Queries & Comments

006

Readers Suggest Imaginative Solutions to Mystery at Lachish

To the Editor:

Regarding the article, “Mystery Find at Lachish,” BAR 05:05, soliciting suggestions of BAR’s readers as to the identification of the “petrified Tootsie-Rolls:” if such distinguished company will entertain the guess of a layman, mine is this.

The clay rolls were test pieces, used to determine when the pottery baking kiln was at the proper temperature before the potter began firing his works. If so, it is reasonable that, after the rolls had served their purpose as “ancient oven thermometers,” the potter threw them away—probably outside the shop.

Children are prone to pick up such cast-off items, and discard them when their interest wanes. As a child, I did the same thing at a nearby clay mold toy factory. They threw broken wooden molds and pieces of clay out the factory door. Such childish scavenging may account for the wide distribution of the other pieces found in Lachish.

To the Editor:

In response to your question, “Can BAR readers identify puzzling clay objects?” in “Mystery Find at Lachish,” BAR 05:05, I would like to suggest a possibility.

The sculptor who works in clay generally rolls out his clay into pieces approximately as long and as thick as the hickeys you describe. The sculptor breaks off little pieces and applies them as required to his work in progress.

If these hickeys were indeed the working pieces of clay in the hands of a sculptor, they would never have been fired originally. But, you do report that a fire destroyed the city and these hickeys may have been fired in that conflagration.

To the Editor:

I read with interest your article entitled “Mystery Find at Lachish,” BAR 05:05. I have noted that although the “decorative cone” idea is mentioned there is no suggestion that the excavators might have considered the possibility that the clay hickeys could have been counters.

Denise Schmandt-Besserat (University of Texas at Austin) has investigated in depth the uses of clay in the ancient Near East and has published a number of articles presenting her hypothesis that clay counters were in use as far back as the ninth millennium B.C. and were used as “tokens” to keep track of the daily records of import and export. Each token might represent, let’s say, a jar of wine. 100 clay tokens kept on a shelf would represent the number of jars the winery has in stock. When a given number of jars were sold—say 35—then 35 counters are removed from the “stock shelf” and placed on the “sold shelf.”

Ms. Schmandt-Besserat has catalogued the different types of tokens found in ancient Near Eastern sites and they fall into one of the following categories: I. Spheres; II. Discs; III. Cones and Tetrahedrons; IV. Rods. The photograph and description you provide indicate that these clay hickeys might fall into her category IV.

Although Ms. Schmandt-Besserat believes that those tokens were the evolutionary origin of writing in Mesopotamia about 3500–3000 B.C., tradition dies hard in the Near East. Even after writing was invented and perhaps gradually supplanted the use of counters in the more advanced centers, tokens would still continue to be used particularly by those who could not afford to hire scribes to keep their records. They have been found in the second millennium site of Megiddo in the form of cones, while at the sixth millennium site of Tell Ramad in Syria, rods, discs, spheres, and cones have been found and in the same period at Jericho spheres and cones were found. Ms. Schmandt-Besserat suggests that since there is a greater concentration of these tokens in eastern Mesopotamia either “the tokens were more in demand in [eastern] Mesopotamia and Iran or that the compact clay archaeological layers of Syria make them especially difficult to find while they are very visible in the sandy fill of the Zagros.” (Syro-Mesopotamian Studies, vol. I, no. 2 (July 1977), p. 57.)

The rods found at Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria measure about 2 inches long—and about ½ to 1 inch in diameter. In other words the Lachish rods are the same thickness but about 2 inches longer; their description and concentration in a few locations only would strongly suggest the “token” interpretation.

It may be that, if the Lachish hickeys are counters, they are a local development of an already long-standing record-keeping 008tradition in the ancient Near East, and as such make a very valuable addition to the sparse representation of counters in Palestine and Syria.

To the Editor:

It occurs to me that the “hickeys” might well be counters used in teaching addition and subtraction, for instance: 2 red + 2 blue = 4; or if I have 2 hickeys and I give you the (2) red ones how many are left?

Perhaps if that idea doesn’t please you, consider that they might be counters used in a children’s game to keep score.

It’s obvious from their crudity that they had no artistic use.

I enjoyed this issue even more than usual. Many thanks for the excellent quality of the magazine.

To the Editor:

Regarding the clay “mysteries” at Lachish—is it possible they were used as counting devices, similar to an abacus? Four different colors could signify units, tens, hundreds and thousands. I know nothing of the evolution of mathematical calculating; this idea, however, seems feasible.

To the Editor:

I am a retired anthropologist of the Smithsonian Institution and when I read the description of the mystery objects from Lachish I laughed to myself, for I found similar shaped objects which were made of clay and others shaped from stone. When found they occurred either as individuals, in pairs, or in clusters, and some were found in association with two roundish stones. From the Indian (American) help, I found the answer to their purpose. These objects are part of a fertility cult; women and young girls wore them either around their necks or as part of their clothing to insure being able to reproduce. In a few instances similar objects were found in association with female skeletons. Perhaps those found at Lachish served a similar purpose.

Syrian Ambassador Thanks BAR for Fair Reporting

To the Editor:

I would like to thank you for the fair and accurate rendition of your interview with me appearing in the September/October 1979 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review (“Syrian Ambassador to U.S. Asks BAR to Print Ebla Letter Rejected by New York Times,” BAR 05:04).

Confused Names of Jerusalem’s Water Tunnels

To the Editor:

I guess Jerusalem is the most exciting spot in Biblical archaeology today—outside of the current Ebla interest. The article, “Digging in the City of David,” BAR 05:04, is a good appetizer of what to expect in the future when the reports are published on the excavations being done in Jerusalem.

As I often do, I looked through my books on Biblical archaeology for additional information concerning the articles that appear in BAR. When I looked up separate information on Hezekiah’s Tunnel and the Siloam Tunnel, I found that most of my sources either mentioned only one or used the two interchangeably. I feel that the article by Yigal Shiloh and Mendel Kaplan was very clear in giving the difference between the two tunnels. Why does there appear to be confusion in books on Biblical archaeology?

I did find both tunnels on a map in the second edition of the Oxford Bible Atlas (page 81) but there was no explanation. In it they are referred to as “Water shaft,” “Old Conduit,” and “Hezekiah’s Conduit.”

To the Editor:

In the article “Digging in the City of David,” BAR 05:04, by Yigal Shiloh and Mendel Kaplan, I have come across a problem which within my limited knowledge and source material, I have been unable to resolve. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

In the BAR article there are three water systems identified as follows Warren’s Shaft, Hezekiah’s Tunnel and Siloam Tunnel. My question concerns the latter two water systems. Dr. Merrill F. Unger in Archaeology and the Old Testament, 1979 printing, p. 271–275, discusses all three water systems at length, but in his discussion he varies from the BAR article in the identification of the latter two systems. He identifies the tunnel called Hezekiah’s Tunnel in the BAR article, as the Siloam Tunnel and although he describes the tunnel called, in BAR, the Siloam Tunnel, he does not give it an identifying name. Dame Kathleen Kenyon, in The Bible and Recent Archaeology, 1978, p. 80, also discusses a tunnel attributed to being built on Hezekiah’s orders and she also identifies this tunnel as the Siloam Tunnel. My question is what is the proper identifying name of the tunnel built by Hezekiah and what is the proper identifying name of the water system attributed to King Solomon?

It is confusing. The terminology has not been standardized. Different writers use different names for the same tunnel. They also use the same name for different tunnels. Usually a map or plan accompanies the discussion and should help the reader identify more accurately which tunnel the writer is referring to by what name.

Another source of confusion is that two of the tunnels overlap at the northern end of Hezekiah’s tunnel—Hezekiah used part of the Jebusite tunnel for his own water system.

The three water systems are as follows:

1. Hezekiah’s tunnel runs under the City of David in an S-shape from the Gihon Spring 009to the Pool of Siloam (as the Pool presently exists; the Pool of Siloam may have been located elsewhere at other times in history).

2. The Jebusite water system consists of a series of shafts and tunnels at the northern end of Hezekiah’s tunnel. Hezekiah’s tunnel makes use of the Jebusite tunnel for the first 65 feet, and this, as noted, is sometimes a source of confusion. The vertical shaft of the Jebusite water system was first explored in 1867 by then, Captain, Charles Warren of the British Palestine Exploration Fund, so this shaft is called Warren’s Shaft as often as the Jebusite shaft. Many scholars prefer not to use the term Jebusite with respect to this water system or its shaft, because there is no very clear proof that it in fact dates to the pre-Israelite period. All that is known for sure is that it predates Hezekiah’s Tunnel. Unfortunately, no other name for this water system as a whole exists, so we are left with the designation “Jebusite.”

3. The third water system also begins at the Gihon Spring on the eastern side of the City of David. Instead of going under the city to the western side, as does Hezekiah’s tunnel, his third water system runs south, down the eastern side of the city, sometimes through tunnels and sometimes above ground. This is the the least well-known water system and has no commonly used name. In their BAR article, Yigal Shiloh and Mendel Kaplan called this the Siloam tunnel and clearly identified it, but this can lead to confusion with Hezekiah’s tunnel, as our readers noted.

Other writers call this third tunnel system the Solomonic tunnel or Solomonic channel, but many scholars reject this terminology because the attribution to the Solomonic period has not been established with certainty. All that is known is that this third water system also pre-dates Hezekiah’s tunnel, the latter dating to the late eighth century B.C.

In 1911, Father Louis-Hugues Vincent of the École Biblique published his classic volume Underground Jerusalem in which he gave numbers to each of the tunnels and channels. Unfortunately, his number system did not catch on, so we must continue to live with the confusion.

Perhaps a commission for naming Jerusalem’s ancient water channels should be appointed, just as street-naming commissions are appointed in cities throughout the world.—Ed.

010

Consumer Activist Rates Back Issues of BAR

To the Editor:

I recently purchased volumes I–IV of BAR which are the back issues from 1975–1978. Although I do not regret the purchase, some of your readers who are deliberating on the purchase of back issues may appreciate a few observations.

1) BAR was published quarterly from 1975–78 (four issues per annual volume rather than the current, bi-monthly six per year).

2) BAR was limited to black-and-white diagrams and pictures through 1976 (1977 introduced color pictures; 1978 began the more extensive color photography utilizing the cover).

3) BAR layout size began at 6 7/8” × 9 ¾” in 1975–June 1976 (6 7/8; ” × 10” September 1976–77; 8 ½ × 11” 1978–79).

4) BAR issues were much shorter originally (March 1975, 16 pages, March 1976, 44 pages; March 1977, 52 pages; March 1978, 54 pages; January/February 1979, 50 pages).

5) BAR presented articles by the BAR staff (instead of articles by original authors) until March 1976.

The best deal is Volume IV (1978) which was published at the current standards with a cover price of $3.95 per issue. Some BAR readers may prefer to survey 1975–77 publications in a local library for greater selectivity.

The tremendous rate of improvement in BAR since 1975 is primarily to the advantage of BAR readers and not to the editorial staff which exists on a non-profit basis.

011

Antiquity of Rabbinic Interpretation Established by Samaria Papyrus Hundreds of Years Earlier

To the Editor:

Your excellent issue of March, 1978 has belatedly come to my attention. I was fascinated by the two articles on the Samaria Papyri. What intrigued me about the Reports was the mention, in both articles, of a document date “On the twentieth day of Adar, year 2 (the same being) the accession year of Darius the King, in the Province of Samaria.” This formulation is in complete accord with the Rabbinic Contract Law as recorded in the Tosephta, Baba Bathra XI, 1 and in Babli, Baba Bathra 164 a, b, legislating “In a simple contract, the King’s first year is counted as year I, the second year as year II; in the “tied-up” contract however, the King’s first year is counted as year II, the second year is counted as year III.” The reason given in the Talmud for this peculiarity in the “tied-up Contract,” (Get mequshar) is that the Jewish law provides for a gesture of respect for the young King, attributing to him a little bit extra tenure in office.

I used the same Rabbinic rule to correct Milik’s mistake in dating Murabba’at document number 18 which is dated in the second year of Nero, a year which the document identifies as a Shemittah year. Since Nero ascended to the throne on October 13, year 54, Milik found a discrepancy as against the nearest Shemittah^a year falling into the year 54/55—since Milik assumed that year II of Nero was the year 55/56. However, the Rabbinic rule proves that “year II” in the Contract was really Nero’s first year—54/55, which perfectly coincides with the traditional dating of the Shemittah year, since the document in question is of the “tied-up” variety.

It is now fascinating to find that this Rabbinic peculiarity was already practiced in Samaria in the year 335 BCE, since Samaria Papyrus I clearly spells out that year 2 equals the accession year, or first year of the King!

This observation proves: (1) That Jewish Law prevailed in Samaria even under Governor Sanballat, and (2) That the oral Rabbinic Law is now attested in new sources five centuries before its being recorded in the Mishnah. It also attests to the remarkable accuracy and tenacity of Jewish legal tradition. After all, some legal terms used in Jewish legal documents at Elephantine in the fifth century BCE are exactly the same as found in the Talmud a thousand years later.

My study of the Murabba’at 18 document appeared in Revue de Qumran, number 13, January 1963: “Studies in the Murabba’at and Nahal Hever Documents.”

013

Superman’s Kryptonian Origins

To the Editor:

I was very pleased that BAR published the fine scholarly article on Superman’s Semitic origins (“The Hebrew Origins of Superman,” BAR 05:03). Concurrent and independent research has led me to similar conclusions. In particular, I have examined the original names of Superman and his father and have come to rather startling conclusions. The Kryptonian names for Superman (Kal-El) and his father (Jor-El) are both significant in that they contain obvious references to the Semitic God EL. I submit that the origin of Kal-El derives from the Hebrew root KOL, meaning voice, and so Kal-El means “voice of G-d,” that is a messenger of G-d. This is an extension of grower’s thesis that Superman was a scribe, and fits in well with the fact that Jor-El sent his son as a messenger to Earth. The name Jor-Ell comes from the root YRE (yod-resh-aleph) meaning to fear. His name translates to “fear of G-d,” a fitting epithet for the one Kryptonian who feared G-d’s imminent destruction of his home planet (a recurring Biblical theme). Lastly, as to the name Krypton itself, I submit that originally the name was quite different, but was lost in antiquity. The current name quite possibly stems from the root KR’E (koph-resh-ayin) meaning to rend or tear. The planet’s current name is a compression of the words Kara pitom meaning to tear apart suddenly, a graphic remembrance of the planet’s untimely end.

I am very anxious to hear of any more research in this vital area.

It may be advisable to tell readers who are not familiar with Superman’s putative ancestors that the foregoing letter is written tongue-in-cheek.—Ed.

Kudos for BAR

To the Editor:

The Biblical Archaeology Review has become a fabulous publication! It is very helpful and beautifully done.

To the Editor:

I have been living in Africa for the last several years and just returned to the United States last month. One of the greatest discoveries that I have made since returning home is your magazine.

One of the churches that was supporting my work in Africa has raised money for me to spend on the school where I was teaching. I would like to order back issues, binders, etc. for the library there (in Liberia, West Africa).

014

To the Editor:

The other day I received my first copy of BAR, and, I read it all in one sitting. I am impressed with the variety of articles and, the quality of the periodical.

To the Editor:

According to a recent poll by BAR, I find myself in the company of “down-to-earth” intellectuals. Never mind that I’m undoubtedly in the lower twenty percentile—I’ll take it! It is such fun to whet my mind with the findings (sometimes unfounded!) of these famous men warring with words. As one other housewife wrote a while back: “Everything in my house comes to a screeching halt when my BAR issue arrives in the mail … ”

To the Editor:

BAR’s new format is excellent. I’m especially enjoying the fine photography. As a former Hesi Expedition volunteer (Summer, 1975), it’s exciting to see such good pictures of the various excavations. They make me wish I could go over again for another season!

To the Editor:

Am enjoying your magazine very much. Please extend my thanks to Avinoam Danin for his splendid article on the galgal (“Plants as Biblical Metaphors,” BAR 05:03). He may be interested in knowing that the New International Version translates it “tumbleweed” in both passages. Thanks from an 82 year old Bible scholar who is never too old to learn.

Also thanks to James Brower for his very keen spoof on Superman (“The Hebrew Origins of Superman,” BAR 05:03). It was rich.

To the Editor:

Your bonus gift last year of Hershel Shanks’ City of David was one of the most exciting books I have read in a long time. I spent a month at St. George’s College in 1977 and could easily relate to his descriptions of Jerusalem and surrounding territory. Reading the book was like being in Jerusalem again.

Readers Suggest Imaginative Solutions to Mystery at Lachish

To the Editor: