria (BARlines, BAR 19:04). In the article you reported that archaeologist Thomas Holland described the horse as a cult figure used to ensure fertility. Why do we always assume that all the ancients were concerned about was fertility? (Several months ago, a 012representation of the goddess Hestia [Vesta] was described, in one of the magazine’s articles, as a fertility goddess. I am only a student of ancient religions, but I know that Hestia was not a goddess of fertility. She was honored as the goddess of the hearth, who inspired a “happy home” and made the home holy with her purifying fire. She was honored as the goddess who brings warmth and food to the family.)

It seems to me that we tend to oversimplify the religions that existed before Judaism and Christianity. We group them together by calling them “pagan,” and then treat them as primitive and unworthy of our serious thought. Perhaps the ancient horse was just a horse, a toy, a work of art. Why does it have to be a cult object, and why assume that its purpose was fertility? Some Christians pray to St. Elizabeth for help in pregnancy, but every statue, saint, icon, cross or Davidic star is not a fertility symbol. I am a committed Christian, but I believe that the so-called pagan religions are getting rotten press. These people were inspired by God, and they lived healthy lives and worshiped intelligently. (One only needs to read the ancient Greeks to become aware of their sophistication.) I believe they deserve a more intelligent portrayal than the one we so often give them. If archaeologists are not sure what a find was used for or what it represents, they should not simply label it a “fertility object.”

Thanks for your wonderful magazine and for “fighting the good fight” over the Dead Sea Scrolls. Your efforts are much appreciated by many of us “silent readers.”

Advertising Goof Gives Him Comfort

As a new subscriber, I very much enjoy your publication. The November/December 1993 issue has succeeded even in giving me professional comfort!

Some of your ads are quite impressive and, in particular, I noted that of the Biblical Heritage Collection Archives, Inc. stating that “King Louis XIII of France was fighting in Jerusalem in the Crusades” around 1250.

Now, while his Most Christian Majesty was, indeed, one of the most illustrious military tacticians of his time, it is difficult for me to believe that even he could have managed to command troops in the field 400 years before his birth! Perhaps you will have the kindness to suggest to the Archivists that they will have better luck, in future ads, with King St. Louis IX.

I do understand how these errors can be made—even when one knows better. For the past 10 years I’ve been kicking myself for having tried, in a book on government, to make King Edward VII the father of King Henry VIII. As I was writing, I thought of how frequently the Henrys seemed to come along, and how many years it took to get from Edward VI to Edward VII. In thinking Henry VII I typed Edward VII. And I failed to catch the error in the galley proofs.

To find myself, today, in such distinguished company (and so publicly, too!) is a great comfort. Thank the Archivists for me, please.

Megiddo

Where Will the Battle at the End of Days Occur? Not at Megiddo

Reading your fine magazine is almost like old-home week for me. During my United Nations service in the Middle East, I had the opportunity to visit many of the sites referred to in BAR, and the colorful pictures bring back many memories. Israel is truly “The Glorious Land.”

“Back to Megiddo,” BAR 20:01, was particularly interesting. I visited Megiddo in the middle 1970s with a group of other young Canadian officers. We were less impressed with the ruins than we were with the incredible tactical strength of the position. Therein lies the paradox of Megiddo. Tactically strong, it is strategically weak. As the article described, Megiddo can be easily approached from the north across the Plain of Jezreel and can be easily outflanked if approached from the south. History has shown that Megiddo, despite its impressive strength, is a weak reed.

I noticed however, that the article stated that the Book of Revelation records that Megiddo is “famous as the location of the apocalyptic battle at the end of days” (Revelation 16:16). This is a common but incorrect reading of the account.

The author of Revelation was well familiar with the location of Megiddo and with the Book of the Prophet Joel. Revelation draws much of its imagery from Joel and other apocalyptic books. Revelation records that the armies of the “kings of the east” will be “gathered together” at Megiddo. This accords well with the strategic importance of the Plain of Jezreel. The order of battle of a large army coming from the north can be deployed in depth in this area. From Jezreel a force can advance by any one of three main routes: through the pass at Megiddo to the coast, through Jenin south across the central range or through Beth-Shean south down the Jordan Valley.

The parallel account in Joel 3 records the battle of “the Day of the Lord” as occurring in the “Valley of Decision,” which Joel 3:2 says is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, just outside Jerusalem.

Whether a product of inspiration or speculation, the gathering of the armies at Megiddo and their movement south to Jerusalem accords well with both prophetic tradition and with the strategic location of the Jezreel Plain.

I am under no illusion that this common misconception will be corrected by my arguments. The word Armageddon has entered our language and common thought as not only the place of the final battle at the End of Days but also as a synonym for the destruction of the world itself.

Joshua and Judges Are Both Right

“Back to Megiddo” implies a contradiction between the accounts of the conquest of Megiddo in Joshua 12 and Judges 1.

Although Megiddo was conquered by Joshua (Joshua 12:21), Judges 1:27–28 simply states that the tribe of Manasseh did not take possession of the city. This was apparently because they were not numerous enough to retain possession of Megiddo and the other cities conquered by Joshua.

Shalmaneser and Archaeology Agree

Congratulations on the fine article by Graham I. Davies (“King Solomon’s Stables—Still at Megiddo?” BAR 20:01) analyzing the archaeological remains of the stable complex at Megiddo. I earnestly look forward to the results of further excavations there by Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin. Graham notes the estimated capacity of the stables dated to the Omri-Ahab period, as well as positing that the Solomonic stables underlying them would have been on a much smaller scale than those of Ahab.

There is also documentary evidence concerning Ahab’s chariot corps. In the monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III, Ahab is listed as one of 12 kings who attempted to oppose the Assyrian monarch on his march through Syria at the battle of Qarqar, dated to 853 B.C. Ahab is credited with having provided 2,000 chariots to this battle, while the total number of chariots listed for all the other coalition kings combined is 1,940. These numbers indicate that Ahab did indeed possess a large chariot force, which most likely would have been stationed at different fortified locations within the northern kingdom. The information provided by Shalmaneser in this inscription fits in very nicely with the archaeological conclusions drawn from the study of the stable complex at Megiddo, giving a clear indication of the military power of the northern kingdom 074during the reign of Ahab, as well as providing archaeological confirmation of the information provided by Shalmaneser.

Neither Stable Nor Storehouse

Professors Yigael Yadin and Yohanan Aharoni, of blessed memory, rarely agreed. Even now, they are very likely debating in the Heavenly Academy as to whether those buildings at Megiddo are stables or storehouses!

But even they would agree about one point: The picture on pages 44–45 of your January/February 1994 issue is wrong (“King Solomon’s Stables—Still at Megiddo?” BAR 20:01).

The building pictured is neither stable nor storehouse and is neither on the north nor the south side of the tell. It is a house, built according to the usual Israelite four-room house plan (though somewhat more complicated), along the eastern wall of King Ahab’s city.

I once found a nearly complete Cypro-Phoenician jug, dated to about 1500 B.C.E. (if memory serves), right there in the middle of the courtyard, exposed after a heavy rain. The Department of Antiquities was pleased to add it to their collection.

Diggers

Washed Up at 40?

The opening sentence of “Diggers: From Paid Peasants to Eager Volunteers,” BAR 20:01, contains a classic statement by Sir William Flinders Petrie, “The best age for diggers is about 15 to 20 years. After that many turn stupid, and only a small proportion are worth having between 20 and 40. After 40 very few are of any use.”

As the oldest member (by three months) of the staff of the Banias Excavation Consortium, it is my duty and obligation to post Petrie’s definitive and authoritative statement, written in large letters, at Banias. There it can be read by Vassilios Tzaferis, John Laughlin, John Wilson, John Willis and me, if we all bring along our glasses.

Thank you.

Bakhsheesh for Finds Worked Fine

Regarding the top illustration on page 68 in the article “Diggers: From Paid Peasants to Eager Volunteers,” BAR 20:01, by Kenneth Atkinson; the caption implies that the fellahin family shown worked for Petrie at Tell el-Hesi. That is possible, but not likely. This photograph was taken by Frederick Jones Bliss during his excavations at Tell el-Hesi, Palestine Exploration Fund negative “B[liss] 20.” The fellahin family shown was most likely standing in Bliss’s cut, and in the original negative Bliss was shown standing at the right edge. This fellahin family worked for Bliss, and only possibly may have worked for Petrie.

Also regarding that caption and the text on that same page—the characterization of Petrie’s (and Bliss’s) method of pay—, in fact male workers were normally paid 9 piasters per day and female 5 piasters per day. In addition bonuses (bakhsheesh) for important finds were given. Bliss described the practice in A Mound of Many Cities:

I adopted Petrie’s plan of giving bakhsheesh for all the finds, varying with their apparent importance. This plan took the place of a sieve, as the men could not afford to miss a chance of adding a third to their day’s wages by finding a tiny scarab. The total bakhsheesh for the four seasons was under ten pounds, a small price to pay for the assurance that nothing was secretly carried off.

Atkinson’s conclusion that Petrie’s method of payment “encouraged speed over carefulness” is simply erroneous. The reverse was true. “The lack of detailed records in Petrie’s reports” can certainly be attributed to other factors.

Two Goofs

I have been an avid reader of BAR for at least the last 15 years. I did not expect to call your attention to two obvious errors in one issue. On page 68 of “Diggers: From Paid Peasants to Eager Volunteers,” BAR 20:01, the article says “Badè divided the tell into 10-meter (10.9-yard) square sections.” On the following page, it says that Kathleen Kenyon “concentrated her attention on 5- by 5-meter (4.6 by 4.6 yard) squares.” Uh-uh. If 10 meters is twice 5 meters, then the measurement in yards will be twice as much, too. Actually, according to my calculations, the 10.9 conversion is correct, but 5 meters converts into 5.5 yards.

On page 78 (“New Scroll Search Makes Discoveries,” BAR 20:01), the Bar-Kokhba Revolt is said to have occurred in 132–135 B.C. (sic). Rather than B.C. or B.C.E., shouldn’t it be 132–135 C.E.?

I enjoy BAR very much, even sometimes the letters. Keep it up!

Ammonites

Sibilant Shibboleths

In his fine article, “What Ever Happened to the Ammonites?” BAR 19:06, Larry Herr describes the discovery and importance of the sixth-century seal impression bearing the name of the Ammonite king Ba‘lyasha‘, known in the Bible as Ba‘alis (Jeremiah 40:14). Herr neglects to mention, however, that perhaps the most interesting implication of this find for the Bible involves the curious Shibboleth incident in Judges 12. That story hinges on the differing pronunciations of a particular sibilant sound by inhabitants on either side of the Jordan River. The Trans-jordanian pronunciation of the letter shin sounded to the Cisjordanians like their pronunciation of the letter samekh . When the Cisjordanians made this sound, their identity was given away.

The difference between Transjordanian “Shibboleth” and Cisjordanian “Sibboleth” is precisely the same in the representation of the sibilant as the difference between Ammonite Ba‘lyasha‘ (with shin) and Hebrew Ba‘alis (with samekh). Hence the Ba‘lyasha‘ seal shows us how to understand the Shibboleth incident: the Transjordanian Gileadites pronounced their shin like Ammonites, which the Cisjordanian Ephraimites tried to pronounce but couldn’t get it quite right!

Judges 12 presumes that the reader understands the slight difference in sound between Transjordanian (and Ammonite) shin and Hebrew samekh. (From Egyptian transcriptions we can guess that both sounded something like modern English “ch,” as in “chips.”) With the discovery of the Ba‘lyasha‘ seal, we too can now begin to understand.

For a more complicated explanation, also relating to the Ba‘lyasha‘ seal, see Gary Rendsberg’s article on “Shibboleth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

Larry Herr replies:

BRAVO!

Copper Scroll

The Enemy of My Enemy …

Manfred R. Lehmann (“Where the Temple Tax Was Buried,” BAR 19:06) points out what he calls a “major difficulty”: Why would the high priests in Jerusalem who, as “the most common speculation” has it, both wrote the Copper Scroll and hid it from the Romans, hide the scroll in the caves of their adversaries the Essenes? The difficulty evaporates, he suggest, if one understands, as he feels he does, that the people of the caves at Qumran were not Essenes but Sadducees. Wrong: no evaporation.

“A rose by any other name. … ”, Dr. Lehmann: Call them Essenes or call them Sadducees. We know that the Qumran community was adversarial vis-á-vis the Jerusalem establishment, not from the presumption 075that the community was Essene but from the contents of their literature as found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

When [New York University professor] Lawrence Schiffman argues that the Qumranians had Sadducean origins, he never suggests that would diminish the adversarial relationship to the Jerusalem establishment. On the contrary, “Hell hath no fury” like those who feel betrayed by their co-religionists.

On the other hand, another principle often predominates in human affairs: A common enemy can bring adversaries to cooperate and even fight together. Such a phenomenon makes the idea of placement of precious scrolls in “enemy” territory something less than the “almost insurmountable difficulty” Lehmann says it is.

Manfred Lehman replies:

Mr. Brudney expresses the view that it makes no difference whether the Qumranites were “Essenes” or Sadducees, as in his opinion both sects were opposed to the Temple service and to the rulers in Jerusalem and therefore could not be expected to harbor the Copper Scroll, which, in my opinion, contains an inventory of Temple gifts pledged, according to Talmudic sources, after the destruction of the Temple.

It makes a tremendous difference whether the Qumranites were “Essenes” or Sadducees. The early Dead Sea Scroll scholars, like André Dupont-Sommer of France, were Christians who were worried about the prospect of discovering roots of Christianity in a Jewish sect, as this would rob Christianity of its presumed originality. Therefore they preferred their identification of the Qumranites with “Essenes,” whom they perceived as a rebel sect that had broken all links with normative Judaism and the religious authorities in Jerusalem. This biased identification can no longer be maintained, since the halachic (Jewish legal) texts from Qumran show that their authors were very much eager to serve in the Jerusalem Temple, and in fact were even more rigid in their legal adherance to the written and oral laws of Judaism than the normative Pharisees. The difference between Sadducees and Pharisees was only one of degree of observing the Jewish laws. This may be embarrassing to some Christians, but it is a truth which must be faced.

In any case, no one should be surprised if the Temple Inventory was hidden in one of the Qumran caves.

Potpourri

There Is a Beqa Coin

Dr. Jonathan Herbst (Queries & Comments, BAR 20:01) is wrong and Oded Borowski (“From Shekels to Talents,” BAR 19:05) is correct. There is an ancient Judean coin inscribed “beqa.”

It was first pictured and described by A. Reifenberg in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly (Oct. 1934) and again in his standard reference, Ancient Jewish Coins.

Reifenberg writes extensively about this coin (catalog no. 1A), which he indicates “is likely to throw some new light on one of the least known periods of Jewish history.”

This unique coin, discovered in Hebron, mysteriously does not appear in any of the more recent works, such as Ancient Jewish Coinage, by Ya’akov Meshorer (Amphora Books, 1982), and it would be interesting to learn of its present provenance.

076

Ads for Bible Pages Help Plunder the Past

I was delighted to receive my first copy of BAR in today’s mail. However, my delight soon turned to dismay. Your publication has two full-page advertisements for pages removed from original copies of the Authorized Version of the Bible, and even more distressing, vellum leaves from 13th-century copies of the Latin Vulgate. As a biblical scholar, whose primary work is on medieval texts of the Bible, I deplore such advertisements as they encourage, for profit alone, the destruction of a unique historical heritage. It is simply beyond my comprehension that your publication, whose very title trumpets its belief in the importance of antiquities, would accept such ads. The excision of leaves from a 13th-century copy of the Vulgate destroys an historical artifact, no less unique, than, for example, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Would you or your readers like to have a fragment of one of the scrolls, handsomely mounted, to hang on your wall?

Scholars now know beyond a shadow of a doubt—despite the seller’s claims that the leaves came from defective manuscripts or that they bought the leaves as leaves from other dealers—that those active in this trade encourage the pillaging of unique historical resources. BAR should be in the vanguard defending against such practices. Your participation is an embarrassment. I shall terminate my subscription at once if you continue to accept such ads. Moreover, I shall contact my professional organizations to publicize BAR’s grossly unprofessional behavior if you do not cease from accepting such ads.

We don’t usually act as a result of threats like this. But, despite the threat, not because of it, we will no longer accept these ads.—Ed.

Not Many Inkwells at Qumran

Regarding the nature of the settlement at Qumran, Roland de Vaux’s conclusion that it was an isolated religious community is still the most convincing. But the recovery of only two inkwells from the room designated a scriptorium is rather contrary (Stephen Goranson, “Qumran—The Evidence of the Inkwells,” BAR 19:06). In a scriptorium seating a number of scribes, a large number of inkwells, say one for each scribe, would be reasonable. Yet only four inkwells were found at a site where one can assume ink was flowing. Inkwells from the fourth century B.C.E. onward are common small finds. Many of them pass through the antiquities market. Particularly in the Roman period, inkwells are not a rarity.

Inkwells have been recovered at most excavations of the Roman period in Israel and Jordan. In two very detailed papers, the Qumran inkwells have been researched and compared with a considerable but not exhaustive number of identical ones from all over the ancient world.¹ The Porticello shipwreck (415–385 B.C.E.) carried a number of inkwells that are the earliest known.² At one spot in Corinth, a large number of inkwells have been found.³ Inkwells from many other sites, including Pompeii and Jerusalem, have been found, exhibited and published.

In conclusion it must be said that the recovery of three or four⁴ inkwells at Qumran do not and can not have any bearing on the discussion about the nature of the site.

Stephen Goranson replies:

I would welcome further studies of ancient inkwells; apparently, no comprehensive study exists. Abraham Levy has referred to some interesting publications, but they do not justify his assertions. The majority of the inkwells mentioned are from Europe, and many of them are of different types than those at Qumran. Of course scribes used inkwells in Italy and Corinth as well as in Jerusalem and Qumran. But inkwells are not found in “most” excavations. In particular, it is not typical for sites the size of Qumran to preserve four or more inkwells. The publications confirm this fact.

And there is good reason to think that Qumran originally held more than the four or five inkwells noted in my article. I am aware of two additional inkwells in private collections which may be from Qumran. Certainly it is preferable when an artifact is found in its arch-aeological context. But should we ignore the Qumran Temple Scroll because it was obtained from Kando?

Readers may decide for themselves. Mr. Levy has recommended some very good publications, but readers who wish to consult them should note some corrections to his citations. The English title of the Hebrew journal (from Tel-Aviv) in his note one is Israel: People and Land (not … Land and People). The article in Levant is on pages 155–162. The first author of the book in note two is Eiseman (not Eisenman), and the relevant pages are 60–62. The author of the report on Corinth is Oscar Broneer.

077

In addition, readers may be interested to know that de Vaux found another inkwell at Ain Feshkha, a site usually associated with Qumran (see his brief notes in Revue Biblique 63 [1956] p. 576 and in 66 [1959] p. 227 n. 1). Also, for whatever reason, the inkwell on display recently at the Library of Congress (and pictured in Ayala Sussmann and Ruth Peled, Scrolls From the Dead Sea: an Exhibition of Scrolls and Archaeological Artifacts from the Collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority [Washington, DC: Library of Congress and Israel Antiquities Authority, 1993], p. 95) is not identical with any of the Qumran inkwells mentioned in my article.

Finally, it should be said that to see Qumran as a place where significant writing occurred, as I do, does not mean that all the interpretations of de Vaux are persuasive. For example, the dates de Vaux gave for his Period Ia are not reliable. De Vaux did not have the last word about locus 30, the “scriptorium.” But it may be that the new suggestion that it was a dining room will not be the final interpretation either. See Pauline Donceel-Voûte, “‘Coenaculum’—La salle â l’étage du locus 30 a Khirbet Qumran sur la Mer Morte,” pages 61–84 in Banquets d’Orient,Rika Gyselen, ed., Res Orientales vol. 4, (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1992). Further Qumran publications by Robert and Pauline Donceel-Voûte will be forthcoming in the series Novum Testa-mentum et Orbis Antiquus. The series is edited at the Bible Institute in Fribourg (also spelled Freiburg), Switzerland, but the volumes are distributed by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen, Germany.

Please also note two corrections to “Qumran—The Evidence of the Inkwells,” BAR 19:06. The photograph supplied by BAR apparently is miscaptioned, as it is not one of the inkwells mentioned in the article. An editorial addition correctly located Louvain in Belgium; but Fribourg, location of the publisher for the new archaeological reports on Qumran, is in Switzerland.

003

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.

Very Mature Suggestions