Queries & Comments

017

BAR Reader Makes Shrewd Observation

To the Editor:

In your article on the Philistine temple (“Philistine Temple Discovered Within Tel Aviv City Limits,” BAR 01:02), you state that there is no evidence that a statue of a god stood on the platform or bama toward which worship was directed. You print a picture of the platform which looks like there is a pedestal on it which would have been just right for the statue of a Philistine god. Is that possible?

I enjoy your magazine very much. You are quite right that there is no other magazine like it.

Amihai Mazar replies:

The plastered platform which was discovered in the Philistine temple at Qasile probably did serve as a base for a statue of a god. However, the platform was found disturbed by a late Byzantine structure and therefore its original shape cannot be ascertained from the photograph.

The BAR’s Discussion of Miss Kenyon

To the Editor:

I was quite upset upon reading your article, “Kathleen Kenyon’s Anti-Zionist Politics—Does It Affect Her Work?” BAR 01:03. You (and I) being fervent Zionists is no justification for such derogatory article, nor, according to your announced intentions for the magazine, is the BAR the place for it. I also find it peculiar that after beginning the article with such an uncomplimentary title, you go on to qualify almost every statement you make to back up your premise that Miss Kenyon’s scientific conclusions are tainted by her political beliefs. The points you brought up are also, for the most part, trivial.

The contention between Kenyon and the Israeli archaeological community appears to me to be based on her criticism of Israeli excavation techniques. It is unfortunate that when one thinks of current excavations in Israel the Temple Mount most often comes to mind. Here, I feel her criticisms are entirely warranted. It has long troubled me the hurried way in which these excavations were, and are, being conducted and the monopoly which one school of archaeological thought has in their conduct. During the period that I participated in the excavations at the southern and western walls, techniques were often careless and hurried. Welfare recipients and students with “protexia” and without the least reverence for the task they were undertaking formed the majority of the crews and Mazar was rarely present. When he was, it was often as tour guide for a U.J.A. group or other V.I.P.’s. Herodian ashlars of the southern wall which lay in disarray were quickly split with chisel and sledge without even a cursory examination in a rush to reach Herodian street level. I would slightly modify Yadin’s assessment of Mazar’s excavations to read “the most extensive and rapid archaeological enterprise Jerusalem has ever witnessed.”

There is, in Israel, a need to justify the present on the basis of the past and into which the local archaeological community has been caught up. Though I, myself, am thrilled with discoveries confirming the ancient roots of our contemporary practices of Judaism and claim to the Land of Israel, this must be a spin-off and not a major thrust of archaeology, as it has unfortunately become. Perhaps this too bothers Miss Kenyon. Articles like yours will only further the politicization of archaeology and, I think, will also offend the majority of your not-so-fervently-zionist subscribers.

To the Editor:

The issues of the Biblical Archaeology 018Review have been provocative and interesting for both the layman and the scholar. New points of view are always welcome, especially if they are based on exact scholarly work. Heaven only knows, we have made many wrong interpretations in the past with the very best of intentions. Even Nelson Glueck, as well as Albright were guilty of misinterpretation. But our science could never prosper if mistakes were not made. The history of science is replete with errors made by otherwise distinguished scientists. But we must not condemn utterly such dedicated scholars to the halls of Hell. In the light of their knowledge, their know-how, their instruments, they did the best they could and we should honor their memories as pioneers, yet also as human beings capable of making such errors. I applaud your articles because you have pointed out such errors of interpretation in Glueck’s work, in Albright, and in Kathleen Kenyon. But in all fairness, a living scholar should be permitted to respond to your criticism. Invite Kathleen Kenyon to make her response and then print it. We like to see both sides of the story.

On September 4, 1975, we sent Miss Kenyon a copy of the September BAR and a letter which stated: “Our pages are open, and we shall be glad to publish any response you, or someone else on your behalf, may wish to make.” As of this writing, we have received no reply from Miss Kenyon. However, this may be due to slow mail service. In the next issue, we shall publish Miss Kenyon’s response—if we receive it.—Ed.

A BAR Binder

To the Editor:

3000 subscribers for the charter issue of the BAR! That’s what’s called a success story I’d say. I’ll wager that all 3000 of us would like a portfolio or cover to keep all of our issues of the BAR together.

See page 21.—Ed.

Pronouncing Archaeologists’ Names

To the Editor:

Could you make one more concession to your non-specialist readers and indicate the proper pronunciation of proper names, especially of Israeli archaeologists? I have read several books, technical and nontechnical, by Yigael Yadin, and have no idea how to pronounce it. Is there a standard pronunciation for modern Israeli names?

Yigael Yadin is Yig-ull’ Ya-deen’; Benjamin Mazar is pronounced as it looks: Benjamin Ma-zar’ (rhymes with jar); Yohanan Aharoni is Yoch’-a-nan (“ch” as in German “ich”) A-ha-ro’-ni, Magen Broshi emphasizes the first syllable of his last name; Nachman Avigad is Nach’-man A’-vi-gad, with a secondary accent on the last syllable. The accents are the same in Ruth Amiran’s last name as in Avigad; Avraham Biran accents the last syllable of his last name, as does Dan Barag. David Ussishkin is a tongue twister for many Americans: It is pronounced as it looks, except that the first syllable rhymes with “too” and the accent is on the second syllable. E. L. Sukenik is Soo-kay’-nik.—Ed.

Ten Lost Tribes

To the Editor:

I very much appreciated the September BAR, especially the article “Part of the Ten Lost Tribes Located,” BAR 01:03. There are many Biblical references in both the Old and New Testaments which substantiate the fact that there were those of the Northern Kingdom who went to the Southern Kingdom after the Northern Kingdom fell. It is good to read of archaeological support for this Northern “migration” to Jerusalem and its environs.

BAR Reader Makes Shrewd Observation
To the Editor: