Queries & Comments

022

Millard’s Article Rates a Wow

To the Editor:

Wow! Like, out’a sight, man! I turned to Alan Millard’s article on “Daniel and Belshazzar in History,” BAR 11:03, and it gripped me all the way through. In fact, the whole issue was so intriguing that I devoured it within two days, even though it came at the end of the semester while I was gearing up for finals.

Was John Martin a Victorian Painter?

To the Editor:

The caption under the illustration on page 15 of the May/June issue in the article about Belshazzar (“Daniel and Belshazzar in History,” BAR 11:03) states that the “British Victorian artist” John Martin painted the picture in 1812.

Queen Victoria ascended the throne in 1837, and was well under twenty years of age at the time. In 1812 she had not even been born. Surely no influence to which her name can reasonably be applied had come into the life of the artist who produced that painting. I am sure you’re much more precise in using archaeological time-span nomenclature.

John Martin died in 1854. He painted productively long after the great success of “Belshazzar’s Feast”; he last exhibited at the Royal Academy with “Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah” in 1852. He is listed in the classic reference by Christopher Wood, The Dictionary of Victorian Painters.—Ed.

Broad Lateral Exposure Is a Must in Archaeology

To the Editor:

In “Excavation Tactics and Strategy,” BAR 11:01, of special interest to me were the remarks quoted from an article by Roger S. Boraas (The Answers Lie Below: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Toombs) on methodology in excavation. He is quoted as saying that broad lateral exposures are mainly for getting easily photographed areas good for publicity and for spectacular presentations at professional meetings. “This strategy is especially helpful for reaching broad popular audiences. … ”

The real point is that broad lateral exposure is the proper means for achieving the main goal of any archaeological research, that is, to discover how people lived in antiquity. The many modern retrieval methods mentioned by Boraas in the same article, such as floral and faunal analysis, etc., gain their truest validity when based on adequate sampling from many loci in broad exposure areas. The same is true of computer-aided recording and all the other state-of-the-art techniques now coming into use. And what’s more, people lived in houses, not in balks and trenches. Human activities produced living areas, work areas, defense installations, etc. Admittedly, to interpret these properly, one must also record and interpret soil layers, some man-made, others created by natural forces (rain wash, wind, etc.). When opening a broad area using five-meter squares, one can get as many as eighty or a hundred sectional drawings. If some of them include architectural features, so much the better. A wall and a floor are just as much a part of the stratigraphy as soil deposits. Actually, stratigraphy is three-dimensional; a sectional drawing only gives a slice through it.

What needs to be said to Boraas and all those who have followed the “Kenyon” approach [Kathleen Kenyon, a British archaeologist who died in 1978] is that they have been like the blind man who grabbed the elephant’s tail and proclaimed that the elephant was like a rope. It is no wonder that every conclusion adduced by Kenyon in her work at Jerusalem (except where she made a broad exposure) has been thoroughly discredited by later excavations using broad exposure. Sounding and sectional trenches have a very limited value no matter how carefully they are done. They cause more harm than they help. A building or other feature may be cut in half, never to be fully retrieved. The pottery in such loci can never be restored because most of the broken parts are still in the unexcavated balk. Vertical sections lose their value if they are not related to horizontal strata. So I flatly deny that Boraas’s method is a “less expensive way to get more information.” It is a wasteful way to destroy evidence. The “Kenyon people” are playing a Mickey Mouse game to gain the approval of other members of the Mickey Mouse club.

The president of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Dr. James Sauer, has often spoken out publicly in favor of broad lateral exposure. North American archaeologists I have spoken to would use soundings of the Boraas kind on an Indian burial mound (as would I), but not on a Spanish mission fort. The wave of the future is broad exposure. The “Kenyon approach” is a vestigial appendage of a misguided era.

The Word of God—Oral and Written

To the Editor:

It is difficult if not impossible to add encomia to what has already been said about BAR. I have read BAR for a number of years and find it more fascinating and informative with each new issue. I especially enjoy the Queries & Comments section, for it is there that your readers expose themselves and their foibles to God and everyone else.

I want to comment on the letter of David R. Way (“A Fundamentalist As Archaeologist,” Queries & Comments, BAR 11:03). The Bible may have started as the Word of God—as the oral tradition of a nomadic people. But it also contains both folklore and history. As the “Word” was handed down—or spoken to—from generation to generation, from father to son and on to grandson, it was subject to the fallibility of man. When it was later set down in writing, more changes in the text could have occurred, since it was written in several different languages and dialects.

Did Jesus Turn Water Into Intoxicating Wine?

To the Editor:

In your January/February issue, p. 76, a reader protested a photograph of people drinking wine (Queries & Comments, BAR 11:01). 024In your May/June, issue (Queries & Comments, BAR 11:03), other readers responded. I would like to reply to these other letters.

One of these other letters pointed out that the Bible itself records rapes, murders, and other heinous crimes. Yes, being God’s record of certain events in man’s history, it certainly does—but never pointlessly. Everything in the Bible, from Genesis through Revelation, is designed to instruct. To publish a picture of a group of people sitting around drinking alcoholic beverages hardly serves the same purpose.

One of the other letters notes that Jesus turned water into wine for the wedding guests in John 2:1–11. But the word “wine” in the Bible can refer to non-alcoholic as well as alcoholic beverages—as can our word “drink,” today. Had Jesus turned water into an intoxicant for the wedding guests, God would not have included Proverbs 20:1 in the Bible: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” In Proverbs we have a definite reference to an intoxicant. God, being consistent with His own laws and principles—remember that He changes not, though His dealings with mankind have, several times—would hardly write the foregoing line from Proverbs and then miraculously create an alcoholic wine at a wedding!

Does Revelation Recall the Temple Site as a Cemetery?

To the Editor:

Rivka Gonen’s article “Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11:03, was very interesting. I once stood in the cave beneath the sacred rock of the Dome of the Rock, feeling baffled about its original purpose. It seems no one else can really explain it. I wonder if that “tomb” is reflected in Revelation 6:9, “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.”

To the Editor:

Re Rivka Gonen’s fascinating article, I wondered if—along with the Moslem names, “Well of Souls” and “Cave of the Spirits,” and the hints in Jewish tradition—the reference in Revelation 6:9 to the souls under the altar might not also hint at this knowledge concerning the Jerusalem Temple. Many believe John is here referring to the Altar of Incense that stood inside the Temple in front of the curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

Rivka Gonen replies:

Thank you very much for bringing to my attention the quotation from Revelation 6:9 pertaining to souls under the altar. Although I cannot comment in detail on this reference, not having studied in detail the Book of Revelation and circumstances of its writing, I welcome the suggestion that its author may have based his revelation on some actual knowledge concerning the Jerusalem Temple.

To the Editor:

I have just finished reading Rivka Gonen’s article (“Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11:03), which I found intriguing.

In her article, she states, “Other hints in the sayings of the sages connect the site of the Temple with a burial site. In one source, it is said that ‘He who is buried in the Land of Israel is as if he were buried under the altar [of the Temple] … And he who is buried under the altar is as if he were buried under the throne of the Divine Majesty.’” According to the article, “The great Talmudist Saul Lieberman expressed astonishment at this saying, because [quoting Lieberman] ‘to bury under the altar means to commit sacrilege, for it would defile the sacrifices offered on it.’ Another tradition tells that the ashes of the ram that was sacrificed in Isaac’s stead were placed in the foundation of the altar—another cemetery use of the site.”

The quotation from Professor Lieberman was taken from his book, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. A close reading of Lieberman’s text however, leads me to believe that he was making the opposite point. The story of Isaac’s ashes (according to Professor Lieberman, the Rabbis looked upon the ram sacrificed by Abraham as though it were Isaac) and the altar was a legend and not to be taken literally as proof for any kind of a cemetery use of the Temple site. Professor Lieberman writes [Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, pp. 162–163], “Altars built of ashes of victims were quite common among the heathens. … In view of this we suggest that the parable of Rabbis, in which they liken burial in the Land of Israel to burial under the altar, 025was an ancient phrase adapted to the ashes of Isaac.”

In the footnote explaining the legend of Adam being buried under the altar, Lieberman states, “However, the Rabbis could hardly hold such views.”

Lieberman continues, “The Rabbis converted a pagan rite into material for a Jewish legend, and they transformed a reality of heathen cult into a Jewish symbol.”

I respectfully suggest that to quote Lieberman in support of Rivka Gonen’s theory of a cemetery site for the Temple Mount is a bit far-fetched.

Rivka Gonen replies:

Thank you very much for your comments about Professor Lieberman’s interpretation of the sayings of the sages. What is important, however, is that Professor Lieberman was bewildered about the possibility of a connection between the altar and burial, a bewilderment that has not been, to the best of my knowledge, expressed elsewhere. Professor Lieberman saw clearly that the two concepts contradict one another, even negate each other. He produced his own explanation, namely that the sages were saying what they said by way of a parable. And yet, one may ask, why did they make up such an alarming parable? Why did they, even in parable form, profane the holiest place, by placing under it the origin of all ritual uncleanness, a grave? Why did they have to allude to a pagan custom in far-off-lands to serve as material for a symbol, and what meaning would that kind of symbol have for a Jewish audience? I suggest that Professor Lieberman’s explanation is unsatisfactory, and that the sages said what they said out of their knowledge of what was on the Temple Mount and under it, although they could not express this in a more direct way. While I accredit Professor Lieberman for expressing his astonishment, I do not agree with his explanation.

To the Editor:

In Rivka Gonen’s article (“Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11:03), there are two references to the cave under the Dome of the Rock being used as “a place of confession” by the Crusaders when it was a Christian church. I wonder if the author may not have been confused by a technical use of the word “confessio”? Confessio can be used to describe just such a crypt, the most famous example being the “Confessio Petri” under the High Altar at Saint Peter’s. The shaft leading to the cave may have been used by pilgrims, for example, to make votive offerings or lower objects into the crypt so that they might have “been there,” without giving complete access.

Rivka Gonen replies:

Indeed, the cave under the rock was a confessio, which I wrongly interpreted as a place of confession. I would like to thank Reverend Hendricks for drawing my attention to this error.

The Supposed Discrepancy Between Samuel and Chronicles

To the Editor:

In “Was the Site of the Jerusalem Temple Originally a Cemetery?” BAR 11:03, by Rivka Gonen, the author tells of King David’s purchase of the Temple Mount. She claims that the account of this purchase in 1 Chronicles 21:18–26 contradicts the account in 2 Samuel 24:18–25 because the prices are different in the two accounts. What Dr. Gonen neglected to understand is that the price in 1 Chronicles (600 shekels of gold) was the purchase price of the place (Hebrew, magom) or area on which the Temple, with its spacious courts, was built later. The purchase price in 2 Samuel (50 shekels of silver) was just the cost of the threshing floor (Hebrew, goren). That is why the two prices are so different.

As a new subscriber to BAR, I have been very irritated by the many “scholars” who submit articles to BAR that have no respect for God’s Word.

Acoustical Soundings of the Cave of Machpelah

To the Editor:

Concerning your excellent article about the Cave of Machpelah (“Patriarchal Burial Site Explored for First Time in 700 Years,” BAR 11:03), would both Jews and Moslems permit an acoustical examination of the cave complex? The method is used in mineral 076exploration and might produce a “sonogram” revealing the locations of all the walled-off zones as well as the main chambers.

No digging would be necessary and no sacred relics would be disturbed. At least we would have a map of the cave system.

The Whole Thing

To the Editor:

Imagine my delight to find that the Herodian enclosure at Hebron is OVER Machpelah cave, not directly in BACK of it (“Patriarchal Burial Site Explored for First Time in 700 Years,” BAR 11:03).

Three times guides have pointed to a tiny fenced-in vertical cave in front of the Herodian structure. Certainly it must be a part of the Machpelah cave complex, but not the magnificent whole.

Thank you so much for enlightening me.

BAR Invents a New Caliph

To the Editor:

In a most interesting article, “Patriarchal Burial Site Explored for First Time in 700 Years,” BAR 11:03, there is a reference to the legend that “Ibrahim al Khalanji was ordered by the wife of a tenth-century caliph to investigate the area where Joseph was believed to be buried.” In the next paragraph, caliph and investigator have become conflicted into “Caliph Ibrahim al Khalarji [sic],” obviously unknown to Fatimid annals.

In spite of all that, carry on the good work!

Nancy Miller replies:

Alack and woe—Prof. Schäffer is right. The second reference should have been to the caliph, not to Khalanji-Khalarji.

Is Ancient Papyrus the Work of Rubin-Ibn-Goldberg?

To the Editor:

In a review of The Symbolism of the Biblical World (Books in Brief, BAR 11:03) your reviewer interprets the “Egyptian papyrus showing the weighing of the heart of the dead.” I believe that a more in-depth study would reveal that this papyrus was the work of Rubin-ibn-Goldberg and demonstrates how to make a short-tailed dog bite a visiting dignitary by having a fan-dancer entice a “wolf” while he is observing his nephew working out on a trampoline and trying to erect a yard swing set. Iconography is easy to read if one remembers to read from both ends toward the middle!

Thanks for excellent material which allows latitude in interpretation.

077

Ma’at And Feathers

To the Editor:

In his review of The Symbolism of the Biblical World, the reviewer describes Figure 83 as showing “a dead person’s heart … being weighed before Maat, god of justice and order.” Now the god before whom the weighing is taking place is of course Osiris, as the reviewer himself acknowledges a few lines later.

Moreover, Maat is not a god, but a goddess, more precisely the female personification of truth and right (the final t in the name m3‘.t is a mark of the feminine gender). A bit further on, the reviewer says “In that picture we see that only if the scale balances perfectly—the heart on one side, against the feather, symbol of Maat, on the other … ,” while it is plain that in the illustration the counterweight is not the (ostrich) feather of Maat alone, but a complete anthropomorphic figure of Maat, with ankh scepter and feather.

Jo Milgrom replies:

Thank you for calling my attention to the “t” ending which identifies Ma’at as a female goddess.

I wish the feather (?) figure on the balance scale were as unambiguous as the sex of Ma’at. The legend under fig. 639, p. 210 of The Ancient Near East in Pictures (ANEP), J. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University, 1969) supports Prof. Schäffer. It reads, “The god Anubis leads the deceased toward the balance, where his heart is weighed against Maat.” But if you look at the figure itself it looks a whole lot more like a feather, symbol of Ma’at, than it does like Ma’at herself.

Moreover, another scholar writes, “The hieroglyphic for Ma’at is the feather which was weighed against the heart of a dead man. The heart must be empty of evil to balance the feather weight on the other pan of the scales.” (Barbara Mertz, Temples, Tombs and Hieroglyphics [New York: Coward-McCann, 1964, p. 234]).)

Finally, another representation of Ma’at is instructive: in the ANEP volume cited above, we have a statue of Ma’at (fig. 561, p. 188). Her feather headdress, seen in profile, is almost a miniature representation of Ma’at herself, seen in three-quarter view. It is thus possible that the feather is not only a symbol of Ma’at but Ma’at herself. We might even both be right, but the real virtue of Mr. Schäffer’s comment is that he has made us take a closer second look at what we 078are seeing.

A postscript on final letters. No doubt Prof. Schäffer is unaware of customary English usage where the absence of a final “e” on the reviewer’s first name indicates that Jo Milgrom is also feminine.

How to Use BAR

To the Editor:

Each issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review is a treasure for enlarging my understanding of the Bible. I read it cover to cover and it is full of red markings for my future reference.

As director of a pastoral care center, I lead four ecumenical groups of people in Scripture studies each week. As I read through each article I underline the scriptural references and transfer them to a central file. Then when I prepare for the groups, I check my file to see if there has been anything concerning the readings we will be studying. If there is, I include this information with the groups.

Thank you for such a fine study aid.

BAR and National Geographic

To the Editor:

Congratulations on your beautiful magazine. With the exception of the National Geographic magazine, BAR is the only magazine in which text and photographs complement each other perfectly. Many travel and archaeological magazines only show partial views, weird close-ups and fancy pictures that pretend to show the mood and atmosphere of the place, but do not show what the place looks like as a whole.

Not everyone has the means to travel to places like the Holy Land, Egypt and Turkey. The next best thing is a good illustrated article.

Please, keep up the good work.

How BAR Improves a Trip to the Holy Land

To the Editor:

I am writing to express my appreciation for your highly informative magazine.

I have been reading BAR for several years, but I never realized its full worth until I made a pilgrimage to the Land of Israel last April.

The religious and historical information I had culled from reading your many fine articles, such as the one about the house of Peter (“Has the House Where Jesus Stayed in Capernaum Been Found?” BAR 08:06) and the synagogue in Capernaum (“Synagogue Where Jesus Preached Found at Capernaum,” BAR 09:06) came into sharp focus and very much helped me to enjoy all aspects of my pilgrimage.

Is et-Tell the Site of Ai?

To the Editor:

In Ziony Zevit’s article, “The Problem of Ai,” BAR 11:02, the author states that of the various sites proposed for Ai, “All but Khirbet et-Tell have been rejected on archaeological grounds.” In an endnote that briefly indicates the finds at other suggested sites, Zevit refers to “an unnamed tell located about two miles southwest of Beitin,” citing the results of a surface survey that “indicated that there had been no Middle Bronze–Late Bronze occupation.” Zevit is apparently unaware of recent excavations at this site that have overturned the earlier conclusion.

There have been four seasons of excavations at the small tell, now known as Khirbet Nisya: 1979, 1981, 1982 and 1984. Further work is planned for 1985. A summary of the results of the first four seasons by the director, David Livingston, has appeared in nos. 33–35 (1984) of ABR Encounter (published by the Associates for Biblical Research).

From the 1981 season onwards pottery from MB II has been found. In 1981 a five-ribbed MB II dagger was found in a tombshaft that may also be MB II in date. Livingston wrote in the ABR’s Newletter for August 1981 “ … It is now quite clear that the site was occupied during MB II. … A wide selection of household types of MB II ceramics assures us that more than occasional travelers passed through in that period. There was definitely a settlement here.”

No Late Bronze Age pottery has yet been found, which is still a problem within the conventional view that the Israelite Conquest/Settlement occurred at the end of the Late Bronze Age. However, as Livingston himself pointed out in the publication just quoted, the pattern of occupation indicated by the pottery does fit with my own proposal for correlating the Conquest with the fall of 079Jericho and other major cities at the end of MB II (redated to the late 15th century B.C.) (see my Redating the Exodus and the Conquest, Sheffield, 1978).

It must be admitted, of course, that, so far, no building remains have been found at Khirbet Nisya that can be attributed to MB II, nor a destruction-level such as one might expect from the Biblical account of Ai’s end. Nevertheless the pottery evidence favors Khirbet Nisya over Khirbet et-Tell as the site of Ai; in addition to the MB II pottery cited above, there is abundant evidence of occupation in the Persian period, in line with references to Ai/Aija in Ezra 2:28 and Nehemiah 11:31, while Khirbet et-Tell does not seem to have been occupied at that time.

It should be pointed out that Livingston’s suggestion that Khirbet Nisya is Ai is a result of his proposed relocation of Bethel. Livingston has argued at length that Bethel should be located at modern el-Bireh, not at Beitin as has long been assumed. (See Livingston’s articles in Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ) 33/1, November 1970, pp. 2040; 34/1, November 1971, pp. 39–50.) He has also argued that if Bethel is identified with el-Bireh and if Ai is identified with Khirbet Nisya, all the topographical information provided by the Bible (as discussed by Zevit) is actually better satisfied than if Bethel = Beitin and Ai = Khirbet et-Tell (WTJ 33/1, pp. 26ff.).

In view of the relevance of excavations at Khirbet Nisya to the complex and controversial topic of the date and nature of Israel’s Conquest/Settlement, may we hope that your journal will give some coverage to future finds?

Ziony Zevit replies:

I thank Dr. Bimson for supplying BAR readers with information about the unnamed site that was unavailable when I was working on my study—its name (Khirbet Nisya) and the fact that Middle Bronze II pottery was found in the excavation of it. However, the thrust of Dr. Bimson’s letter is to suggest, on the basis of archaeological evidence and on the basis of Livingston’s suggestion that Khirbet Nisya is Ai, that the questions of the et-Tell = Ai equation and the dating of the Israelite conquest must be reconsidered anew. What are the facts?

In an article entitled “Intensive Systematic Surface Collections at Livingston’s Proposed Site for Biblical Ai,” in Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ) 36 (1973–74), R. B. Blizzard claimed that there had been no MB–LB occupation at Khirbet Nisya, and that although there may have been a small Iron Age settlement, the site’s major periods of growth and development were Roman and Byzantine (pp. 224–225). Dr. Bimson’s letter points out that no Late Bronze pottery has been found; that on the basis of pottery found at the site, the excavator claims that Khirbet Nisya was settled during the MB II period. However, no MB II buildings have been found and no MB destruction layer. Unfortunately, ABR Encounter, where the excavator has published a summary of his results, is hardly a major publication and cannot be located in the university collections available to me in Los Angeles. Thus, neither the quality, quantity, types, or distribution of ceramic evidence used by him to assert that Khirbet Nisya was settled is known to me; nor do I know if any fortifications were found. I assume that Dr. Bimson would certainly have mentioned fortifications had they been unearthed and reported. Thus, Blizzard’s work of a decade ago needs only slight emendation: MB pottery is attested. Nevertheless, let us assume, for the sake of discussion, the validity of the excavator’s interpretation that a small MB II settlement existed on a terraced hill 2.5 kilometers south and slightly east of the modern city of el-Bireh. What 080has this to do with Ai?

Even prior to actually excavating, Livingston published the two articles cited by Bimson. Their names are telling: “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered” and “Traditional Site of Bethel Questioned.” In these, Livingston argued that ancient Bethel is to be located at el-Bireh in which case Ai, which the Biblical evidence cited in my article places to the east of Bethel, must be Khirbet Nisya. Dr. Bimson accepted these conclusions in his 1978 book, Redating the Exodus and the Conquest. Livingston’s conclusions were useful to him in that the Beian = Bethel and the et-Tell = Ai equations created difficulties for the MB II date of the Israelite conquest that he was trying to establish. (For evaluations of Bimson’s work, its presuppositions, methodology and conclusions, see the reviews of J. M. Miller [Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980), pp. 133–135] J. M. de Tarragon [Revue Biblique 87 (1980), pp. 137–138] and Anson Rainey [cited below]).

In an article entitled “Bethel Is Still Beitin” published in WTJ 33 (1970) and in his review of Bimson’s book published in Israel Exploration Journal 30 (1980), pp. 249–251, Dr. Anson Rainey, the noted semiticist and student of historical geography from Tel Aviv University, demonstrated that the linguistic equation Beitin = Bethel is irrefutable, that both Biblical and patristic sources located Bethel where Beitin is, and that el-Bireh does not appear to have been a fortified MB or LB site. All archaeologists with whom I have conferred on this specific matter agree that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports Rainey. So, if el-Bireh is not Bethel, the role of Khirbet Nisya in a discussion of Ai is nil. And if el-Bireh is not Bethel, then the absence of data for a LB settlement is irrelevant in arguing for an Israelite conquest of the site in the 15th century B.C. which according to Bimson’s reckoning is the end of MB. In sum, Khirbet Nisya has nothing to do with Ai. It may have been a small MB village.

Dr. Livingston has gone out on a long limb in advancing his claims and playing his hunches while Dr. Bimson has followed him slowly. Should future excavation provide undisputable evidence that they are correct, then many, including myself, will have to revise ideas, lectures and publications—and will do so gladly. They will get the credit that they deserve. But until such evidence comes to light and is published adequately, there does not appear any compelling reason to disallow the et-Tell = Ai equation and its multifaceted implications for our understanding of the Israelite conquest and settlement.

Forcing Readers to Evaluate, Think and Make Conclusions

To the Editor:

I had subscribed to your fine magazine for a while, until caught in the unemployment crunch that swept our country and unable to afford the subscription. Now that I am back on my feet, I have resubscribed to a very few of my favorite periodicals; BAR was at the top of my list.

Your magazine is not only one of the best around, but also one of the most important. For those of us who are involved in the Bible and are trying to understand it, modern sources are hard to find. Sources are abundant, but quality is rare. Far too many writers and publishers are interested only in spreading their own particular approach to “understanding” with little regard for the reader’s ability to interpret and arrive at conclusions. I do not have a good library available to find the research tools to sate even simple curiosity, so BAR is eagerly awaited.

I serve as a Presbyterian lay preacher and have found BAR a very useful source in my preaching. There is so much misunderstanding of the Bible; so much of past and present knowledge is shrouded in denominational fervor and blind acceptance, that a source such as yours increases in importance. Because it is technical, but in a way that nonstudents can both enjoy and understand, it allows, and even forces, the reader to evaluate, think and make conclusions. To me that’s refreshing in our world of headlines and partial information. Thank you for enhancing my life in the Bible.

Defining Meter Sticks

To the Editor:

I have a stupid question. In most of the archaeological dig pictures I have seen in your magazine and various books there is a stick with white and black bands on it. I assume this is a measurement to show the size of the item in the dig. My question is what is the size of the white and black bands?

This is a question we get rather regularly, and we are pleased to answer it every few years. It is not a stupid question. No honest question is stupid.—Ed.

Oded Borowski replies:

To know the size of unfamiliar objects in a picture, we have to relate them to something with which we are familiar. Sometimes, a photograph of buildings will include people standing or sitting, thus providing a familiar “yardstick” with which the viewer can gauge the size of the subject of the photograph. Sometimes, when small objects are photographed, a familiar object, such as a pen, a coin or a finger is included for the same purpose.

The most accurate way of providing a “yardstick” is by presenting the viewer with a standard measure against which he/she can compare the photographed object. Since archaeologists in most parts of the world use the metric system, they place a “meter stick” in their photographs next to the object. Usually, when a large object is photographed, the “meter stick” is divided into sections of ten centimeters, each painted with dark or light (black or red next to white) colors. When the object is bigger than a person, the “meter stick” might be divided into half-meter segments. When small objects, such as jars, coins and jewelry, are photographed, the sections on the “meter stick” are one centimeter long.

Using such a device provides the viewer with a means to tell the accurate size of things.