Queries & Comments
I’m still delighted with BAR. It is enlightening, entertaining and informative. Some of the reader comments may lean to the negative side, but that’s inevitable. I don’t agree with everything you print either, but I certainly appreciate the opportunity to evaluate for myself the various sides BAR presents. Best of all, I learn more than I knew before I started reading.
Larry Graves
Overland Park, Kansas
In Queries & Comments in the May/June 2006 issue, you asked why Britons drive on the left. It has nothing to do with the Romans, as your query suggests.
I grew up in England. This is what we were told at school: In the Middle Ages, maybe earlier, when roads were narrow and robbers or enemies might possibly be encountered, travelers outside of towns, on horseback, took to riding on the left so that the right hand (the sword hand for most people) faced oncoming riders, ready for self-defense if necessary.
This habit eventually evolved into a method of traffic control in cities and elsewhere. A similar idea is behind shaking hands with the right hand. Two sword hands clasped ensures safety.
Margaret Griffith-Jones
Ramona, California
It Wasn’t Called “Palestine”
I am concerned that a scholar like Maynard P. Maidman (“Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Meet Newton, Darwin and Wellhausen,” 32:03) should refer to the Land of Israel as “Palestine.” He states, in connection with the Merneptah Stele (1200 B.C.E.), “At the end of this long inscription, almost as an afterthought, the intrepid king informs us that he put an end to ‘Israel,’ a group located somewhere in Palestine, probably in the hill country of what would later be called ‘Samaria’ or ‘Judah.’” Later on he says, “Before the time of Joshua, the Bible tells us, Israel was not in Palestine.”
The country was only called “Palestina” by the Roman emperor Hadrian in 135 C.E. (well over 1,000 years after the Merneptah Stele) as a reaction to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. It had previously been called either “Canaan,” “Samaria,” “Judah” or “Israel,” but never “Palestina.”
John Corre
Jerusalem, Israel
He’s a Minimalist
I enjoyed Maynard Maidman’s interesting article on the historicity of the Biblical patriarchs. I had to chuckle, however, at Maidman’s claim that he was not a “Biblical minimalist,” despite his endorsement of Wellhausen’s conclusion that Moses did not write the Torah and his apparent belief that Abraham was not a real person.
Maidman’s defensiveness notwithstanding, his positions are inherently inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus, who repeatedly endorsed Mosaic authorship of the Torah and the existence of Abraham (see, for example, Mark 10:4–5 and 12:26). If, as Maidman implicitly asserts, Jesus was in error, then He was not divine and Christianity falls—quite a “minimizing” effect!
James Rice
Helena, Montana
Where Are Abraham’s Footprints?
Maynard P. Maidman tells us “regarding Abraham’s historicity: He may not have existed in body, but …”
But it is hard to find sandal footprints in the Mesopotamian sands. Mine disappeared in two days. Maidman is hard on [archaeologist William F.] Albright. It’s true that he didn’t find the mailbox or nameplate on Terah’s family home in Ur or in Haran, but their “land titles” record was poor!
Julius Wellhausen leaves us with the conclusion that someone cobbled together the Pentateuch with a “hero” named Abram. This forefather is so imperfect in the story that he tells all key people in the region about his wife Sarah: “She is my sister” (Genesis 20:2). His offspring had warts also. And the late editions did not fix these problems to make the genealogy better—the skeleton remained in the closet. Why?
Paul Craig
Toronto, Canada
Dear Mr. Donkey (in response to your “Archaeology as Peep Show,” May/June 2006):
If Professor Ron Tappy ever grants you permission to publish a photo of the Zayit stone’s inscription, count your blessings! Even his own Web site lacks a photo! I’ve found a half dozen shots of it on various other sites (representing half of its inscriptions).
In 2003 Tappy did not allow me to take any photos of their artifacts (excavated by his predecessors) for my own private use, even though fuzzy, low-resolution photos of them had already been published decades earlier. He, of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary’s Kelso Bible Lands Museum, was the only curator to ban my camera.
Kudos to the following who do not treat their treasures like peep shows: Bade Institute, Haverford College, McCormick Theological Seminary, Trinity Southwest University, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and others who either provided photos or invited me to visit and take as many pictures as I like.
Note to Professor Tappy: “Doth the donkey bray when he hath grass?” (Job 6:5).
G.M. Grena
Redondo Beach, California
Professor Tappy declined our offer to respond to Mr. Grena.—Ed.
“Engraved in Memory” by André Lemaire (May/June 2006) was great. Many people may say that they want to hear no more of the James ossuary “forgery.” I am not one of them, although this was not the focus of the article. I appreciate the link, especially when there is real information and understanding to be gleaned from these ossuaries.
It should be obvious that stylus and pattern were used for the rosette decoration on ossuaries, compared to the by-hand work of the inscription. Wouldn’t this also show the possibility of “premade” ossuaries and adding personal information only upon purchase?
Thank you for a great article showing the extent of diaspora Jewish communities before the great revolt against Rome—oh, and for more information about the James ossuary.
Brent Hoefling
Norwalk, Iowa
I was delighted to read the two articles on Hazor in the March/April issue (Sharon Zuckerman, “Where Is the Hazor Archive Buried?” and Doron Ben-Ami, “Mysterious Standing Stones”). Finally, the most important Biblical site in Israel is getting the public attention it deserves.
Having been involved with Hazor for nearly 50 years, the past 16 as director of the excavations, I would like to respond briefly to the argument that the Hazor archive that has so far eluded us is likely to be buried in a palace on the northern slope of the tell. According to Dr. Zuckerman, the archive is probably lying underground near a structure we call the Podium Complex (our Area M) that has not yet been fully excavated. I wholeheartedly concur with her hopes and will be delighted if she is right.
I am concerned here, however, with Zuckerman’s claim that the building we have been excavating for the last 10 years—a monumental structure located in the heart of the acropolis—that we call the “Hazor Palace” is not a palace at all, but a temple. Indeed, she refers to it as the “Royal Sanctuary,” as if the expedition agrees with her designation of the structure as a temple. I strongly object: Neither I nor other members of the Hazor permanent staff refer to it by that name.
Moreover, I still believe the structure is a palace.
The extremely close similarity, in fact almost identity, between the plan of the Hazor structure and the nucleus of the palace at contemporaneous Alalakh is crucial to the identification of the Hazor structure. Zuckerman stresses that the Hazor structure lacks all the auxiliary rooms present in the Alalakh palace. That is true, but the reason for this is that the Hazor palace is probably not the city’s administrative palace, which should be sought elsewhere, perhaps in the area Zuckerman suggests. However, the plan of both the Hazor structure and the Alalakh palace share the same main features: a large courtyard with basalt steps crowned by two large columns leading up to a portico that opens into the largest room of the entire structure, a staircase located on the left side of the portico, basalt orthostats lining the walls comprising a stone foundation and a mud-brick and timber superstructure. There is thus an exceptional affinity between the two structures.
Zuckerman calls our attention to many of these same features to support her claim that the administrative (royal) palace of Hazor lies on the northern slope of the tell (Area M). If these features demonstrate that that structure is a palace, why should they not also demonstrate that the structure in the center of the mound is a palace?
Zuckerman notes the presence of a raised podium in the courtyard of the Hazor structure in Area M. This, she correctly states, demonstrates a cultic function, yet she regards the complex as a whole as a palace. The fact is that cultic activity was practiced in palaces, perhaps daily, side by side with civic functions. Similarly with the structure on top of the mound: It may well be a palace, despite the indications of religious ritual activities in the structure.
Zuckerman notes the presence of “hundreds of large shallow bowls” in the Hazor structure. These bowls, she argues, “were probably serving vessels at public feasts held in the courtyard.” My response is that this is quite possibly true, but such activities are not inconsistent with the identification of the building as a palace. Cultic rituals are evidenced not only in temples, but also in palaces. Zuckerman herself notes this phenomenon: The entrance to the (as yet unexcavated) structure on the northern slope of the tell (where she hopes the archive will be found) is located next to the Podium Complex, which is clearly of a cultic nature. If such a cultic element on the slope of the tell is also consistent with the presence of a palace, a cultic installation is also consistent with the palace in the center of the acropolis.
A number of huge storage jars (pithoi) with a capacity of more than 26 gallons each were found in a small room in the portico of the Hazor palace. Several more were found near the “throne room.” Similarly in the palace at Alalakh. Similar pithoi have been found in palaces at Mari and in Crete. These pithoi are not characteristic of temples.
Finally, the tub-like installation behind the throne room of the ceremonial palace is clearly unsuited to a temple. Installations for ablutions, whether for ritual or daily use, are, however, known from several palaces, as at Alalakh.
Even if the structure proposed by Zuckerman turns out to be a palace and even if the archive, happily, is found there, that will not mean the structure in the center of the acropolis is a temple. It will only mean that we have two palaces at Hazor. Since the palace on the acropolis lacks all auxiliary rooms—an essential element of every administrative palace—this building should be identified as Hazor’s ceremonial palace. That is precisely how we have been referring to it. The building located on the northern slope—if it indeed turns out to be multi-roomed—will be Hazor’s administrative palace.
In short, I remain convinced that the monumental building in the center of the Hazor acropolis is a palace and not a temple.
Amnon Ben-Tor
the Hebrew University of jerusalem
Jerusalem, Israel
You can read more letters to the editor on our Web site at www.biblicalarchaeology.org/letters.
Israel Museum’s Magen Broshi considers farming at Qumran.
Norman Gottwald, author of The Tribes of Yahweh, addresses the political dynamic of ancient Israel’s emergence.
Victor Sasson gets one last swipe at Victor Hurowitz.
Haifa University’s Arthur Segal talks about the earthquake of 749 C.E.
Duke University’s Stephen Gorenson finds a reference to the Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Coin expert David Hendin explains why so many ancient coins have been found.
The Hebrew University’s Asher Kaufman notes Newton’s newly revealed papers.
Bar Ilan University’s Aren Maeir says a line drawing of the inscription is to be published soon.
Stefan Wimmer of Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität says some scholars don’t make finds public, but Aren Maeir is not one of them.
Readers write about why Brits drive on the left, how archaeology should be funded and much, much more.