Queries & Comments

006

Conquest Evidence From Jericho

To the Editor:

I am puzzled by a comment in your obituary of Kathleen Kenyon (“Kathleen Kenyon 1906–1978,” BAR 04:04). You report that her Jericho excavations found no evidence of a Late Bronze Age city on the tell and further that she rejected the theory that erosion had eliminated the evidence.

Dame Kathleen’s book Archaeology in the Holy Land, 3rd Ed. (1970) indicates that she thought just the opposite. In the discussion of Jericho, on pages 209–211, the finding of a portion of a Late Bronze Age house is described with the further information that the modern surface is lower than this level. This evidence plus that of the tombs leads to the conclusion that Jericho was reoccupied about 1400 B.C. and abandoned in 1325 B.C. “Subsequently erosion removed nearly all trace of it”, she states.

I would be interested in having this point clarified since the existence of a Late Bronze Age occupation at Jericho is so important for the dating of the Israelite invasion of Canaan as reported in the Book of Joshua.

At the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Jericho was defended by a wall which was built on top of a high glacis. The glacis consisted of a revetment wall at the base and an artificial glacis overlying the original slope of the mound and increasing the slope to an angle of 35 degrees. The face of the glacis was covered with a hard lime plaster. Only the foundations of the wall on top were found in the course of archaeological investigation. The city enclosed by this wall was violently destroyed by fire. Kenyon dates this destruction to “the very end of the Middle Bronze Age … about 1560.”

The site was then, according to Kenyon, abandoned for the rest of the 16th century B.C. and probably for most of the 15th century.

Thereafter, in the Late Bronze Age, a town did exist on the site, as Reader Flint correctly observes, although scant remains of it have been found. No evidence of a town wall defending it has been found. The datable evidence for this town suggests that it existed only during the 14th century B.C.

Here is Kenyon’s description of that town:

Only very scanty remains survive of [that] town … These include the building described by Garstang [who excavated at Jericho from 1930 to 1936] as the Middle Building … and a fragment of a floor and wall in the area excavated [by Kenyon] in 1952–58. Everything else has disappeared in subsequent denudation. The small amount of pottery recovered suggests a fourteenth-century date. This date is supported by the evidence from five tombs of the period excavated by Garstang that were re-used at this period. It is probable that the site was occupied soon after 1400 B.C. and abandoned in the second half of the fourteenth century.

Elsewhere Kenyon states that the pottery and the tomb evidence suggests that this town was “abandoned … about 1325 B.C.”

Kenyon attributes the scant nature of the evidence for this 14th century town to erosion. A careful reading indicates quite clearly, however, that she does not suggest that a later, 13th century town had eroded away. (Kenyon found no evidence for any occupation of the site either later in the Late Bronze Age or in Iron Age I.)

Kenyon tells us why she concludes that at the end of the 14th century B.C. Jericho was abandoned:

The find of the little oven still in situ suggests an abandonment, for such a structure would ordinarily have been levelled over in any rebuilding.

Most scholars who accept the Israelite conquest of Canaan as a historical fact (as opposed to a gradual, peaceful settlement) date that conquest to the 13th century B.C., and to the latter half of that century at that. At that time, according to Kenyon, Jericho was abandoned.

On the basis of her study of the Jericho materials, Kenyon concluded that “it is in fact very difficult … to reconcile the course of events described in [the Old Testament] with the archaeological evidence.”

Thus, although Kenyon did find evidence of a Late Bronze Age town at Jericho which had largely eroded away, that town dated from the 14th century, not the 13th century when the Israelite conquest is supposed by most scholars to have taken place. Nowhere—so far as we know—does Kenyon suggest that a 13th century walled town might have existed which has completely eroded away.

The facts and quotations cited above are taken from Kenyon, “Jericho”, Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Volume II (1976), pp. 562–564 and Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (3rd ed.), pp. 210–211.—Ed.

Criticizes BAR’s Advertising

To the Editor:

In the latest issue of BAR (BAR 04:04) I have found some disturbing advertising which I felt I must in good conscience call to your attention. I refer to the two ads on page 41 of the issue. The two ads concern a film on “Noah’s Ark and the Genesis Flood” and a book attacking evolutionary theory entitled “Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny.” I find these ads disturbing because the product they advertise is in direct conflict with the views presented in BAR.

One of the reasons I enjoy reading BAR is because of the high level of scholarship maintained by the writers of the various articles. These two products from page 41, however, do not maintain that level of scholarship.

I know that there is a disclaimer statement in the front of the issue which says: “Articles and the opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent the view of the Editorial Advisory 007Board or any member thereof, or of any particular editor.” This does not mention advertisements. I think that the advertisements in BAR should be in character with what BAR stands for as a whole. Consistency is important. It makes no sense to advertise a book about Noah’s Ark which makes use of good scholarship (such as Lloyd Bailey’s fine book advertised on page 45) and then to turn around and advertise a film which does violence to a decent understanding of the Biblical narratives of Noah and the flood. To advertise such a film is out of character for BAR. BAR has published a good article about the quest for Noah’s Ark—see William H. Stiebing’s article “A Futile Quest: The Search for Noah’s Ark,” BAR 02:02.

I think consistency is important. I think BAR should advertise only those items which are in character with its perspective as a whole. I know it is necessary to have ads to defray the cost of publication and keep subscription rates within reason. I also know that with six issues per year instead of four that you will need to secure more ads than before. But please don’t sacrifice good scholarship and quality in the type of ads you put in BAR. Don’t be inconsistent by offering good scholarship in the articles and bad scholarship in some of the resources advertised for sale. Don’t sell out BAR’s high standards by allowing poor scholarship to be offered to BAR’s readers.

One of the marks of a good education is the ability and willingness to discriminate between good scholarship and poor scholarship. To refuse to allow advertising by proponents of poor scholarship is not being “closed minded.” It is being intelligently careful. It’s important to differentiate between sound information offered to BAR readers and poor information. BAR’s own ads for BAR’s Discount Books have reflected an excellent choice of material for readers. Don’t sell out BAR’s readers.

To the Editor:

Has the BAR sold its scientific soul for the sake of advertising? When my November/December issue arrived, I opened it eagerly—hoping to find the answer to the question, “Did Yahweh have a consort?”

Alas, the first thing my eyes fell upon was an advertisement for Kronos—a magazine dedicated to the pseudoscientific opinions of Immanuel Velikovsky (who demonstrated in Worlds in Collision that he does not even know the difference between hydrocarbons and carbohydrates!).

A bit disconcerted, I flipped back a few pages and beheld a picture-ad for a film called “Noah’s Ark and the Genesis Flood”! Noah’s Ark in the BAR?! While trying to remember if that film was among the cinematographic atrocities inflicted upon me at a recent revival meeting, my eyes drifted to the right and I saw an ad promising to clarify “the issues of the scientific controversy on evolution.”

The scientific controversy on evolution? What controversy? The only evolutionary controversy I know of is a religious controversy.

I write this letter because I fear for the future integrity of the BAR, a journal I have come to admire, respect, and enjoy. If the BAR becomes financially dependent upon advertising from groups which believe the earth to be flat, or 6,000 years old, what will happen when someone wants to publish a paper casting doubt upon the existence of “Darius the Mede,” or a paper demonstrating that some Biblical prophesy or other wasn’t fulfilled exactly as recorded in the Masoretic Text?

When the Latter-Day Druids threaten to withdraw their advertising, will the BAR be able to continue to print that which evidence and informed opinion require it to print? Or will it succumb to the temptation of the bottomless moneybags brandished by the phrenic fringe? Will it become one of those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12)?

BAR takes no position on matters of faith or theology. As we suggested in our first issue:

Our commitment is to scientific truth, not to sacred truth. Not that we deny or denigrate the validity of scared truth. Simply that sacred truth is for each man or woman to find on his or her own, in his or her own way. We do not believe it is likely to be found through a study of Biblical archaeology but we have no objection to someone’s finding inspiration here. On the other hand, neither do we believe one’s faith will be destroyed by a study of Biblical archaeology—regardless of the archaeologists’ findings. If it is, it is a faith based on too shallow a version of sacred truth. In short, our view of the parameters of faith is that they do not infringe upon, nor are they threatened by, a search for scientific truth. Conversely, even the broadest search for scientific truth leaves plenty of room for faith. The Test is up to each reader.

An article which appears in our pages reflects our judgment that it is responsible scholarship—not that it is correct, but that it is within the range of sound scholarship.

In “Queries & Comments”, we sometimes print letters containing views that we would not otherwise publish in articles, simply because we want our readers to know how other readers think and react.

In our advertising policy we accept all advertisements that are in reasonable taste and are not offensive. Whether or not we believe the Flood story describes an historical event, whether or not we reject scientific views on evolution, we do not find either view offensive. Our readers are mature enough to make their own evaluations and judgments on these matters. They need no protection 054from BAR acting as a censor of advertisers.

As to whether the views of our advertisers are likely to affect the views in the articles we publish: No one has yet accused us of having a weak spine. Having criticized some of Israel’s leading archaeologists—although this is the source of many of our most important articles—we are confident we can withstand any temptation to allow our advertisers’ views to affect the views in the articles we publish. As we also said in our first issue:

We have a commitment to independence. We shall call the shots as we see them. To use a current metaphor, we will not tilt toward our friends or against those who may not like us.

We’re glad to be reminded now and then of our responsibilities, however, and to have the occasion to assure our readers that we will meet them.—Ed.

The Monks At Mount Sinai

To the Editor:

Today I received the most impressive issue yet of the BAR, and must compliment your staff especially for the article, “Saving the Mount Sinai Mosaics,” BAR 04:04.

I have one comment to make, however, about the article which I consider a shortcoming. Nowhere in the entire article do I see it mentioned that the Monastery was founded and maintained to this day by the Greek Orthodox monks. This is a great disservice to the thousands of monks who over the centuries sacrificed much, often their lives, to protect and preserve this haven of Byzantine art treasures including icons and manuscripts.

Quibbles

To the Editor:

The legend of the photograph of the SCUBA diver in “Archaeology for the Young of All Ages,” BAR 04:04, contains one inaccuracy. The diver is not wearing a pressurized suit. Rather it is a “wet suit” that allows water to seep into the suit and retards its exit. As a result, the heat loss from the diver’s body is slowed and the diver is able to function in the water for a longer time period.

One more quibble. Would it be possible in the future to use a transliteration schema that removes the ambiguity whether hamas (page 40) begins with He or Heth?

Aside from these quibbles, the quality of articles in BAR are excellent. Keep up the good work.

We are aware of the ambiguity in our transliterations. The problem is a typesetting one which we shall try to solve so that when h is a heth rather than he a dot will appear under it.—Ed.

More On Palestine

To the Editor:

The discussion on “What is Palestine?” in the November/December 1978 issue of BAR (Queries & Comments, BAR 04:04) was most interesting, but it merely confirms the bias of the late Kathleen Kenyon and others. Allow me to make the following points:

1) Dan Cole’s history of the term “Palestine” is correct, but incomplete. He failed to mention that after 138 C.E. the Romans officially adopted the name “Aelia Capitolina” for Jerusalem. The Romans deliberately wanted to obliterate any Jewish associations with the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem. Yet no archeologist or biblical scholar ever refers to Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina. Why then the use of the term “Palestine”?

2) The British Mandate comprised the territory that is now Israel and Jordan. The territory west of the Jordan River was referred to as Cisjordan (this side of the Jordan) and the territory east of the Jordan River was known as Trans-Jordan (across the Jordan). In 1922 Britain arbitrarily lopped off the area of Trans-Jordan and created the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. From that point on no one refers to the area east of the Jordan as Palestine.

3) In the 1948 war, Trans-Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank, annexing that territory in 1950 and officially changing its name to Jordan. Only two countries, Britain and Pakistan, recognized the annexation. If one wants to be technical, therefore, the area in which Jericho was located during the time that Dame Kenyon directed the excavations at Jericho was the Jordanian—occupied West Bank, not Jordan as Dame Kenyon stated in her reply.

The point is that we generally accept the name by which a country wants to call itself, except where Israel is concerned.

To the Editor:

In Queries & Comments, BAR 04:04, Professor Dan Cole replies to Nancy Gerson’s letter justifying the use of the term “Palestine” in archaeological discourse. I find myself in almost complete agreement with his explanation, but I should point out one commonly made error. In referring to Kathleen Kenyon’s dig in Jericho, he says “when she dug in 1952–58 it was in Jordan.”

From 1949 until 1967, while the West Bank was under the control of Jordan, only two countries in the world recognized Jordan’s annexation of the territory. None of the Arab states did. If it is right to call this territory “Jordan” while under Jordanian control, it is just as logical to call it “Israel” while under Israeli control. I regret that eminent authorities continue to make the mistake that those less well-schooled do.

P.S. Dame Kenyon’s reply also sets Jericho in Jordan.

055

A Free Press And Archaeology

To the Editor:

The subject of Israeli archaeologists and the release of photographs of current digs to the general public is only a specific instance of the hiatus between the specialist and those who fund/support/pray for the success of the exploration.

Ebla and Hadrian are of interest to all archaeologists, for none is presumed to be politically naive; but they are also of interest to the rest of us, some of whom are naive. If the modern nation states in which Biblical archaeology must of necessity work are to publish results within the framework of internal political realities, then Biblical—and other—scholarship is not free. If scholars are to be so hidebound, and museums are to be so traditional in terms of the traditional rules of scholarly publication, then there is much amiss.

I am an American of ten generations; my ancestors were here before the Bill of Rights. I am used to a free press and the right of free access to such information for which I have paid through private donation or public taxes.

BAR Too Biblical

To the Editor:

I sense a change in the slant of the content of the magazine from archaeology (albeit concerned with Bible) to Bible (with respect to archaeology). I, for one, do not care for that change at all and my continuing as a subscriber will depend on a reversal of that trend.

055

Report of Schaeffer’s Death Greatly Exaggerated

According to the December 1978 Bulletin of the Council for the Study of Religion, the great French archaeologist and excavator of Ugarit has died. The notice was given in connection with an announcement of a joint meeting of the American Oriental Society and the Society for Biblical Literature devoted to papers on Ugarit.

BAR is pleased to report that, au contraire, Professor Schaeffer, at 81, is alive, well and active as usual at his home in southern France.

BAR readers who want to know more about Ugarit may wish to re-read “Using Ancient Near Eastern Parallels in Old Testament Study,” BAR 03:03, by Stan Rummel. This article also contains some rare pictures of Professor Schaeffer taken at the site in 1929. Unfortunately most of the early pictures from Ugarit were destroyed by the Nazis during World War II when they occupied Schaeffer’s Paris home.

BAR and the community of Ugaritic scholars wish Professor Schaeffer many more happy and productive years.

056

Responsive Israeli Bureaucracy’s Reply to BAR Readers

In the September/October 1978 issue (“Free Hadrian,” BAR 04:03), BAR asked its readers to write letters of protest to Israel’s Education and Culture Minister Zevulun Hammer, objecting to the Antiquities Department’s refusal to release a color picture of a head of the Roman emperor Hadrian found on a kibbutz in 1975. Many readers wrote such letters. We now print in the box below Mr. Hammer’s response to these letters and to BAR’s editorial:

056

Reprints From Tel Aviv Now Available

Tel Aviv, the journal of Tel Aviv University’s Institute of Archaeology, is now available in reprint form. Each reprint volume collects articles on a single topic which were previously published in the magazine. Three reprint volumes in paperback have already appeared. A fourth, Excavations at Tel Michal—1977 by Herzog, Negbi, Moshkovitz, Bakler, Gophna, Shulman, Mozel and Kindler will be published later in the year.

Volume No. 1 includes Aphek-Antipatris 1972–1973 by Moshe Kochavi and The Pottery of the Middle Bronze Age IIA at Tel Aphek by Pirhiya Beck. Volume No. 2. by Moshe Kochavi, Anson Rainey, Itamar Singer, Raphael Giveon and Aaron Demsky is entitled Aphek-Antipatris 1974–1977 The Inscriptions. Volume No. 3, Excavations at Tel Lachish, 1973–1977, is a preliminary report by David Ussishkin on the Institute’s excavations at that site.

Available through the Sales Division of the Publications Department of Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, the volumes cost $4.00 for Volume 1 and $5.00 each for Volumes 2 and 3.

Conquest Evidence From Jericho

To the Editor:

I am puzzled by a comment in your obituary of Kathleen Kenyon (“Kathleen Kenyon 1906–1978,” BAR 04:04). You report that her Jericho excavations found no evidence of a Late Bronze Age city on the tell and further that she rejected the theory that erosion had eliminated the evidence.