Queries & Comments

016

Moral Outrage at Siebenbergs’ “Looting”; BAR Excoriated

To the Editor:

With shock and dismay I read in the pages of BAR the recent article (“Jerusalem Couple Excavates Under Their Newly Built Home In Search of Their Roots,” BAR 08:02, by Leroy Aarons and Goldie Feinsilver on the “private excavation” (read looting and destruction) by Mr. and Mrs. Theo Siebenberg of a minor site in Jerusalem. Furthermore, we are told that this “excavation” was actually licensed by the Israel Department of Antiquities! By some major distortion of the very values and ethics that BAR professes, the journal provides a forum for this travesty by romanticizing both the “excavation” and the motives of the Siebenbergs. No amount of emotion evoked by the memories of the Holocaust, the struggle for Israel’s independence or the obsessive search by the Siebenbergs to establish their roots can justify what they are doing in Jerusalem. Does this now mean that if you have enough money and are persistent enough one can conduct a private excavation on private property? The alleged collusion of the Department of Antiquities and the highly positive publicity afforded to the Siebenbergs by BAR on whose editorial board so many prominent archaeologists sit simply adds insult to injury. As an archaeologist I cannot help but to voice my strong condemnation of what the Siebenbergs have done and the service BAR has provided as a vehicle to laud their “accomplishments”. Surely the high moral tone often evoked by this journal is more than a bit tarnished by this presentation in its pages.

We have here a case of a couple who, without proper training, supervision, or even scholarly credentials, have systematically and openly destroyed a small portion of ancient Jerusalem for their own personal glorification and satisfaction. In doing so they have squandered nearly two million dollars in one of the most vain attempts I have ever read of in the annals of archaeological history.

BAR, which often highlights the abuses of professional archaeologists and which is aware of the great difficulty to raise funds to help preserve and restore excavated sites for the public and for posterity, can only be described as hypocritical by lauding this travesty. What misplaced vanity the Siebenbergs display! When one considers the current plight of archaeology today in Israel and what the Siebenbergs might have done with their fortune we can then realize the dimensions of this tragedy. How many important sites could they have supported for excavation; how many unpublished excavation reports could they have sent to press; how many young scholars could they have saved by endowing positions at universities; and how many museum budgets in Israel could they have augmented with their generosity? Can anyone imagine what a two million dollar endowment for the Israel Exploration Society might mean for archaeology in Israel? Surely any, or even all of these, would have been a much more fitting monument to the Siebenbergs’ search for their roots. No amount of distortion in BAR nor the construction of a unique but entirely unnecessary museum under their home can reverse the harm caused by the Siebenbergs’ misplaced motives. While the damage to ancient Jerusalem may be minimal, the loss of the potential benefits that their mis-spent fortune might have meant to archaeology in Israel is indeed a terrible tragedy.

Answers to Archaeological Stumpers

To the Editor:

Here are the answers to your “Archaeological Stumpers,” BAR 08:02:

1.

Instrument to pull on wool or flax yarns to straighten them.

2.

A bronze razor.

3.

A garment holder, similar to a cuff link, but larger garment, like cloak and sash.

To the Editor:

1. The “belt buckle” might be a fixture the two points of which could have been driven into the mud or the cement of a wall for holding something like a spear, a dagger, or such like, much like we do with similar fixtures that are affixed to peg boards.

2. The bronze pin might be a metal bit of jewelry to slide into the stitched loop of a toga or a scarf-like piece of dress which was flung over the shoulder and used to hold that item of clothing in place.

3. The notched fan, because they were found in tombs, might have been used in a funerary display to hold flowers in position much like we do today to keep 017tulips and daffodils erect in our potted plants.

Thanks for the privilege of commenting.

My appreciation for the articles that are appearing in BAR.

To the Editor:

I think the double S is a hair clamp. Have someone with long hair use your SS to hold a braid or a twist of hair up the back of her head. It is a decorative clamp; then with hairpins the hair can be arranged in a chignon or other style.

Perhaps the fans are decorative hairpins with the slits planned to hold ribbons or flowers.

To the Editor:

The upper edge of the fan-shaped objects made of bronze has corroded into a jagged edge, while other edges are intact. This indicates it was so thin that it fell off under corrosion. Obviously, these are a rare form of knife.

This exact form of knife is still in use among the Eskimos (or Inuit, to use the name they call themselves). Their name for this form of knife is ulu. The tong is used to mount a handle of bone or wood. You can find a picture of this knife in use, on page 87 of the book The World of the American Indian, which is published by the National Geographic Society.

I can only guess the reason these bronze knives had a notch in the cutting edge, since the ulu has a straight edge. Possibly the knife was used in some kind of rocking motion instead of a stroke, and the notch served as an anchor to make the cutting edge dig in. The fact that these bronze tools still had wool and vegetable fibres clinging to them indicates they were used to skin out a sheep, and cut up other food.

To the Editor:

I was immediately struck by the similarity of the “notched fans” with a tool that is still being used by the Eskimos of my country. The Eskimos use this tool to skin seals and walruses and also to cut meat. A person can become quite adept with it.

It could also be used in the preparation of cloth (cutting threads—shaving the rough wool) and also in the preparation of everyday items such as baskets (cutting plant strips and ends).

To the Editor:

The three “notched fans or ovals” are tools, or more specifically, “hereb,” which include the sword, knife or any sharp cutter. A wooden handle was attached to the tong. The instrument might have been used as cutters in the manufacture of papyri. Certainly, such cutters would have been used in the cutting of the papyrus plant.

To the Editor:

As for the double S, please consider Ezekiel 40:43 where “shephatayim” is translated “double hooks” the The Inter-Linear Bible, Baker Book House (one-volume edition), page 671. This appears to fit the context and to be “fleshhooks” for the sacrificial meat. The shape of the object lends itself to this possibility: The flattened “U” shape could have been put down into a slot made specifically to accommodate it, providing a secure hold. The arches above the “U” would fit over the edge of the board in which the slot was carved. Flesh for sacrifice (some of which consisted of small pieces) could then be hung thereon.

Here is a possible way the hooks could have looked, in position:

To the Editor:

The “belt buckle” is similar to what we find today in packaged fowl (turkeys and chickens). The “buckle” holds together the legs of the fowl to compact it in a small package. I think the “buckle” was used to hold together the limbs of an animal (perhaps sacrificial) to facilitate handling and/or transportation.

The bronze pin was a bit for a horse or other “work” animal. A rope or leather thong formed a kind of rein kept in place by the “caps.” Teeth marks may be discernible on the pin.

The fan-shaped notched ovals may have been used to remove veins and arteries from “clean” animals intended for consumption as food, since the blood in the vessels of a “clean” animal was not to be utilized as food by the ancient Hebrews. The ovals were sharpened knives to remove the flesh from the vessels (even from muscle) which were scraped in the notch.

Does BAR Weaken Faith or Strengthen It?

To the Editor:

Sorry to say but I would like to cancel my subscription. I feel that the people who write your articles try too hard to find fault in the Scriptures. It may not hurt others to have an open mind concerning the ways that God accomplished certain things, but as for me I find my faith and trust wavering to try to believe a man’s opinion of proof rather than that of the Holy scriptures.

Thank you for some insights though.

To the Editor:

Let me commend you on the beauty and quality of the Biblical Archaeology Review. It is 062certainly as inspiring as it is informative, as filled with precious gems of “wisdom of the heart” as with funds of intellectual knowledge. The magazine is a “work of art”: beautifully printed, exquisitely laid out, and edited with so much care and craftsmanship. It has certainly led me to a deeper love and understanding not only for the Book of Life, but for its Author. …

May He bless you in all your work and keep you in all your ways. …

Critical of BAR Authors’ Use of Biblical Text to Reconstruct Israelite Settlement in Canaan

To the Editor:

Professor Yadin’s plea for open-mindedness about the manner of the conquest of Canaan is well taken and should he well heeded by all scholars and interested observers (“Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?” BAR 08:02). However, more should be said about the assessment of contradictory evidence. Professor Yadin said, “On the other hand, where the archaeological evidence bluntly contradicts the Biblical narrative—as it sometimes does—we should examine the possibility that that particular chapter in the Bible is either etiological, a later interpolation, or an editor’s misunderstanding.” These are good possibilities but they do not cover all of the solutions to conflicting evidence. Let me suggest two more. (1) Perhaps the archaeological evidence has been misinterpreted. The possibility for such ought to be clear from the current running controversies in BAR (the Exodus and the conquest). I fail to understand why the Bible (or a supposed editor) must always be the culprit in this type of problem. Archaeological scholars have made mistakes in the past and will make more in the future. It is the worst kind of dogmatism (and perhaps arrogance) for the scholar to assume that what he finds at a site must convey the truth and the Biblical record must have been wrong.

One of the easiest ways to misinterpret evidence is to lack some pieces to a puzzle. The science of archaeology is particularly subject to such deficiencies. As further digging is done, as more reports are written, we may come up with satisfactory answers to the apparent contradictions. Of course, new evidence might just as easily confirm a contradiction as clear it up, but the archaeologist cannot become so dogmatic that he allows the possibility of missing evidence to always fall on the side of the contradiction. Let us all keep an open mind.

(2) The second possible solution to contradictory evidence lies in differences in point of view. Two people may see a crime committed from two different angles. Both may give absolutely accurate testimony of what they saw and yet give conflicting stories. I believe that the Bible writers recorded events that they saw as they saw them. (Being a believer in the plenary verbal inspiration of the scriptures, I also believe the Bible writers were protected from inserting any errors into their accounts). A contemporary with a Biblical writer might leave an inscription which appears to contradict a Biblical account. However, the conflict 064may only be in the different viewpoints of the two writers.

Also, archaeologists must never assume that the way they interpret a particular historical event is necessarily the way the Biblical writer saw the event. From an archaeological viewpoint Herod’s slaughter of the innocents is very insignificant, but to Matthew it was a large crime, one suggesting prophetic fulfillment. These kinds of problems can only be resolved by further study; but neither archaeology nor Biblical studies are advanced by dogmatic declarations that the Bible is always wrong when it conflicts with archaeological evidence.

To the Editor:

I find it rather amusing that many of the authors of your magazine, before launching into a full-fledged argument in favor of their theories, find it necessary to inform the reader that “without accepting every detail of the Biblical account,” the Bible firmly supports their position. They tell us that of course a Biblical account cannot be taken literally. If it were, their colleagues and readers would regard them as religious fanatics or crackpots, in a class with Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell. They use jargon such as “proto-history,” “Biblical tradition,” “official version.” For example, Abraham Malamat, in the article “How Inferior Israelite Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,” BAR 08:02, says the following: “The tradition of the conquest that the Bible records crystallized only after generations of complex reworking and … reflects the conceptions and tendentiousness of later editors and redactors. No doubt new assessments and motivations were grafted onto the early events, which were made subservient to later political and religious ideologies.” But Dr. Malamat had just stated, “Moreover, this military conquest model is consistent with a critical examination of the Biblical text.”

It is intellectually dishonest to say that a critical examination of a document that may not be accurate, and in fact was revised centuries later, supports the theory that the Israelites conquered Canaan by military force. Yet Dr. Malamat uses the Bible to support his theory like a schoolboy quotes the Encyclopedia Britannica for a term paper.

The fact is that archaeologists who state that the Bible cannot be taken literally, or it was rewritten later, or is “telescopic” and “simplistic” do not offer any evidence to support these beliefs. They are like the people who say that Shakespeare was not written by Shakespeare, but by another man with the same name. The ancient scribes and copyists who were responsible for copying the scriptures for each succeeding generation were convinced that the Bible is the inspired word of God. They employed every method humanly possible to insure that the copy was a faithful reproduction of the original. They used “hash totals” and “batch totals” just as computer people use today to insure that every letter in every paragraph was accounted for. If the Bible were revised many times after the original writing, it only stands to reason that the Bible would be relatively useless as a historical document, since the farther in time an “editor” was from an original event, the more distorted and less accurate the account of that event would be. In that case, archaeology and the Bible would contradict each other, more often than not. But I find from reading your magazine that they tend to support each other. I therefore find it rather disappointing to see people prostituting the Bible—using it when it helps their reputation but slandering it when it tarnishes their pseudo-intellectual mystique.

To the Editor:

First of all, let me say that I look forward to every issue of BAR, and like many other readers, devour it in a few days and eagerly wait for the next issue. Thank you for such an interesting and thought provoking publication. And it is much more understandable and eye catching than other archaeological publications.

I have read with interest the archaeological evidence uncovered and theories presented for the Exodus and conquest of Canaan. It is unfortunate that Alt, Aharoni and others reject(ed) the Biblical accounts in favor of almost totally “natural” explanations. I readily agree that there are natural events behind the Biblical accounts, whether the Bible informs us of them or not. But I also firmly believe that God Himself was the force behind the events, not just human intellect or chance natural occurrence.

The Bible is God’s primary means of speaking to man. Therefore, wouldn’t He have guided the transmission of the text through all the various stages? He has certainly preserved the spiritual integrity of the Bible. This is evident through the result it produces in a person’s life. Why wouldn’t God have preserved the historical integrity of His word also? Can we have faith in one part of the 066Bible and not in another? We will never find answers to all the questions concerning the Bible. Some parts that were considered in error at one time have been confirmed by archaeology and further study. And as the articles show, other questions remain. We should not ignore these questions. Neither should we reject the Biblical text just because there are parts that cannot be easily reconciled with the available archaeological evidence.

To the Editor:

The articles by Yadin and Malamat are both helpful in trying to make historical sense out of the Biblical narratives of the Israelite settlement, and are best summarized by Yadin’s assertion that there WAS a conquest, while cautioning us against being too dogmatic about the details, and Malamat’s statement that, “there emerged a canonical or ‘official’ tradition … a highly telescoped version of the conquest … contradicted by remnants of deviant traditions which remain extant in the received text … e.g. Judges 1. … Clearly the actual course of events was much more complex … ”

Letters Whet Interest in Idol Set

To the Editor:

The letters about BAR’s idol set (Queries & Comments, BAR 08:01, Queries & Comments, BAR 08:02) have been fascinating. The strong opposition has whetted my desire to own a set. I do hope these idols are still available.

Moral Outrage at Siebenbergs’ “Looting”; BAR Excoriated

To the Editor: