Queries & Comments

008

Helene Kantor Receives Percia Schimmel Award

To the Editor:

I have just received your beautiful—more than ever if at all possible—BAR of November/December 1984. I appreciate your noting the fact that I received the Percia Schimmel Israel Museum Archaeology Prize.

This prestigious prize was given this year, as in previous years, to two archaeologists, and I am proud to have shared the prize with the distinguished archaeologist of the Oriental Institute in Chicago, Professor Helene J. Kantor.

We are sorry to have omitted Professor Kantor’s name from our announcement of the Israel Museum’s presentation of the Percia Schimmel Award in the November/December 1984 issue. Kantor, distinguished professor at Chicago University’s Oriental Institute, is both an archaeologist and a scholar of the art of the ancient Near East. She has co-directed excavations at Choga Mish in Iran and is now working on the final report of that excavation. She has also excavated at Beth Yerah and Nahal Tabor in Israel.

In addition, Kantor has written widely on the complex cultural exchange among various ancient Near Eastern civilizations. She also made a major contribution to ancient chronologies in her study of “The Chronology of Egypt and its Correlations with that of Other Parts of the Near East before the Late Bronze Age.”

We apologize for the omission.—Ed.

Antiquities Ads

To the Editor:

Thank you for the November/December issue of BAR, which includes the discussion of your decision to refuse advertisements for antiquities (“The Verdict on Advertisements for Near Eastern Antiquities Dealers—Dubitante,” BAR 10:06). I congratulate you for taking this position, and for your frank discussion of the factors that led to that decision.

Since I have long been part of that “consensus among scholars that antiquities ads should not be accepted,” and for the reasons you reiterated so succinctly—ads encourage collecting, which encourages trade, which encourages looting—my approval of your new policy will come as no surprise. But even more commendable, in my view, is your recognition that such a policy, in isolation, smacks of self-righteousness.

You are absolutely correct that the refusal to accept such advertising may not directly inhibit the plunder of archaeological sites. Nevertheless, as a matter of integrity, it is important that a magazine dedicated to knowledge of the ancient Near East should not be even a small part of that system. (BAR should be different from The New York Times!) For the same reason, it is important that the United States should have laws restricting imports of illicitly acquired antiquities. Yet none of us who have supported such measures are deluding ourselves that they are the total solution to the problem. They are simply a refusal to be a participant in the problem, a stance that will have any direct practical effects only in proportion to the effectiveness of that magazine’s advertising or that nation’s laws.

But, yes, there is something more meaningful that a magazine like BAR can do: education. Why not commission and publish that needed study of illegal digging in Israel and Jordan? I believe that most of your readers, who sincerely care about the archaeology of the Near East, would not buy antiquities if they were aware that they were participating in a system that destroys archaeological sites. I am sure your brief editorial alone opened the eyes of many. The antiquities market, like any other market, is based upon the law of supply and demand as demand diminishes, so does the plundering that supplies it.

BAR can continue to have an impact on the attitudes of its readers—not by didactic preaching, but by continuing to publish the remarkable discoveries of archaeology and the knowledge gained from proper excavation. An object without a context tells us nothing, and educated persons would rather know than acquire.

To the Editor:

As to accepting antiquities ads, the answer is a simple one.

What are you dedicated to—honesty and integrity or the $ Buck?

To the Editor:

Integrity costs something, but buys a clear conscience.

To the Editor:

I am surprised that your business sense has clouded your common sense. By writing about the need to get at the root of the matter of illegal pothunting, you seem to indicate that, although you do not condone such illegal pothunting, you believe that antiquities ads will have no effect on these activities.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The main purpose of advertisements is to increase demand for the products advertised. Increased demand leads to increased prices, which leads to increased production. Simple grade-school economics. Even the “unsophisticated Bedouin” will understand that it is worth their while to spend more time looking for antiquities. Thus, there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the ads and an increase in illegal pothunting.

Your main argument is based on the premise that if it were not for these illegal excavations, we would never see some priceless antiquities. This premise is flawed for at least three reasons.

First, the main scientific value of an 074antiquity comes from studying it in the context in which it was deposited. The pothunters destroy that context forever. Such antiquities might be nice to look at in some collection, but they add very little to our scientific knowledge. There are exceptions (however rare), like the Dead Sea Scrolls, but that brings up my second point. Unsophisticated excavators, working hurriedly and without design, do not excavate the artifacts as carefully as an established excavation could. Who knows how many more legible fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls might have been found if they had been scientifically excavated?

Thus, the only true beneficiaries of your accepting antiquities ads are the antiquity dealers themselves and the balance sheet of BAR. Unlike many of your readers, I do not want you to cancel my subscription. You obviously need the revenue much more than I had suspected.

To the Editor:

Your editorial on antiquities advertisements brought to mind many experiences I have had with illegal diggers or “grave looters” as they are called in Jordan.

As an archaeologist and former Inspector of Antiquities and Museum Curator in Jordan, a portion of my duties was inspecting ancient archaeological sites on a regular basis. Many times I was faced with the problem of “looters in action.” These looters could be divided into three groups: First, the Bedouin or villagers who live near the site; second, the more sophisticated and wealthy people from the cities who consider digging as a hobby; third, military personnel in uniform, digging under the command of their officers, with weapons in hand and Land Rovers available for escape.

I saw the reaction of the authorities to these groups. The first group (the Bedouin) were the easiest target for the police, so the Bedouin attempt to mask their identity. If there was major damage to the site, the Bedouins would be taken to court and imprisoned or fined. If the damage was minor, the police would send for the “Sheikh” or “Muktar” of the tribe, who would warn the tribe not to proceed with further digging.

The second group—wealthy city dwellers—if apprehended, would send influential people to the Director of Antiquities, who has the capability of dropping the charges against them.

The third group—the military personnel—are always above the law.

From my experience, I have concluded that the problem is widespread in Jordan. Unfortunately, the problem cannot be effectively controlled regardless of regulation of trade in antiquities because illegal trade is a large business and can be carried on by influential people who sidestep the law. Refusing advertisements for antiquities cannot and will not control this illegally flourishing trade; on the contrary, it could be a detriment to your magazine.

To the Editor:

Plunderers have been doing their job for centuries—long before antiquities ads appeared—and will continue to do so without the ads. Above or below ground, the market will always be there. I find it hard to believe that if your magazine discontinues the ads that the overall picture will change that much.

What you will do, more than anything else, is deny information to those people who, having an interest in the Bible and the Biblical periods, wish to purchase an item such as an oil lamp in order to have a piece of that reality within their sight, to help bring home that which they have read about over 075the years.

I am sure your decision is not an easy one. I am also sure that no one has the right answer. Good luck!

To the Editor:

I am an attorney for a government agency that manages sizable tracts of land, and in this position have some responsibility for the preservation of ancient and historic sites. I have also had the privilege of living in the Middle East for a number of years. And I also enjoy antiquities as a physical connection with the past. Given the opportunity, I would certainly not hesitate to purchase legitimate ancient artifacts.

It was not until I subscribed to BAR that I became aware that some of the giants in archaeology, after conducting authorized and approved digs, had been so dilatory in publishing their finds that they died without having done so, thus causing a massive, irrevocable loss of knowledge. Apparently, the archaeology profession either does not have or does not enforce self-discipline to prevent this. As between these people and the poor villager or nomad who finds and sells antiquities to put food on the table—who bears the greater guilt?

To the Editor:

I can hardly believe that I find myself writing a letter in favor of ads—I hate them and have cancelled subscriptions because of too many—but in this case, I heartily encourage you to accept antiquities ads.

I would expect the scholars and museums to be 100% against such an acceptance. In the event you should have the courage to run such ads, I wouldn’t be surprised if you receive the wrath of the scholarly world, or to put it in the words of Cicero, “Irritablis crabrones”—you will stir up the hornets!

If it’s legal to sell antiquities, what is wrong with collecting antiquities? Isn’t it a double standard to say on the one hand, it’s okay to sell antiquities and, on the other, it’s not okay to advertise? Do artifacts sold by dealers lose all scientific value? If that is true, a large portion of ancient Near Eastern artifacts found in museums are scientifically worthless. For example, the British Museum, the Berlin Museum and others have thousands of cuneiform tablets purchased from dealers. Consequently, museums have thousands of documents for which the source and provenance are unknown. Are they of no scholarly 076value?

And of what scientific value are thousands of tablets crated in boxes for 100 years and lying in museum basements deteriorating? Some museums have so many tablets that even significant tablets have been lost!

Is private collecting really that terrible? Let those who are inclined to think so, consider these facts:

The John Frederick Lewis Collection of cuneiform tablets, at the Free Library in Philadelphia, consists of approximately 2,600 tablets. David I. Owen of Cornell has written of Mr. Lewis, “His astute and discriminating judgment allowed him to gather together one of the finest cuneiform collections in the United States, and indeed the collection now ranks as one of the largest public collections available for study in this country.”

The E. A. Hoffman Collection in the Yale Babylonian Collection consists of about 170 cuneiform tablets of which Daniel Snell writes, “The texts published here thus result from clandestine digs, and the origins of the tablets must be determined from internal criteria alone.”

The important James B. Nies Collection in the Yale Babylonian Collection consists of over 170 texts. Albert T. Clay, founder and curator of the Yale Babylonian Collection, makes the interesting statement about the Nies Collection: “They were collected by Doctor Nies during the past 15 years. Some were secured by him while in Baghdad; others were purchased in Paris, London, New York and elsewhere. When such objects of unquestionable value have found their way into the hands of dealers it seems highly advisable to rescue them, if possible, for science by purchasing them, even though we know that some are the results of illicit excavations by Arabs, and that others may have been purloined from legitimate excavations by workmen.”

While I personally do not advocate purchasing illicit artifacts, the quote does suggest that even some museums may have purchased items they knew or suspected were from clandestine excavations.

The very valuable Goucher College Collection (although not private) consists of nearly a thousand tablets purchased from a dealer at the recommendation of A. T. Clay. Are these texts of no scientific value because they were purchased from a dealer? Other notable private collections include those of J. P. Morgan and Carl Sumner Knopf.

A few years ago a popular science magazine featured an article about a number of museums that had so many antiquities in closets and basements that they were selling them to the public. In fact you could even buy a genuine Egyptian mummy. Alas! Now we know what the cryptic curse of the mummy really is—the wrath of academia. If any magazine can break the curse, it’s BAR!

To the Editor:

Print the ads. Damn the neo-scholastics. Full speed ahead!

077

To the Editor:

This is the first time in my life that I write to “The Editor.”

I think BAR should accept ads from dealers in authentic, original antiquities. I see nothing wrong in such advertisements. I do object, however, to ads for numismatic replicas such as in your gift catalogue. I have seen too many innocents fooled by fakes.

To the Editor:

I am a great enthusiast of ancient art, and my feelings are not unbiased. I love these artifacts. I love to touch them, hold them, display them, and share them with others. Yes, science should have first crack at them, and I have a great appreciation for the science of archaeology, but must they then all be carted off to museums? Many thousands are stored away in back rooms, collecting dust.

Oh, I know what the scientist would say, “We might want to get back to them some day.” I have been behind the scenes many times. These items are abandoned and forgotten. How many Herodian lamps or black dipper juglets does any one museum need after all?

Think for a moment about the immeasurable value of encouraging the interest of the public in private ownership of these items. By popularizing interest in the artifacts and archaeology in general, more funding is likely to be approved for scientific excavation and studies.

Archaeology is always in need of funding. There is no better way to effect increased funding approvals and private donations than by popularizing archaeology. I believe that the more people who fall in love with these individual antiquity treasures, and who become enthusiasts and collectors, the better for the science of archaeology.

The Hand of Asherah?

To the Editor:

I read with interest André Lemaire’s informative article on the identity of the “asherah” which is mentioned in the blessing formulas (see “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10:06). But how can one speculate on the meaning of the words of the inscription from Khirbet el-Kom without taking into account the illustration that is carved beneath it?

The five-fingered hand is a symbolic 078illustration of the invisible “asherah” of the deity, and the word “asherah” evidently means enabling force. This divine emanation, which is here graphically represented by a drawing of a five-fingered hand, was elsewhere corporeally represented by a growing tree or by a grove of trees.

André Lemaire replies:

In principle, I agree with Mr. Parnass that, when one finds an inscription and an illustration together, one has to take into account the possibility that the representation is an illustration of the inscribed text. However, in the case of the hand at Khirbet el-Kom, we are faced with two difficulties:

1. If there is a connection between the illustration and the inscription, then what part of the inscription? With Ur’-yahu? Or YHWH? Or a blessing? Or asherah?

2. If there is a connection between the hand and the mention of asherah, then why don’t we find the drawing of such a hand among the drawings from Kuntillet-‘Ajrud, which also accompany an inscription mentioning asherah?

In these circumstances, the interpretation of the five-fingered hand remains speculative. We must also take into account the general meaning of such a representation in the ancient Near East. An upside-down hand might well be a symbol of the divine power, with an apotropaic (protective) function, especially against any violator of the tomb. The hand illustration could have more or less the same function as the usual curses at the end of other tomb inscriptions (See S. Schroer, “Zur Deutung der Hand unter der Grabinschnit von Chirbet el Qôm,” Ugarit Forschungen 15, 1983, pp. 191–199).

Using Logic to Ruminate on Bar Articles

To the Editor:

Because I am a non-scholar, one of the many reasons I so much enjoy reading BAR is that once I have read an article by one of your scholars, I can sit back and think about what I read, and then try to reason in my own unscholarly mind what might have occurred millennia ago. You gave me a good opportunity to do just that in “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10:06. My belief is that Asherah was all those things (including Yahweh’s consort) André Lemaire mentions. It is well-known that many pagan practices and rites have been carried over into revealed religions. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that in the beginning of the Jewish tradition, there was a mental carry-over from the Canaanite Astarte (the consort of Baal) to Asherah (the consort of Yahweh). To go from a fertility goddess to a holy place, a sacred tree, a pole or possibly a grove of trees, to Deuteronomy (considerably longer than a millennium) is not surprising.

I know scholars want proof. I don’t have it. I simply employ logic and my knowledge of the working of the human mentality, which is no different today than it was thousands of years ago.

079

On BAR’s Briars and Grass; Also on Garbage

To the Editor:

Thank you for the diversity of opinion so aptly presented in your magazine. Here in the South, we graze on Bible exposition like old cows, pushing aside the briars to get to the grass. I have no intention of ever canceling my subscription because of another’s belief.

To the Editor:

I just received my first copy of BAR, and I have one question: If your archaeologists already know more than the Bible—what is fact and what “merely symbolic,” what could have happened and what could not, which parts of it are true and which are lies interpolated at a later time—why do they compare their findings to the Bible at all? Why not apply the ultimate garbage test—“Whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much” (Luke 16:10)—and toss it on the ash heap?

Don’t cancel my subscription—the photos are good.

080

Priority of Interpretation

To the Editor:

I enjoyed the piece on the olive press very much (“Is the Cultic Installation at Dan Really an Olive Press?” BAR 10:06). I would like to bring to your attention that many of the points argued by Stager and Wolff were presented by me not only in the IEJ note you cited but also in a letter to the editor published in Queries & Comments, BAR 08:02.

While the article was very good, a small mistake crept into one of the photo descriptions. The caption states that “ … the oldest olive press yet discovered in Israel, dating to the late tenth or ninth century B.C.” is the one from Dan. It should be corrected to state that this is the oldest beam press known to us from Israel or elsewhere. We know of other olive presses from earlier periods most utilizing the beam.

Stager and Wolff contend that they arrived at their interpretation independently of and prior to the publication in BAR of the letter of BAR readers Terry and Cathy Small and of Professor Borowski’s letter. At a recent scholarly colloquium, it was suggested, only half jokingly, that scholars establish their priority of discovery by sending a letter (that will be promptly published) to the editor of BAR.—Ed.

BAR’s Torn Cover

To the Editor:

Your September/October 1984 cover pictured part of the Temple Scroll and a picture of the recently deceased Yigael Yadin. The cover is rimmed in black, no doubt in mourning for Yadin. But there appears to be a deliberate tear in the dark purple background of the cover. Can you explain this?

The torn purple background is our mark of mourning. It follows the Jewish custom that each member of the deceased’s family tears a piece of clothing as a sign of grief.—Ed.