Queries & Comments

008

Repatriation

Money and Power Prevaild Power Prevail

Your interview with Zahi Hawass (“Egypt’s Chief Archaeologist Defends His Rights (and Wrongs),” BAR 37:03) was both interesting and thought-provoking.

I find it absolutely appalling that the museums in Europe and England still have the “Big Six” artifacts that Dr. Hawass wants back. Rachel Hallote’s pallid attempt to justify this (Archaeological Views: “A Case Against Repatriation of Archaeological Artifacts,” BAR 37:03) totally misses the point. These artifacts belong to the “land” from whence they came and to the people who inhabit that land. It is their tradition; and these artifacts are part of their tradition. The only reason they were taken is because the takers had the money and the power to do so, plain and simple.

Dispelling Half-Truths (and Ransoming Kidnap Victims)

Thank you for Rachel Hallote’s column on archaeology and repatriation (“Case Against the Repatriation of Archaeological Artifacts,” BAR 37:03). She does a nice job of dispelling common half-truths and misunderstandings. Most of the finds were moved to museums with the backing (or at least acquiescence) of the sovereign authorities. Those authorities mostly didn’t care about the past and were often corrupt, but those were the best arrangements available at the time. The myth of “stolen history” will continue to be repeated, but at least more people are speaking out against it.

Thanks also for your continued efforts to end the hypocritical hysteria about the antiquities market. Governments should enforce laws against looting, as they do against kidnapping. But if you had the opportunity to get a kidnap victim back, wouldn’t you?

The West Revived Ancient Egyptian Culture

I am somewhat offended by the suggestion that Western countries are unfairly keeping ancient Egyptian artifacts. Do any of the critics stop to realize that it was the West that spent a fortune in time and money rediscovering, excavating and reviving the history of this ancient culture?

Return the Siloam Inscription

I’m a few weeks away from completing my coursework for the M.A. in Archaeology at the Hebrew University. I just read Rachel Hallote’s column “A Case Against the Repatriation of Archaeological Artifacts.” As a Biblical-period archaeologist, many times I’ve wished I could see the Siloam Inscription here in Jerusalem in its original context [instead of Istanbul].^a Why? Well … this is where it was first carved into the rock of Hezekiah’s Tunnel. For me to see it here in Jerusalem would be as close to traveling back in time as I can imagine.

There are two levels on which we experience an inscription: On one hand, the conscious data of our senses; on the other hand, the intuitive. While analysis of the inscription can be done 009 010 anywhere in the world, experiencing the intuitive connection between an artifact and the geographical context where it was found provides additional data to the scholar and an authentic experience of the artifact to tourists. One might even find something in the sights, sounds (and smells?) of the society and culture that first created it, if their descendants live in or have returned to the region.

It is a by-product of colonial thought that says conquest of an artifact determines its rightful home, in the same way that the victors in a military conquest have traditionally determined the borders of a country—an issue in the news every day here in Jerusalem. But I think we are living in a post-colonial world with borders disappearing. Nevertheless, the human desire persists to find one’s national, ethnic, religious or cultural identity. Placing artifacts into their original contexts provides the opportunity to experience one’s own cultural history where it happened, as well as for all others to get an authentic taste of ancient civilizations in the geographic context where they once existed.

Queries

Writing God’s Name

You report that the jars from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud (Hershel Shanks, “Egypt’s Chief Archaeologist Defends His Rights (and Wrongs),” BAR 37:03) are inscribed “Yahweh and his Asherah.” Are you sure? The reason I’m asking is it’s been my understanding that in ancient times God’s name [Yahweh] could not be inscribed on anything; therefore scribes would write “lord” instead of “Yahweh.”

Gary A. Rendsburg, Blanche and Irving Laurie Chair in Jewish History at Rutgers University, responds:

A number of ancient Hebrew inscriptions include the word YHWH, written with the four Hebrew letters yod-he-waw-he (with a reconstructed pronunciation Yahweh). These include the two silver amulets from Ketef Hinnom in Jerusalem,^b the Lachish letters^c and the Arad letters.^d Inscriptions from both Khirbet el-Qom in southern Judah and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud^e in the Sinai famously include the expression “Yahweh and his Asherah,” with the name of the God of Israel again spelled with these four letters. In addition, the Mesha Stele written in Moabite refers 011 to YHWH.^f Clearly the divine name was inscribed during the Biblical period.

By late Biblical times or in post-Biblical times, the precise extent of the Third Commandment’s prohibition of the misuse of the name YHWH (many English translations render this commandment, “Do not take the name of the LORD in vain”) was apparently no longer clear. The tradition thus arose not to pronounce the divine name aloud, thereby assuring compliance with the law, regardless of the exact prohibition. Hence, despite the fact that the name YHWH is written in a text (such as a Biblical book), when reading aloud (and all reading in antiquity was done aloud) Jews substituted the word Adonai (“Lord” or more literally, “my Lord”).

When copying Biblical texts, as at Qumran for example, Jewish scribes continued to write YHWH with its four Hebrew letters yod-he-waw-he. Indeed, this practice continues to the present day among Jews: When writing sacred texts such as the Torah or the Book of Esther in scroll form (both of which are used in synagogue liturgy) and when printing the Bible in book form (or in electronic form) the word is written out as YHWH, but is read aloud another way, as Adonai.

Did Herod Build Third Temple?

You state that “In the Second Temple period (the time of Jesus), the Temple built by Herod the Great dominated the Temple Mount” (“Revolt Coins Minted on Temple Mount,” BAR 37:02).

Fifty or 60 years ago, in at least some Catholic circles, the Temple built by Herod was called the Third Temple, but that no longer seems to be politically correct. Yet it seems agreed that Herod completely rebuilt the Second Temple erected by the returnees from the Babylonian Exile in the fifth century B.C.E. So why is Herod’s effort not called the Third Temple?

Shaye Cohen, Director of the Center for Jewish Studies and Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard University’s Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations responds:

Mr. Hubka asks a fair question.

The issue is not one of political correctness, but perception and memory. During its long history, from about 516 B.C.E. (Ezra 6:15), when it was built, until its destruction by the Romans in 70 C.E., the Second Temple underwent various vicissitudes. When Jerusalem was captured by the Seleucids from the Ptolemies in about 200 B.C.E., the Temple was damaged severely in the fighting (Ben Sira 50:1). The Seleucids plundered the Temple several times and must have damaged it in the course of the religious persecution of the 160s B.C.E. The Hasmoneans had not only to purify the Temple but also to restore it. When Jerusalem was conquered anew by the Romans in 63 B.C.E., it was plundered 012 yet again and, we may safely assume, damaged yet again. Hence, when Herod the Great set about rebuilding the Temple in the 20s B.C.E., it was not the original Second Temple that he was rebuilding, but a building that had been damaged and rebuilt any number of times.

So why do we keep calling it “the Second Temple”? Because our ancient sources do so. The prophet Haggai speaks of a former temple and a later temple (Haggai 2:9). Josephus speaks of two temples, as do the ancient rabbis. And, as far as I recall, ancient Christian literature, too, acknowledges only two temples, not more. So the Second Temple resembles the proverbial antique watch, whose every component has been fixed or replaced over the decades but which nevertheless is fondly recalled as grandfather’s. As the centuries went by the Second Temple underwent numerous repairs and reconstructions, but it is still remembered, and has been so since antiquity, as the Second Temple.

Kudei (Plural of Kudos)

Praising, Not Burying, Hershel

I am writing to praise Hershel Shanks, not to bury him. Having taught scholarly Bible for several decades in Methodist church Sunday school, I (and the class) have come to appreciate the many articles that I can pull from my extensive collection of BAR and Bible Review to enhance our learning.

Loves Bible Cartoons

I have no worries that you make editorial decisions based on the number of letters received, but I do get a bit nervous when I see the occasional rant against some part of Carlton Stoiber’s generally hilarious cartoons (Q&C: “Catholic, as Well as an Orthodox Jew, Offended” and “Cartoon Captions in Bad Taste,” BAR 36:04). So, I figure I should make sure you know there’s at least one person out here who loves his funny drawings and his great sense of humor. Keep that talented pen at work: It’s one of the magazine’s best features!

Potpourri

The Lion and the Flea

60 Minutes deserves your castigation. Your “flea biting the lion” analogy (First Person, BAR 37:03) reminded me of another Hershel analogy of “a donkey braying in the night” (May/June 2006). The First Person column is always potent, even omnipotent.

066

Close-Minded Fanatics?

I began subscribing to BAR several years ago after I read a copy of the magazine in, of all places, a tire and muffler shop. Not belonging to any organized religion, I was a little skeptical when I first flipped through the pages, but soon realized that BAR presents fascinating archaeological information that a thinking person can relate to either from an areligious or a religious perspective, depending on their individual proclivity. Occasionally, however, a letter from a disgruntled reader is published (such as the letter from a pastor titled “Listen to the Voice of God” in the May/June 2011 issue), stating that because of something in the magazine they are ending their subscription. Well, that’s certainly their privilege, and good for BAR for publishing letters from readers whose sensibilities have been offended, but what a sad commentary on just how extremely close-minded fanatics can be.

Experiencing the Primary Sources

BAR keeps alive my feeling as a curious researching kid and keeps me sane when I need to take a break from the natural sciences and engineering. The direct experience with primary sources, like manuscripts and inscriptions (many of which are inaccessible to most people), is the best part of BAR. It helps me see what archaeologists see and allows me to derive my own independent, freethinking conclusions aside from the commentaries by the authors of the articles.

Nasser David Khalili

Please Hone Social Skills

For the third time I have subscribed to BAR, but each time I fail to renew because I’m turned off by the catty infighting in your pages. Your approach to it is so bitchy—with Hershel Shanks gaily leading the way. You’re surprised that Khalili doesn’t return your phone calls (Strata: “Collector Withholds Inscriptions,” BAR 37:03)? Why would anyone want to subject themselves to your interview approach, which is heavy-handed, and at times down-right libelous. You guys need to crawl out of your excavation holes and learn some social skills.

Correction: Trainanos Gagos Was a Scholar

You state that Nasser David Khalili acquired the Bactrian inscriptions from London antiquities dealers, “especially the late Trianos Gagos.” This must be a mistake: Trainanos (not Trianos) Gagos was a professor of classics and curator of papyrology at the University of Michigan, and a dear friend until his death (at age 49) one year ago. While he was involved in the publication of the new papyri from Petra, he was in no way an antiquities dealer.

Correction

We deeply regret that Professor Menahem Haran’s name appeared in a list of recently departed Israeli Bible scholars in a book review in our July/August issue (p. 67). William W. Hallo, who says he “inadvertently, inexplicably and inexcusably” included him in the list, stands by his characterization of Professor Haran (who is very much alive) as one of the giants of his field. To one hundred and twenty!

Repatriation