Queries & Comments

018

BAR Unfair to Quote Dever’s Popular Lectures and Footnotes

To the Editor:

Your highly selective use of quotes (“Whither ASOR?” BAR 09:05) on my view of “Biblical archaeology”—most from older popular lectures or taken out of context from the footnotes of scholarly articles—seriously distorts my position. You might have quoted the Biblical Archeologist (Spring 1982, p. 103), where I wrote: “I do not deny that ‘biblical archaeology’ exists, but I do question whether it can be an academic discipline in the strict sense. In my view, ‘biblical archaeology’ is not a branch of archaeology at all. It is rather an interdisciplinary pursuit—a ‘dialogue’ between specialists in Near Eastern archaeology and biblical historians. This pursuit can (and indeed in our case must) be scholarly … ” (italics mine).

It is in that sense that I use the word “amateur” (to which you take such objection) to describe most “biblical archaeologists,” i.e., part-time workers in the field of archaeology. Incidentally, my definition is not novel. It agrees with that of the late G. Ernest Wright, the acknowledged father of “Biblical archaeology,” who described this enterprise as “a special ‘armchair’ variety of general archaeology” (Biblical Archaeology, p. 17).

You charge that I am trying to “delegitimize Biblical archaeology,” but you yourself have recognized that I have contributed to the scholarly and popular dialogue I describe, by devoting time to giving lectures nationwide for lay people and by writing frequently for Biblical scholars on the methods and results of Near Eastern archaeology. More recently I have begun to train some 14 doctoral students in Syro-Palestinian archaeology here at Arizona, a number of whom hope to make a contribution to a new style of “Biblical archaeology.”

If “Biblical archaeology” as an academic discipline is moribund, it is not because I or other professional archaeologists have tried to kill it. It is dying partly because its practitioners in the 1950s–1970s produced so little published scholarship in their own field and moreover failed to keep pace with rapid developments in the field of archaeology as a maturing, independent discipline.

As for your contention that I lead a new and divisive movement in ASOR, it is obvious that I and others were elected to leadership simply because we represent a consensus among our generation, which has now come of age.

If you really want to aid the cause of “Biblical” or Syro-Palestinian archaeology, BAR should stop exploiting controversies between professionals and lay people, all of whom must work together within ASOR if American archaeology in the Middle East is to survive.

No Identity Crisis in ASOR, Just Healthy Growth Pains

To the Editor:

In response to your editorial “Whither ASOR?” BAR 09:05, let me say I appreciated your generally favorable review of Philip King’s new book American Archaeology in the Mideast. But perhaps I am prejudiced since he was my field supervisor on my very first dig!

I do have some questions, however, about other issues you raise. And I write personally from my perspective as a Biblical archaeologist as well as a Syro-Palestinian archaeologist active within ASOR (American Center of Oriental Research Vice-President, Biblical Archaeologist editorial committee member, etc.).

I don’t see ASOR suffering from an identity crisis related to the Bible. There are numerous and sometimes perhaps even heated discussions about the proper relationship of archaeology and the Bible and even about traditional terminology and whether these “old wineskins” are fit vessels for the “new wine,” but to call this an “identity crisis” exaggerates the growth pains any organization suffers from time to time. I think this discussion has been healthy for both archaeology and Biblical studies. The point has not been to denigrate the Bible’s importance but rather to ask whether terms from another generation are as correctly understood in today’s world as they were at the turn of the century. William Dever happens to be for making some changes in terminology, I think; I tend to be for hanging on to the terms but making sure we all understand how they’re defined. That doesn’t create conflict between Dever and me. We happen to be friends and there has been no attempt on his part to “cut me out of the action”; on the contrary I could cite several examples to the contrary.

Our new president, James Sauer, likewise a friend, is not against the Bible. In fact, in a recent Biblical Archaeologist article (Fall 1981, p. 205), among several positions that he said must be rejected he included the one that argues “that the Bible should be used little, if at all, in Syro-Palestinian archaeological research.” He goes on to ask rhetorically, “How much would the scholarly world know about the peoples of Syria-Palestine during the Iron Age if the evidence from the Bible did not exist?” Granted, he too feels that the term “Biblical Archaeology” cannot any longer be used to describe the entire archaeological endeavor in the Near East as a whole as it once was, but he said, “There is nothing wrong in its being used to describe the proper application of archaeological evidence to the Bible.”

You correctly state that ASOR throughout its history has been respectful of a broad range of scholarship and a congenial home to the variety of scholars and nonacademics, including those whose primary focus is the Bible. Despite the continuing discussions of the Bible’s proper role and the debates about terminology and definitions, I do not see this atmosphere changing under the leadership of Sauer, Dever, and others.

And by the way, though Jordan is an Arab country, I have never been asked by any government official, university professor, or anyone else in the country to “downplay the Biblical connection” in discussing the results of my field work. I have enjoyed complete academic freedom and the utmost cooperation. My project has suffered only from the misguided activities of Christian extremists.

Technical Periodicals Dealing with Biblical Archaeology

To the Editor:

Would it be possible to give me information on more technical periodicals dealing with Biblical archaeology? I am interested only in those periodicals written in English.

If you’re ready to climb the next rung in the scholarly ladder, try the Biblical Archaeologist, published four times a year by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Under its new 020editor Eric Meyers of Duke University, the Biblical Archaeologist is shining brighter than ever. A subscription costs $16 per year ($10 for students and retired faculty). Write to: ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

The premier Israeli journal in English is the Israel Exploration Journal. Edited by Jonas Greenfield of Hebrew University (who, incidentally, is a member of BAR’s Editorial Advisory Board), the IEJ contains the best in Israeli scholarship. A subscription costs $22 per year. Write to: Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem, Israel.

Another important publication in the United States is the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research or BASOR, as it’s known in the field. BASOR is edited by William Dever of the University of Arizona. A subscription costs $25 ($15 for students and retired faculty). Write to: ASOR Subscription Services, 4243 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.—Ed.

No Pit Toilet in Ahilud’s House

To the Editor:

Concerning “A Visit with Ahilud,” BAR 09:05, I would like to offer a suggestion from past experience. Dr. Callaway suggests that Ahilud’s family used toilet facilities “outside—anywhere.” He may be entirely correct, but the outline of the main house and the location of the “cistern” in the “long narrow room at the back” suggest another possibility.

As a boy growing up in Missouri I saw one particular house with four rooms in front and a “long narrow room at the back” used for storage. It had, in precisely the same location as Ahilud’s “cistern,” a pit toilet. This might very well be the case in Ahilud’s main house. I’m not sure how you would discern a pit toilet from a cistern at the distance of these years. Perhaps our modern ideas of hygiene influence our conclusions. If 50 years ago folks in Missouri used toilet facilities in the stated manner, might they not also have done the same in 1200 B.C.?

Joseph A. Callaway replies:

I doubt that the “cistern … in the long narrow room at the back” of Ahilud’s house was a “pit toilet” for two reasons. First, it was only about two meters deep and hewn in solid rock, which would deter the breakdown of human wastes. And second, the opening was quite large and would require some sort of superstructure, for which there is no evidence that I know of in archaeology or contemporary literature relating to primitive villages.

The Height of Ancient Israelites

To the Editor:

Thank you for your superb publication. Every article in Biblical Archaeology Review piques my interest. I’m usually so captivated with each issue that I read it cover to cover first sitting. Later, I’ll study articles of special interest with more care.

Dr. Callaway’s recent article, “A Visit with Ahilud,” BAR 09:05, was especially interesting to me. In particular I was intrigued to discover the possibility that Ahilud and contemporary Israelites may have averaged only around five feet or less in height, if Dr. Callaway’s facts and comments about common home structures of the time are accurate. There must be published studies available revealing more about heights of some of the ancients. Can you shed more light on this subject?

Joseph A. Callaway replies:

As far as I know, information about the stature of ancient people must be picked up here and there in reports and books. There was evidently much variation in the height of people from quite ancient times. For instance, Emmanuel Anati in Palestine Before the Hebrews, p. 106, notes that skeletons of men who were buried in the Skhul Cave at Mt. Carmel some 50,000 years ago indicate a height of 68 to 71 inches, while that of a woman from nearby Tabon cave was shorter, about 62½ inches. More than 40,000 years later, the skeletons of Natufian men and women from the same area indicate an average of 63 inches for men and 60 inches for women (p. 151). The villagers at Ai and Raddana, therefore, could have been shorter than their contemporaries elsewhere, who may have come from a different background, such as the Aegean area, for instance.

Was the Bronze Bull Site Israelite?

To the Editor:

I read Amihai Mazar’s article “Bronze Bull Found in Israelite ‘High Place’ From the Time of the Judges,” BAR 09:05, with great interest. I am, however, puzzled by the author’s insistence on “Israelite.” If Dr. Mazar assigns a dating to Iron Age I (1200 B.C.), then an equal case can he made for a Canaanite provenance, especially if the Israelite occupation/penetration/or social revolution (sic!) was not completed.

All Dr. Mazar’s arguments for an Israelite setting of the site can easily be reversed in the direction of a Canaanite matrix. Several examples are worthy of note. As Mazar stated, the bronze bull is “strikingly similar in design” to the Hazor bull, which has undoubtedly Canaanite origins in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 B.C.). Dr. Mazar identifies the site as Israelite because it is not near a major Canaanite city. But this is merely an argument out of silence. First, it is not so isolated, because Canaanite Megiddo, Tirzah, Taanach and Beth Shean are close by. (Mazar himself states that the closest mounds are four to six miles away.) Secondly, isolation does not constitute evidence for an Israelite site; note Tel Shariah and Tel Rosh ha-Niqra—both are isolated and Canaanite.

Dr. Mazar’s attempt to prove that an open cult was a feature of Israelite cult centers is of course verifiable, but open cults were part of the Canaanite milieu as well, e.g., Middle Bronze Age Gezer. I find that Mazar’s conclusion—that the site is Israelite—is at best a moot point.

022

Amihai Mazar replies:

The question of the identification of the cult site as Israelite is part of the much wider subject of the definition of the earliest phases of Israelite material culture. One of the most important phenomena in the Early Iron Age is the appearance of many small settlements in the hill country of Palestine, from the Galilee in the north to the northern Negev in the south. These create a new pattern of settlement, which is totally foreign to the Canaanite culture of the Late Bronze Age. Though there is a wide variety of opinions among scholars as to the nature of the origins of the Israelites, there is almost general agreement that the new settlements of the Early Iron Age must be attributed to the Israelite tribes.

The foundation of these new sites did not bring an end to the Canaanite culture, which continued to flourish during the 12th century B.C. in the plains, as at Megiddo and Beth-Shean. When trying to determine whether our cult site was Canaanite or Israelite, I referred mainly to its location. Since there is no Canaanite site nearby, and since the site is located in the middle of a cluster of Early Iron Age sites of the type attributable to the Israelite settlers, I concluded that it was a cult center for this group of sites. As I wrote in the article, this does not mean that the bronze figurine itself was made by Israelites; it could have been obtained from a Canaanite workshop located in a Canaanite city in the Esdraelon Valley.

Does the Ark of the Covenant Exist Today?

To the Editor:

In Sunday school my son’s class is discussing the Ark of the Covenant. The question came up whether it exists today or not, and if so, where?

There is no evidence that the Ark of the Covenant still exists. Scholars regard it as extremely unlikely that it would have survived.—Ed.

Be Sure to Melt the Wax Before Pouring the Bronze

To the Editor:

Your article in the September/October 1983 BAR about the bronze bull found in northern Samaria was very interesting (see “Bronze Bull Found In Israelite “High Place” From the Time of the Judges,” BAR 09:05).

However, I had to chuckle at the description of the lost wax casting process.

If the ancient caster had poured the 2,000 degree F. bronze into the mold on top of the wax, there would have been a giant explosion! The mold would have blown to pieces and the caster probably would have been burned by flying bronze. And that’s no bull!

Actually, the mold is baked long enough so that all traces of wax and carbon are gone from the mold interior. Only after that is it safe to pour in the molten metal.

It’s nice to be corrected so delightfully.—Ed.

Has the Fortress of Zion Been Found?

To the Editor:

How about an update as to what’s happening in the City of David? In the July/August 1981 issue of BAR (see “New York Times Misrepresents Major Jerusalem Discovery,” BAR 07:04), we were informed about an intriguing stepped structure unearthed in Jerusalem. I have waited for two years to learn more about it, and the suspense has had me imagining all sorts of possibilities.

I expect that it was once the original fortress of Zion which David captured and renamed the City of David (2 Samuel 5:7–9; 1 Chronicles 11:5–7). David lived there until he had a palace built for himself. It was considered impregnable by the Jebusites, since they sarcastically told David that even the blind and the lame could defend it. Most likely, the fortress of Zion was a fortified place inside the city and the residence of the king of Jebus. With the capture of the fortress, the whole city fell to David.

Could the stepped structure have been the fortress of Zion? What does Yigal Shiloh think?

Dr. Shiloh, who directs the excavations at the City of David, thinks it was the supporting substructure of a large building. At this time, he is unwilling to speculate further.—Ed.

Did BAR Print Cuneiform Tablet Upside Down?

To the Editor:

The September/October 1983 issue showed a cuneiform tablet with raised letters. Not that I can read the writing, but I understood that the cuneiform imprint was made 080by a pointed stick in moist clay. As such, letters would be depressed, not raised.

If the page is turned upside down, the correct features will appear—that is, depressed.

My wartime experience in aerial photo interpretation showed similar raised hills as depressions and smokestacks as holes, caused by either the light coming from the wrong direction or the photograph was upside down.

To the Editor:

Concerning the excellent series of articles on “Remembering Ugarit,” BAR 09:05, isn’t the photograph of the Claremont “Marzeah” Tablet upside down?

The photograph of the “Marzeah” Tablet is not upside down. The lighting used when the tablet was photographed sometimes creates an optical illusion. To some readers, it may appear that the cuneiform signs on the clay tablet are raised rather than incised (turning the page 180° makes the signs look incised). The signs are, in fact, incised except for the four wedges on the far right of the fourth line from the top, which were inscribed on the reverse side of the tablet with sufficient pressure to appear as raised wedges on the side visible in the photo. The tablet is oriented correctly.—Ed.

Disappointed in BAR

To the Editor:

I am disappointed in BAR. Here are only a few reasons:

1. The Ugarit articles [“Remembering Ugarit,” BAR 09:05] were very poor. I know something about Ugarit. I have studied the site and I have been there.

2. It is customary to note, with picture captions, where the artifacts illustrated are. Where is all the Ugarit material?

3. The letters to the editor are childish.

4. Even the grammar bothers me. One example is “then-known.”

Please send me a refund on my subscription.

082

Dismayed at Treatment of Psalm 29

To the Editor:

As a neophyte to BAR, I opened the September/October 1983 issue with anticipation.

However, my anticipation turned to dismay when I came to the conclusion of Peter Craigie’s article, “The Tablets of Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” BAR 09:05. I refer to his comments on Psalm 29. He says, “The psalm was originally Canaanite; it had been modified for inclusion in Israel’s hymnbook simply by the replacement of the name Baal with the personal name of Israel’s God.” He also says, “Almost all scholars agree that Psalm 29’s background is Baal worship, as portrayed in the tablets from Ugarit.”

I find this “scholarly” conclusion extremely blasphemous. Psalm 29 and all the psalms were written by holy men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. David did not need to get his inspiration from the mythology of an evil, heathen god. He was inspired and anointed by the “Lord of glory and strength,” the Lord who “will bless His people with peace.”

Has it ever occurred to Dr. Craigie and other scholars of like mind that any similarity between Psalm 29 and an Ugaritic text might be because the Canaanites copied the text of the Israelites, replacing the name of Israel’s God with the name Baal?

The Ugaritic texts were written in the 14th and 13th centuries B.C. King David lived in the late 11th and early 10th century.—Ed.

Religious Sexuality at Ugarit

To the Editor:

In Peter C. Craigie’s article for your September/October 1983 issue (“The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” BAR 09:05), he examines the possible appeal of the Ugaritic/Canaanite religion. Dean Craigie suggests that, beyond the “fundamental appeal” of worshiping Baal for the necessities of life (crops and food), “sexual activity in the worship of Baal may have been one of the cruder attractions in this alien faith.” He also alludes to violence—as a part of the ritual worship?

I wonder if serious study has been made of other aspects of ancient Near Eastern faiths that might appeal to anyone: I mean the female, the “earthy” goddesses. To complement Baal, they had Baalith, also called Astarte (Ishtar) as the moon goddess and queen of heaven, the goddess of love and fertility, protector of fields, forest, trees, and “earth” water (springs and wells), bringer of the cooling north wind, and finally sister and lover (or mother) to Baal.

Where, in contrast, were these aspects in the singularly unique, powerfully male and relatively remote God of Israel? Only centuries later with the elevation of Mary to Mother of God and Queen of Heaven did western man regain this element of sensitivity and intimate personality which many Israelites might have found lacking—yet found indeed in the faiths of their neighbors in that land.

Perhaps Dr. Craigie could expand on 083research that has been done in this area.

Peter C. Craigie replies:

Numerous studies have been made of the female deities of Near Eastern religions. In the context of ancient Ugarit, perhaps the most useful study is that of A. S. Kapelrud, The Violent Goddess: Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts (1969) in which the principal characteristics of this female deity of fertility and war are established. Inevitably, such accounts are based primarily on the literary evidence; it is more difficult to establish the precise role of Anat in the cult. Nevertheless, at Minet el Beida (close to Ras Shamra/Ugarit) the remains of a fertility shrine were excavated; the building contained a number of rectangular rooms in which stone phallus models and idols expressing feminine sexuality were found. This shrine illustrates, no doubt, the physical activity associated with fertility worship.

As to the question concerning where these aspects were in Hebrew religion, the answer (with respect to popular practice) is that they were everywhere. In other words, it was precisely the inroads of such religious practice in popular Hebrew religious practice that evoked the ministries of prophets such as Hosea, referred to in the BAR article. But I would argue that prophets such as Hosea were not proclaiming a primarily male God but rather a God who, by virtue of being Creator, was beyond (or “before”) sexuality.

Ugaritic All Over, But Not at Aphek

To the Editor:

Having just read the beautifully illustrated and informative article of Professor P. C. Craigie, “The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” BAR 09:05, I think that it is important to point out an unfortunate error that was made on the map in his description of the geographical range within which examples of the Ugaritic script have been found. Craigie notes that Tel Aphek (Ras el-’Ain) is the southernmost site at which the script has been found. This must be a confusion with the find of an Akkadian diplomatic letter sent from Ugarit and excavated at Tel Aphek in the 1978 season. The text was already described in my report to the Ugarit Symposium in February 1979 (published in preliminary form in G. D. Young [ed.] Ugarit in Retrospect, 1981, pp. 49–53 with photo of obverse on p. 52) and fully published in Tel Aviv 8 (1981) 1–17. Inscriptions in Sumerian, Akkadian and Canaanite cuneiform (published by A. F. Rainey in M. Kochavi, Aphek-Antipatris 1974–1977, The Inscriptions, 084Tel Aviv, 1978, 1–16) and Hittite hieroglyphic (published by I. Singer, ibid. 17–29) as well as Egyptian hieroglyphic (published by R. Giveon, ibid. 30–33) have so far been excavated at Tel Aphek (see the convenient summary article by M. Kochavi, “The History and Archeology of Aphek-Antipatris,” Biblical Archeologist 44/2 [1981] 75–86 with full bibliography). Furthermore, during the 1978 season, a small fragment of a clay tablet inscribed in a linear but hitherto unknown script, was discovered. This text will be published shortly in the journal Tel Aviv. This is all to say that in spite of the remarkable range of languages and scripts found at Aphek, Ugaritic is not one of them!

It would have been, perhaps, more useful to have included the list of sites other than Ugarit where examples of the Ugaritic script, but not necessarily the Ugaritic language, have indeed been found. These include Ras Ibn Hani (in Syria not far from Ugarit), Tell Sukas (ancient Shuksi), Tell Nebi Mend (ancient Qadesh), Kamid el-Loz (ancient Kumidi), Sarafand (ancient Sarepta), Tabor, Tell Ta’anek (ancient Taanakh), Beth Shemesh, Tel Hefer, and last but not least, on the island of Cyprus at Hala Sultan Tekke on an inscribed silver bowl. While all these sites other than Ras Ibn Hani produced only single examples of the Ugaritic script, it does provide some hope that one of these sites, or some other site that has yet to be excavated, will likely produce additional examples of this script.

We hope we were being prophetic in discovering an Ugaritic inscription at Aphek. The mistaken identification as Ugaritic of the Akkadian tablet from Ugarit found at Aphek was BAR’s error, not Professor Craigie’s.—Ed.

“Chai” Spelled Backwards Is “Yech”

To the Editor:

It is rare indeed that I am compelled to write to an editor and extraordinary that I succumb to that impulse. I have enjoyed BAR for many years and impatiently await its bimonthly arrival. I “thank you” for this publication, especially since it is geared to the layman.

I must, however, comment on a glaring error in the “BAS Collection” catalogue. On one page you feature imported Israeli jewelry. While the “chai” is lovely and a wonderful Jewish tradition, when displayed backward, as here, it spells “yech.”

Thank you for keeping BAR enjoyable and allowing humor to creep in, now and again.

The backwards “chai” in our gift catalogue was a strictly nonsectarian error: The printer also “flopped” a cross, thus displaying the back of it, but that error is not so apparent.—Ed.

The Value of BAR’s Israel Seminar

To the Editor:

I want to tell you how much I enjoyed BAR’s six-week seminar in Israel and how valuable the trip has been to me. It was one of the best experiences of my life.

I’ve had many opportunities to show my slides—to church groups, friends, women in prison. More are scheduled.

The six-week summer seminar is incredibly valuable for understanding the Bible and the life and times of its people. It’s tops for a learning experience. Jim Fleming is a wonderful teacher and the course content is perfect. I’m still remembering and reviewing my notes—and applying what I learned in my lessons for the young adult class at church. If I can ever again put together six weeks of vacation, I’ll take the seminar again.

Thanks to BAR for a superb experience!

The announcement of the 1984 Israel Seminar may be found in this issue.—Ed.

For Once, BAR Is Right

To the Editor:

In “News from the Field: Gold Hoard Found at Capernaum,” BAR 09:04, by Herold Weiss, you state that the gold coins were minted after 695 A.D. (77 A.H.). The Hegira took place in 622 A.D. If 77 A.H. is 695 A.D., the Hegira could not have occurred in 622 A.D. Doesn’t 73 A.H. sound more logical?

For a change, BAR is right. The reason you are confused is that you assume the Moslem year is solar. It is not. It is lunar. That is the reason for the apparent discrepancy.—Ed.

Praise for BAR

To the Editor:

Thank you for a really beautiful and exciting magazine! I await each issue eagerly and simply devour it. I have visited the Holy Land three times (and barely scratched the surface, historically), so each article is very meaningful.

To the Editor:

I am writing simply to express my gratitude for the most informative and enjoyable article, “The Undiscovered Gate Beneath Jerusalem’s Golden Gate,” BAR 09:01, by James Fleming.

I teach the subject of urbanization and capital cities of the world, including the development of Jerusalem, and his article has added fascinating material to my resources at Long Island University.

BAR Unfair to Quote Dever’s Popular Lectures and Footnotes

To the Editor: