Queries & Comments

016

A Line, a God, a Stick or a Snake? Professor Jamme Comes Down on Professor Anati, Who Replies in Kind

To the Editor:

It takes a lot of imagination and obsession to understand the photograph in Emmanuel Anati’s article (“Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?” BAR 11:04) as depicting “a stick-like figure of a man with upraised arms praying before a simple vertical abstract line.” (In the caption and later in the article the “arms” are replaced by “hands.”)

It is very simple to publish a bare statement, such as that these petroglyphs “seem to display religious themes,” without any proof.

What kind of “religious themes” does the author have in mind? It is fortunate that the author does not suggest that the petroglyph represents some scene from a phallus cult.

The man is not “praying before” (as the caption says) or “standing before” (as the text says) the line, since the man is viewed frontally, and the line is to his right.

Why should a “worshipper” (as he is called in the text) with upraised, outstretched arms have his arms connected to each other (tied?) by a crossbar?

Why should a “praying” man be shown with his legs wide apart?

What kind of deity or demon might be stylized as a short, vertical bar half the length of the human figure?

That petroglyph represents a jolly scene, that is, a man having a good time hopping around a short pole stuck in the ground. Such a scene is a variant of a form of rejoicing that I witnessed on several occasions in Arabia. As I have stated elsewhere: “In each case, it was a short interlude given on the spur of the moment by a Bedouin who would grasp whatever he could seize around him and would jiggle up and down while balancing or playing with the two objects around his head. Near al-’Abr, the Bedouin did not even bother to look for a second stick. He simply took a handful of sand and released it slowly during his jiggle, and the show was over when his hand was empty” (Journal of the American Oriental Society 92 [1972], p. 521).

G. Furlani’s judgment of D. Nielson’s understanding of the religion of ancient Southern Arabia applies to Anati’s theories: “La tesi sostenuta dall’autore … è certament molto audace. Ma all’audacia non corrisponde la forza probatoria” [“The thesis put forward by the author is certainly audacious. But its audacity is not sustained by the force of scholarly inquiry”] (Bulletin de l’Institut d’Egypte 6 [session 1923–1924], 1924, p. 117).

I reviewed Anati’s Rock-Art in Central Arabia, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1968), in Miscellanées d’ancient arabe, I (Washington, D.C., 1971), pp. 71–81. To my knowledge, he never answered my review. Pages 72–78 of my review deal with Anati’s working method, and pages 79–80 develop my conclusion that “the author shows himself to be haunted by mythology and ritualism.”

A working method and a thesis do not in the least increase in value even after being repeated hundreds of times, and the author’s obsession with mythology and ritualism and his working method are again illustrated by his article in BAR.

Professor Emmanuel Anati replies:

Epigrapher A. Jamme is highly respected for his ability to read Southern Arabic scripts; it is a pity that he makes easy judgments about matters with which he does not appear familiar. His comments recall a previous occasion about ten years ago in which he expressed his personal aversion to rock art studies in that again he seems to have “read” just the illustrations, nor the text. Also, he draws conclusions solely from the illustrations of rock art published in the paper, ignoring the literature that has led to the evaluation of the significance of the figures. His various learned references prominently display his erudition but unfortunately lack a context.

Over 35,000 rock pictures have been recorded at Har Karkom. While it is virtually impossible as well as intellectually irresponsible to draw conclusions about the significance of a single figure as Dr. Jamme tries to do, the comparative study of this large assemblage is gradually beginning to make sense. While the rock art belonging to the “literate periods” of the last twenty-five centuries may include anecdotal scenes and descriptions of men “having a good time,” the pre-literate depictions reveal no evidence of this rather contemporary concept. This point has already been stressed in my Arte rupestre del Negev e del Sinai (Milan: Jaca Book, 1979).

To an illiterate tribesman, an X or a Z are just scribbles. To the literate person, they have a meaning and a sound, and when combined in a certain order with other signs make a word or convey a thought, although for the illiterate person such an assertion may seem pure imagination. For Dr. Jamme, “a line is just a line” when it has nothing to do with epigraphy. However, for the scholar of rock art, when a specific anthropomorphic figure is combined with a special type of “line” and this is repeated several times, associated in the same order, on different rock surfaces, it is unlikely that they are meaningless scribblings, and they call for further analysis.

A preliminary study of the findings at Har Karkom, including the rock art, has appeared in the book Har Karkom, Montagna Sacra nel Deserto dell’Esodo (Milan: Jaca Book, 1984). Although Professor Jamme seems to favor smart, extemporaneous evaluation, it is hoped that in reading this text he will recognize that his approach is disingenuous.

018

To the Editor:

The petroglyph showing a person with outspread limbs before a more or less straight line is a common object in that part of the world. It is a warning of the presence of deadly snakes, not an act of worship. The person is sprawled out dead; the snake’s position above and to the right indicates its position of power and victory.

Is Jebel Musa Mt. Sinai?

To the Editor:

Perevolotsky and Finkelstein’s “The Southern Sinai Exodus Route in Ecological Perspective,” BAR 11:04, is a good example of both why I find BAR valuable and why I find some scholars confusing.

After explaining how “the Byzantine pattern of monastic settlement was dictated by ecological considerations” the authors conclude that “the theory of the southern route of the Exodus was born” from those settlements.

Well, maybe so, but does that make the monks wrong? It seems to me that Moses and the monks shared many of the same “considerations,” ecological and otherwise. After reading that article, I’m more convinced, not less, that Jebel Musa was probably Mt. Sinai. (I’ll pass on the identification of the other sites, though.)

An “Average Reader” Finds Stiebing’s Attack on Anati Unfair

To the Editor:

I thoroughly enjoy your magazine and read it from cover to cover within a few days of its arrival. The articles are informative and comprehensible, without being patronizing to lay readers such as myself. At least, this is what I thought until I read “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement Be Redated?” BAR 11:04, by William H. Stiebing, Jr..

Professor Stiebing begins by attacking the article “Has Mt. Sinai Been Found?” BAR 11:04, by Emmanuel Anati in the same issue. Stiebing accuses Professor Anati of concluding “that Har Karkom was in fact Mt. Sinai.” However, the closing paragraphs of Professor Anati’s article clearly label his answer “not factual, but conjectural.”

Professor Stiebing goes on to poke holes in all the radical reconstruction theories, citing “insoluble problems” with every aspect, yet admitting no such “problems” with the currently accepted theories. For example, the fact that there has been no evidence found of cities at Ai and Jericho at the time the Israelites were said to have conquered them presents no problem to Professor Stiebing. It simply means that the Biblical authors have “drawn on historical memory” and were “not trying to tell history” but instead to “make theological points.” My question is: Why did the Biblical authors suddenly start “telling history” around 1000 B.C. when up to that point they only recorded legends to make “theological points”?

To understand why the “public” reads Velikovsky, Courville and Bimson, along with other iconoclasts, Professor Stiebing need only reread his own article. His attitude is arrogant and condescending, a prime 019example of the “we know it all—don’t question us” attitude of many experts that is so offensive to many of us who are members of that great institution, “the public.” And as for the “average reader,” we are usually greatly stimulated by intellectual discussion of differing viewpoints on a given topic, regardless of who is right or wrong.

If given enough information, we “average readers” are quite capable of forming some surprisingly accurate conclusions, or at least posing some pertinent questions. If Professor Stiebing feels his time and talents could be put to “more productive” use than explaining theories to the “public,” then he and his colleagues have no one but themselves to blame when the “public” chooses to read the works of others who believe such work to be important and “productive.”

How Much Confidence Can We Have in the Standard Chronology?

To the Editor:

I enjoyed the article, “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement Be Redated?” BAR 11:04.

I would like to see you publish an article of equal length by Courville on the same matter, including what historical and philosophical viewpoints went into determining the G.A.D.’s when the scheme was first generated.

To the Editor:

It is not really surprising that William H. Stiebing, Jr., answers his own question with a confident “No.” He is already on the record as an active critic of the Revised Chronology school.

But what is the foundation of his confidence that the Standard Chronology is substantially correct? What has changed since 1961 when Sir Alan Gardiner admitted “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters. … Even when full use has been made of the king-lists … the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution.” What has changed since 1880, when George Rawlinson wrote: “The Egyptians had no era. They drew out no chronological schemes. … Until some fresh light shall be thrown upon this point by the progress of discovery, the uncertainty attaching to the Egyptian chronology must continue. … ”

Most of what Dr. Stiebing says in refutation of Revisionist scholars is open to more than the single conclusion Stiebing draws. Other conclusions of Stiebing seem to rest on the assumed correctness of the Standard Chronology, the very scheme which is the object of the Revision.

Ideas which he now brings up are actually old hat in the debate between Revisionist scholars themselves. For example, no later than SIS Review [Society for Interdisciplinary Studies] Vol. II, No. 3, 1977, Martin Sieff rejected the identification of Jehoshaphat as Abdu-Hepa on the same (and additional) grounds as Dr. Stiebing. The rejection in that case does not compromise the validity of the general theory. Friend and foe of Velikovsky have challenged him on many individual points. It is wrong to assume that anyone considers his work doctrinal; it is a pioneering effort in a very complex area. His work can no more stand without revision than could that of James H. Breasted and Flinders Petrie, who did so much to establish the Standard Chronology in the last century. But let the debate be public and lively. That will better serve the advance of archaeological investigation than the maintaining of the false assumption that long-held beliefs in archaeology are not at this time being effectively challenged.

It is ironic that Dr. Stiebing claims that his article was partially motivated by the fact that “it is not immediately apparent to the average reader why [Velikovsky’s, Courville’s and Bimson’s] proposals are wrong.” The converse is true to an even greater degree. The Standard Chronology was only tentatively believed in by its originators; it is today only believed in tentatively by its exponents. The danger exists that an obsolete system will be perpetuated, not through its merits, but because the average man will fail to see that the great minds and institutions of today can be as wrong as the great minds and institutions of the past have been wrong on many things.

Inasmuch as BAR has carried Dr. Stiebing’s strong words of criticism of living scholars, it would be right and proper to allow the spokesmen of the Revised Chronology to give answer in the pages of BAR. If the Standard Chronology is the unimpeachable monolith its supporters assume it is, this would become apparent in the debate. However, to criticize in a safe and friendly forum is 072not legitimate scholarship. It is only PR work in defense of an insecure status quo.

An Exchange Between Professor Bimson and Professor Stiebing

To the Editor:

Professor Stiebing (“Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement Be Redated?” BAR 11:04) nowhere mentions the fact that in my book Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Sheffield, 1978, reprinted with minor revisions, 1981) I give a detailed defense of a 15th-century B.C. date for the Exodus and Conquest within the framework of the conventional chronology. I also argue in the book that the Conquest should be equated with the fall of Canaanite cities at the end of Middle Bronze II, and consequently I propose lowering the date for the end of MB II by a little over 100 years. Apart from this move (and the resultant shortening of Late Bronze I) there is no major tampering with Palestinian stratigraphy in the book. Conventional dates are adopted there for Late Bronze II and the entire Iron Age.

Stiebing actually ignores my book completely except for a reference in endnote 16. It would appear that he is not very familiar with it, since it contains material that corrects his out-of-date claim (p. 66) that MB and LB occupation is not attested in Transjordan. His failure to discuss my book gives the impression that a 15th-century Exodus and Conquest, and my equating of the latter with the end of MB II, are necessarily tied to the other views which he criticizes and must therefore be rejected along with them. I wish to stress that this is not the case. The arguments in my book are quite independent of the more radical revisions which he discusses and must be assessed on their own merits. By effectively (and inexplicably!) ignoring a 300-page book (which has now appeared in two editions and is referred to sympathetically in a growing number of scholarly works), and giving his attention instead to a 1978 conference paper which few people have ever seen, Stiebing does my views a gross disservice.

A full-length article on the date of the Conquest and the problem of Ai, currently in preparation for BAR [“Redating The Exodus,” BAR 13:05], will give me a further opportunity to explain and defend these arguments. There the question posed in the title of Stiebing’s article will be answered positively—the Exodus and the Israelite settlement should indeed be redated—but without involving the radical schemes which Stiebing criticizes. In the meantime, I hope the above will serve to correct the false impression of my work which Stiebing has conveyed.

William H. Stiebing, Jr., replies:

If my comments about Professor Bimson’s revised chronology for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages cause some readers to form a false impression about his book, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, I apologize. When I wrote my article, I was unaware that Professor Bimson had abandoned his proposals for radically redating the Palestinian Late Bronze Age and Iron Age periods. [Shortly before we went to press, Professor Bimson wrote us that he had abandoned these proposals and we inserted a note to that effect in Professor Stiebing’s article. Professor Stiebing had no way of knowing earlier that Professor Bimson had abandoned these proposals.—Ed.] If I had known that he was going to repudiate the suggestions he made in his 1978 paper, later published by S.I.S. Review (see note 26 to my article), I would have emphasized the distinction between the modest chronological changes he proposed in his book and the more radical ones presented in the paper. At the time, the paper seemed to be a natural outgrowth of the challenges to orthodox chronology presented in Bimson’s book. I concentrated on the paper because it advocated a radical change in the archaeological chronology, which I believe is not in accord with the archaeological evidence. I do not discuss Bimson’s book in my article precisely because it does not present a very radical redating scheme. Even so, I think that few archaeologists will agree with the book’s contention that the end of the Middle Bronze Age II needs to be lowered by about a century to coincide with a c. 1450 B.C. date for the Exodus (see George W. Ramsey’s comments in The Quest for the Historical Israel [Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981], pp. 74–77).

I am aware of the discoveries of MB and LB material in Transjordan in recent years (principally near the present city of Amman), but the paucity of finds from these periods in southern Transjordan still presents problems for any chronology that equates the Late Bronze Age with 074the era of the flourishing monarchies of Edom, Moab and Ammon. Crystal Bennett’s excavations at Umm el’Biyara, Tawilan and Buseira (ancient Bozrah, capital of Edom) have supported the conclusion that there was little, if any, urban occupation in Edom between the end of the Early Bronze Age/Middle Bronze Age I and the Iron Age. And Siegfried Horn’s excavations at Heshbon (the capital of Moab) also uncovered no building remains earlier than the Iron Age. The seemingly modest occupation of southern Transjordan in the MB II and LB periods presents difficulties for those who see the Biblical Exodus account as a totally accurate reflection of events during either MB II or LB II. But this difficulty is not as insuperable as the one presented to those who wish to place the monarchies of Israel, Judah, Edom, Moab and Ammon in the Late Bronze era.

Israel Anthropological Community Asks BAR to Reconsider Antiquities Ads

To the Editor:

Regarding your recent BAR editorial (“BARview: Dubitante No More—BAR to Accept Ads for Near Eastern Antiquities,” BAR 11:04) and subsequent decision to accept ads from antiquities dealers, we in the anthropological community in Israel believe that an important consideration in the question of antiquity sales has been overlooked. Namely, nearly all the illegal digging to supply the antiquities market is in tombs, since it is here that one is most likely to find complete pottery objects which eventually find their way to the private antiquities dealers and collectors. If the tomb robber is fortunate enough to find objects of great commercial value, these objects generally never reach the museums or public at large but are sold directly to private collectors both here and abroad.

Furthermore, and for us this is the crux of the issue, whereas the material objects may eventually reach the academic community, the skeletal remains are never collected since the only value to the tomb looter are those objects which are salable. Therefore, the skeletal material is either thrown away by the looters or simply left broken and disturbed on the site. Whatever the disposition, the fact remains that valuable anthropological data is always irrevocably lost to the scientific community, not to mention the callous disrespect shown toward the deceased.

Anthropological research over the past few years has yielded valuable information to the archaeological community, much of which would have been lost had the tombs been looted by those individuals guided solely by monetary considerations.

We, therefore, believe that your advertising policy not only legitimizes the wholesale destruction of archaeological sites on a wide scale but is detrimental to the interests of archaeological/anthropological research as a whole, of which by virtue of your publication you are a part. We therefore ask that you reconsider your decision, which we in the anthropological community believe is detrimental to the interests of archaeology/anthropology.

We wholeheartedly agree with our friend Joe Zias—up until the “therefore.” Tomb robbery is horrendous. And as bad as it is for the archaeological artifacts that are looted, it is even worse for the skeletal remains that are forever destroyed. But, unfortunately, all this occurred before BAR accepted antiquities ads.

So far no policy has proved effective in controlling tomb robbery. The only reasonable suggestion, recently proposed by BAR (“BARview: A Radical Proposal: Archaeologists Should Sell Ancient Artifacts,” BAR 11:01) is to make the illegal product undesirable and uneconomical by offering for sale on the market legal, authenticated archaeological artifacts consisting of duplicates that are bursting the basements of museums and antiquities departments. The proceeds could be used to excavate known tomb complexes scientifically, instead of leaving them to the local villagers to rob.

As is well known, the Tell Beit Mirsim tombs are now empty—the contents recently lost to illegal diggers. This happened before BAR accepted antiquities ads. Why weren’t these tombs scientifically excavated, especially after it became known that they were being looted? The 075reason is that there was no money to excavate them scientifically. The money could have been available, however, if duplicate artifacts could have been sold to finance the excavation.

Dear Joe, Why hasn’t the anthropological community in Israel commented on this suggestion? Please let us hear your thoughts on this question. In the editorial announcing our decision to accept antiquities ads, we stated, “When professional archaeologists and government departments of antiquities begin selling the thousands of duplicates inaccessibly stored in their bulging basements we will reconsider our decision to accept antiquities ads.”

It is easy to criticize BAR for accepting antiquities ads—but that doesn’t really face the issue of how to stop tomb robbing. What are your proposals? We have made our proposal—which has a real chance of success. If BAR refused to accept antiquities ads, this would not stop tomb robbing or even significantly reduce it. We call upon the anthropological (and archaeological) communities in Israel and elsewhere to direct their attention to the issue of tomb robbing. Have you ever convened a formal conference or professional meeting that focused on the problem of tomb robbing and illegal excavation? Are you even considering what can be done? Calling for a ban on antiquities ads in BAR is easy, but it does not really address the problem. We look forward to continuing the discussion. We don’t pretend to any divine wisdom on this difficult problem.—Ed.

To the Editor:

Since you admit that accepting antiquities ads in BAR is in principle wrong, and yet have decided to make it your policy to accept them, you are publicly declaring your willingness to compromise your principles in favor of financial gain. This does not lend to your credibility and detracts from the integrity of your publication. If your publication is going to associate itself with the term “Biblical” and the Bible, you need to pattern your policies after Biblical principles.

To the Editor:

I’m sure the decision to accept ads for antiquities was a difficult one, the arguments pro and con both being substantial. I think your decision was the correct one.

Good News for John, Jane and James

To the Editor:

The last entry in the Hieroglyphic Alphabet in the July/August issue (“You Too Can Read Hieroglyphics,” BAR 11:04) is in error. The snake depicted there corresponds to a “dj” sound, usually transliterated d not f. The “f” sound is represented by another snake, the horned viper that can be seen as part of the spelling of itf = father.

Carey Moore replies:

When the July/August issue of BAR arrived and I opened it, the error at the end of the Egyptian alphabet chart leaped out at me like the old foldout in my childhood Mickey Mouse book. (Remember them?)

“Those people [at BAR] changed it after I had approved it,” I muttered—until I checked out the copy of my manuscript as I had first submitted it. And there the error was, mine from the very beginning. Sorry!

Anyway, Mr. Schäffer is correct: is properly transliterated as d or dj, all of which will certainly be good news to those BAR readers with names like John, Jane and James, who wanted to write their names in hieroglyphics.

076

How I could have made such a stupid error is beyond me, but then I guess that’s the nature of stupid errors.

Reader Accused of Bibliolatry

To the Editor:

With all the narrow, self-righteous rhetoric I read in your letters column, it seems to me that some of those benighted believers have made the Bible itself into an idol. It is perfect, they cry; it cannot be questioned or doubted, they wail. “God said it, that settles it, I believe it,” one writes. Many even cling to the badly outdated King James Version as the only acceptable translation. Furthermore, its very name, “Bible” has become a sort of Pentagrammaton which is itself holy. According to one letter, the word Bible cannot appear on the cover of a magazine that reproduces a photograph of an idol.

Idolaters are indeed alive and well—and among us; they just don’t know it.

To the Editor:

I’m saving Ellie Placek’s letter castigating objective Biblical archaeology (Queries & Comments, BAR 11:04) as a classic example of prideful ignorance. Her adamant declaration of the Bible’s divine infallibility has its model in the Ayatollah Khomeini’s like position on the Koran, thus attesting to the survival of the Dark Ages into our time.

If God really dictated the Bible, He has reason to repent—as he is said to have done (Genesis 32:11–14) at Moses’ reproach when He lost His temper over the wayward Chosen People! The Lord should at least have appointed an editor to reconcile the good book’s scores of errors and contradictions, if it was intended as a cosmic instructional manual.

If only readers such as Ms. Placek would refrain from Bibliolatry (Bible worship) long enough to read it with brain engaged, they would discover this for themselves and lay off condemning honest scholars.

As for God repenting, a fascinating article on this subject is scheduled to appear in the Winter 1985 issue of our sister publication Bible Review.—Ed.

A Line, a God, a Stick or a Snake? Professor Jamme Comes Down on Professor Anati, Who Replies in Kind

To the Editor: