Queries & Comments

012

Mere Coincidence?

I write to express my dismay in the feature article “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” BAR 17:01, by Erika Bleibtreu.

An article such as this only exacerbates an already volatile situation Enough stereotypes abound about the people living in modern Iraq without Biblical Archaeology Review choosing to remind us of the often grim history of those who lived there long ago. Are we to believe you’re timing is mere coincidence?

May God have mercy on all of us and keep us faithful in praying for peace

Prone, Not Supine

How many of your readers caught the error in “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” BAR 17:01? The two naked men in the relief are not lying supine but prone. The man in the lowest register is lying supine.

You’re the only one who caught our error.—Ed.

Un-Biblical Violence

Your BAR 17:01 issue could do without the explicit depiction of Assyrian torture and dismemberment (Erika Bleibtreu, “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” BAR 17:01). It is distractingly violent. Biblical? No.

An Older Eruption at Thera Blasts Goedicke’s Theory

Thank you for publishing the article by 016Christos C. Doumas on the excavation of Akrotiri at Thera (“High Art From the Time of Abraham,” BAR 17:01). The pictures and illustrations are marvelous. Professor Doumas’ remarks are most informative and well reasoned. He gives your readers a clear view of what the Aegean world was like in those ancient days.

He also effectively refutes Professor Hans Goedicke’s Exodus theory. Marine geologist Floyd W. McCoy and volcanologist Grant Haiken did the same in the May/June issue of Archaeology. Dr. Doumas didn’t cite them, but he used the data they set forth.

However, Dr. Doumas did not deal with one important point of the McCoy and Haiken study. He implied the main crater we see today resulted from the 1628 B.C. eruption. On the contrary, McCoy and Haiken reported the main crater was mostly formed about 100,000 years ago, leaving the topography nearly what it is today. These very ancient eruptions formed a harbor somewhat like that of today.

In short, the Late Bronze Age eruption, though cataclysmic, did not create the whole scene as we see it today. The older sheltered port gave a natural advantage for waterborne commerce, perhaps even more favorable than the one today. This is another reason to discount Goedicke’s theory: The eruption wasn’t quite as monstrous as he would have us believe. Some of the research results from the ocean bottom reported by McCoy and Haiken show us conclusively that this is so.

Thera as Atlantis

Dr. Doumas suggests that the eruption of Thera was the model for Plato’s invention of Atlantis (“High Art from the Time of Abraham,” BAR 17:01). Surely a much more likely candidate existed nearer his own time.

In Book 3 of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides describes how part of the Athenian fort on the island of Atalanta was carried away by a tidal wave in the summer of the sixth year of the war (427 B.C.E.). Given the similarity of the names and the likelihood of a young Plato meeting up with ex-soldiers who tend to exaggerate, it seems very likely that this was the source of Plato’s fictional continent.

Apparently such events were common at that time. Thucydides correctly places their cause in the frequent earthquakes then occurring. Thucydides had a strong interest in such phenomena. In the same passage he writes that the Liparians believe that Stromboli is the forge of Hephaestus because of the “flame they see it send out by night, and the smoke by day.”

It is true that the retreating and returning of the sea from an earthquake, the ash cloud of the volcano and the pillar of fire or smoke all have their parallels in the text of the Exodus; but all the known volcanoes are in the wrong direction (north), and the Delta is not an earthquake zone. Perhaps the magnitude and mystery of these physical events, which must have been well known, made them paradigm examples of Divine power and as such they were incorporated into the story of Israel’s miraculous escape.

Cleansing the Theological Tablets

The Strugnell affair is more scandalous than has been acknowledged so far.

Coming from a Christian/Catholic background and long engaged in the hard and necessary work of Jewish-Christian dialogue, 018I think it is my duty as well as prerogative to call the spade by its obvious name. John Strugnell is an anti-Semite.

Anti-Semitism is not the property alone of the lunatic fringe or the benighted masses. It flourishes, as we have seen of late, as part and parcel of the mental furniture, and perhaps the controlling assumptions, of some much-honored writers and thinkers—Ezra Pound, T. S. Eliot, H. L. Mencken, Paul de Man and, I am sure, many others. Each and all of them have their defenders, who would explain away such anti-Semitism as a mere blemish. Such deference to luminaries I think is indefensible: given their great influence and moral authority, they should be the more liable to criticism.

I fear, also, that the anti-Semitism of such notables and the apologetics of their epigoni simply lend credence to Leo Pinsker’s despairing assertion of more than a century ago, that “as a psychic aberration, it is hereditary; as a disease transmitted for two thousand years, it is incurable.” I go forward in the belief that Pinsker will be proven wrong and, in the hope voiced by James Parkes half a century ago that, while it will take an immense effort and a long time, Christian thought and teaching will be cured of the disease. In the meantime, the revelations about Strugnell can only make one feel pain and disgrace.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are compelling a radical historiographical reorientation and a thorough dispelling of stereotypes in our understanding of “late Judaism,” “primitive Christianity,” messianism and many other issues. The scrolls are also a great gift to those who are active in Christian-Jewish dialogue, seeking after two millennia to cleanse the theological tablets and rectify those meager and distorted textbook pages that have long served Christians as Jewish history. Far from having been part of them, all such efforts have been lost on Mr. Strugnell, “pioneer” scholar of the scrolls though he has been; as a pre-Vatican Council II Catholic, he appears to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

Whatever his unfortunate personal illnesses, Mr. Strugnell certainly exhibits all the classic symptoms of that ancient Catholic disease, Judeo-phobia. His accusations, as venerable in the annals of anti-Semitism as they are demonstrably false, repeat verbatim the ancient cacophony that Judaism is based on a “lie,” is a “heresy,” merely a tribal religion, racist, not one of the great world religions but a “horrible” one which should have “disappeared,” etc. Indeed, until relatively recently Christians—by expulsion, massacre, forced conversion—were bent on making Jews and Judaism disappear. Mr. Strugnell says he wants to add Israel to the disappearance list.

With the post-Vatican II generation of Roman Catholics, there is real hope that those theological tablets will be cleansed at last, and that the history of Christian-Jewish relations will be fully and accurately told.

In the meantime, our understanding of the scrolls suffers from two liabilities, one being—a matter of frequent and effective complaint in the pages of the Biblical Archaeology Review—that a significant proportion of the manuscripts remains unpublished; the other—which usually goes unmentioned but is more problematic—originated in the virtual monopoly initially enjoyed by Christian scholars, many of them clergy, as the pioneer interpreters of the scrolls; consciously or unconsciously, they pre-empted the scrolls to serve Christian apologia, finding in them foundations, rituals and liturgies, cosmology and even persons purportedly “Christian.” As popular notions, such ideas remain widespread and deeply rooted assumptions. This phenomenon parallels the way Christians once appropriated the Hebrew Bible as their own sacred book, calling it the Old Testament and denying it to Jews. For the sake of the study of the scrolls and the development of Christian-Jewish relations, I hope Mr. Strugnell is the last of such “pioneer” scholars.

Hopes for Few Progeny

Your BAR 17:01 containing the interview by Avi Katzman of John Strugnell left me disgusted and repulsed by Strugnell’s bigoted views (“Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01). How the scientific community has endured him for so long is beyond understanding. I have neither compassion nor respect for this sick man or his questionable contributions.

Kudos to BAR for excising this boil that has been plaguing the entire Dead Sea Scrolls project. He should have been exposed long ago. I only hope Strugnell has few progeny to inherit his poisonous opinions.

Is God Laughing?

At my age, I doubt if I will see the information contained in the unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. It is doubtful that my grandchildren will.

As any modern librarian will tell you, the world-fund of knowledge now doubles about every five years. It used to be ten. And yet, here sits an enclave of so-called scholars who refuse to share a treasure. What is baffling to me is that there is not an agency with enough clout to make them share it. They have simply wrangled for 40 years.

Future writers of history will have no other choice than to label these men as not being able to discern the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

One of the commandments God gave to man (Jew, Moslem or Christian) is: You shall not covet. From a human point of view this is a tragedy. I would suppose that from God’s point of view it is laughable.

The quality of BAR gets better and better.

Dead Sea Scroll Scholarship Has Been Deformed

As a follow-up to the revelations about Professor Strugnell (“Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01) may I point out that in January 1989 I attempted to convince Amir Drori, head of Israel’s Antiquities Authority, of Strugnell’s attitudes. At the time, Drori informed me that he was about to sign a contract with Mr. Strugnell on behalf of the rest of the International Committee. Realizing that such a contract amounted to a disaster for those of us who had been trying for so long to gain access to the scrolls, I tried to dissuade Drori from this, delineating to him (Drori) what I knew about Strugnell’s attitudes and the problems of scholarly access and monopolies generally.

The attempt was futile. Drori was determined, and seemed to have the kind of bureaucratic mind that is impervious to reason. On coming out of this interview, I determined on the path of a suit in the Israeli High Court of Justice (similar suits from Palestinians and others in Israel had been in the news at that time) to gain equal access to the scrolls on behalf of all scholars in a non-discriminatory manner (“Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,” BAR 15:04).

As a first stage in this suit, I was advised by counsel that I needed to have actual documentary evidence that an infraction of justice had actually occurred, i.e., that I for one had actually been refused access. Therefore, together with Philip Davies of Sheffield University, I requested access in writing (all my previous requests had been oral) to specified plate numbers of the Damascus Rule. Since the computer printout catalogue of all Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts had by that time become available to us, we were able to correctly specify the numbers of the plates we wanted to see. In his belated (May 1989) response to our March request, Strugnell evasively claimed that we had our numbers wrong. Following 020our request to see the Damascus Document, it was hurriedly reassigned to Baumgarten (“Dead Sea Scroll Variation on ‘Show and Tell,’” BAR 16:02 and Queries & Comments, BAR 16:02.

In an article in The Independent (Dec. 14, 1990) newspaper in England, I note that Magen Broshi is now reiterating a position he has previously stated privately—that the Israelis have known about Strugnell’s “anti-Semitism” for 20 years (Drori seemed to know nothing about these things when I interviewed him in 1989), but that this was “really entirely irrelevant” to whether a given scholar should be editing the scrolls. Broshi has made similar comments about Roland de Vaux, Strugnell’s predecessor, concluding somewhat piquantly, adding insult to injury, what a pleasure it was to work with such persons.

I have had not a few problems with Magen Broshi in the past; may I now vigorously take issue with and express my consternation at his view. For Broshi to claim that it doesn’t matter whether an editor of the scrolls harbors anti-Semitic sentiments, or for that matter any kind of prejudice, is just plain naive, or something else. Since I do not consider Broshi naive, it must be something else. It is pathetic. This is just what we have been complaining about for the last two years and longer (for myself ever since my introduction to Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran, Brill, 1983).

That someone like Strugnell, with such a warped personal and historical perspective, should be allowed monopolistic control for so long over this precious human historical and religious legacy is a travesty. It is this that I tried to make clear to Drori to no avail in my interview with him in January 1989, and with numerous Israeli officials before and since. It is this that I expressed personally to Strugnell in response to his contemptuous and insulting dismissal of Davies’ and my request for access to the scrolls in June 1989 when I wrote him: “I will not take this from you even if other Jews and my Israeli colleagues will; nor, if the decision were mine, would I leave someone with such a distorted view of world history in control of this precious national and international heritage.”

The reason why leaving such a system in place is so disastrous is straightforward, and I have over and over again attempted to emphasize it: “Control over the unpublished manuscripts has always meant control over interpretation of those manuscripts and ultimately control over the field” (my letter to Drori, 6/30/1989).

The point is that subconsciously or otherwise, people controlling the sectarian corpus from Qumran in particular have always tried to distance these materials as far from the origins of Christianity as possible. This has been the subtle psychological bias that has deformed Dead Sea Scroll scholarship (particularly in historical and chronological studies) and continues to do so. That Magen Broshi would still be expressing such a position after all that has occurred is itself shocking and another of the ongoing mysteries of Qumran research.

Will Tov Be Good?

Thanks for the historic “Dead Sea Scrolls Update” in the BAR 17:01 edition of Biblical Archaeology Review.^a The sheet has been pulled off of John Strugnell and what many of us see is not pleasant. What will Emanuel Tov do to release the stranglehold on unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls? How will recent developments affect Milik and Cross?

Resounding Victory?

I just read the BAR 17:01 issue and want to congratulate you on your resounding victory in the campaign to crack open the Dead Sea Scrolls research “scandal.”

Unfortunately, we have not yet been successful in obtaining the release of the still unpublished texts.—Ed.

Blame Not as Important as Progress

On January 6, I heard on the Voice of America your interview concerning the change of editors for the Dead Sea Scrolls. The interviewer was surely correct in giving you major credit for focusing attention on the incredibly slow pace of publishing the scrolls.

Blame is not nearly so important as progress and I, for one, hope that you will continue with undiminished vigor your campaign to bring to the public photographs and translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Limiting Scroll Access Leads to Mistakes

Your January/February 1990 revelation of the depraved character, to put it mildly, of John Strugnell has totally vindicated your struggle to make the scrolls more widely available (“Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01).

The essence of the arguments of those in favor of severely limiting the availability of the scrolls has been that publication of poorly researched work will cause misinterpretation and misunderstanding particularly among the lay public.

Yet limiting the availability of the scrolls to a handful of scientists of supposed great scholarly ability and character leads to even greater risk that one of these few may be poorly chosen. Your article has demonstrated that this risk has led to a great catastrophe with the appointment of the warped and depraved Strugnell to the position of chief editor.

The removal of Strugnell from any connection with the scrolls should be immediate, while review of his work to date should be extremely cautious, recognizing the extreme bias of the author and also his poor scholarship regarding an understanding of recent or even ancient Jewish history in the Middle East.

021

Shoddy Treatment of John Strugnell

I find your treatment of John Strugnell shoddy (“Strugnell Denounces Judaism,” BAR 17:01).

You admit his great merit in reconstituting the Dead Sea Scrolls from confetti and that his scholarship is beyond criticism. But you stoop to rumor-mongering about “drinking.” Does not everybody drink?

Why not answer argument with rational response instead of resorting to boycott and social pressure worthy of Meir Kahane and the opponents of St. Paul and St. Stephen?

Injustice to VanderKam

I believe that you have done a serious injustice to the reputation of Professor James C. VanderKam of North Carolina State University with your remarks in BAR (“VanderKam Reneges,” BAR 17:01). I have had two occasions recently to consult Professor VanderKam about the Hebrew texts of the Jubilees from Qumran which he is editing, and on both occasions he responded to my queries in just the fashion in which a professional scholar is expected to act. I am far from being a member of any elite sect of Qumran scholarship, and thus my requests could be treated as those of an “outsider.” Nevertheless, in one instance Professor VanderKam reviewed his material as we spoke on the telephone in order to respond to my query, and on the other he offered me a copy of the text, as well as his transcription and notes, if they would be of use to me. It is clear to me from these incidents that Professor VanderKam’s offer to share his material with other scholars was meant quite seriously, and that he is quite willing to do so under appropriate circumstances. Perhaps he felt (as I do) that your request for transparencies to be copied and distributed via BAR was simply not an appropriate circumstance.

In Defense of Pastor Young

I noted with interest the energy with which various readers, in particular those connected with the clergy, have attacked Pastor Young, and his stand against the painting of Adam and Eve being published in your magazine (“Readers React to the Boycott of BAR Urged by Pastor,” Queries & Comments, BAR 17:01). Apparently not one of those individuals has asked himself, “What does God want?” God himself clothed Adam and Eve before 022expelling them from the garden. Obviously, he did not intend for the nude body to be publicly displayed in a fallen world. I compliment Pastor Young on taking his stand. God bless him!

I am interested in seeing whether this letter will be published, to learn if there truly is a free interchange of ideas, as your readers have suggested.

Pastor Young Stands with the Bible

After the barrage of letters against Pastor Young, I felt I must write to defend this man. I believe his sensibilities are refreshing in a society that has become so desensitized as to allow the filth on television to come into our homes, listen to polluted airways and ignore four letter words that float about like so much confetti.

I, too, found the picture offensive. I will not renew my subscription. Your editors must not care what the Bible has to say about such pictures. Try reading 1 Corinthians 12:23 [sic], 1 Timothy 2:9 and Genesis 3:21, where God covers the nakedness of man. The Word of God is against such displays of nudity.

If I, and Pastor Young, had subscribed to a magazine other than one purporting to be Biblically based I would not have been surprised by the picture. But, the six-fingered hand could have been shown without the bodies, or the nudity could have been covered.

I do not have an unhealthy view of the human body. It was—and is—God’s greatest act of creation, and is beautiful and, true, lovely to look at. However, this act should be between a husband and a wife. If anyone thinks this is prudish, he should take his argument to God who says even a lustful look is adultery.

That the painting is an old one is irrelevant. The Renaissance was not only a time of enlightenment for the good, but a time of renewed decadence. Nude paintings were scandalous then as they should be now, but gained greater acceptance as did lower necklines of dresses, so low the women would rouge their nipples because they were displayed through lace, and skintight trousers and waistcoats for men.

To sum up I believe Pastor Young was right, and he has the Bible to back him up. Anyone who views partial or full public nudity as harmless or innocent ignores the Word of God. God’s standard should be BAR’s standard.

Precious Little Evidence of Love and Patience

I am always amazed and amused at the wide variety of opinions expressed in Queries & Comments. At times I find myself in sympathy with the writer and at other times in disagreement.

This time, however, I wish to disagree with you, the editors, over your handling of the response to Pastor Gerald Young’s letter in Queries & Comments, BAR 16:05.

I agree that readers have a right to express their opinions on issues. I also agree that you have a right to print those responses. But with those rights come responsibilities.

You have printed a total of 16 responses to Pastor Young’s letter, plus the letter Ms. Ann Baldwin sent to your advertisers. All 16 responses were strongly opposed to Pastor Young’s suggestion of a boycott. I have no trouble with their opposition and I have no trouble with your printing those letters. What I have trouble with is letters that so vehemently and viciously attack Pastor Young’s character. I am disappointed in your editorial staff who would participate in such character assassination.

I shall not attempt to judge the reasons for Pastor Young’s very strong response to the nude picture in “Polydactylism in the Ancient World,” BAR 16:03. He obviously spoke out of sincere conviction. However, there is a great deal of difference between disagreeing with a person’s position and attacking the character of the person because of their position.

While in seminary, I was required to write many critiques of books, articles, etc. There were authors who took positions on issues with whom I disagreed. Simply maligning their character, however, did not prove my position correct. Apart from being unprofessional, it also violates the Lord’s command that we “love one another, even as I (Christ) have loved you” (John 13:34 and see also John 15:12, 17). I saw precious little evidence of the love and patience we are to have toward each other as brothers and sisters in Christ expressed in the letters you selected for publication.

As readers, we have the responsibility to evaluate what we read and to respond to it in a Christian manner. As editors, you have the responsibility of maintaining balance in the kind and quantity of responses you print. Were there no responses in sympathy with Pastor Young’s position? [No.—Ed.] If not, would it not have been sufficient to print letters which expressed opposition to Pastor Young’s position rather than impugn his character?

Everyone, at least once in their lives, makes statements or takes positions which, after additional reflection, they may wish 024to change. This has happened to me in the past and doubtless will in the future. I hope that when it happens, I will not receive such treatment as Pastor Young has received in the pages of your publication. I hope that someone who is both wise and gracious will gently correct me, rather than crushing my spirit through abuse.

Let us, as readers, continue to read with discernment and when we next disagree with one another, let us do it in a less caustic and destructive manner. And may you, as editors, select responses, both pro and con, which actually address the issue.

P.S. For those who are interested, I plan to continue my subscription.

Defending Ourselves Too Much

I am not sure what bothers me more, the diatribes of the Pastor Youngs (“Boycott of BAR Urged,” Queries & Comments, BAR 16:05) or the scornful responses to such viewpoints you print en masse (“Readers React to the Boycott of BAR Urged by Pastor Young,” Queries & Comments, BAR 17:01). The dialogue itself has merit, but why print so many vociferous attacks?

I agree that Pastor Young overreacted to what may be a nonissue, and his subsequent actions were perhaps misplaced determination on his part. However, the letters that were printed in defense of BAR from both “liberals” and “conservatives” were also overreactions and perhaps a bit more nauseating in that they bask in the same offended sensibilities they condemn in Pastor Young.

True, you live in the 20th century and have open minds and are tolerant. You have taken the popular, enlightened view and are smug in your superiority over the likes of Pastor Young. But did not Jesus say his followers would be despised as he was despised? Then I consider again Pastor Young, and I wonder…

BAR, I like you, and will continue to subscribe, but I think you like to defend yourself too much.

Free Literature on Book of Mormon Claims

A letter to the editor in Queries & Comments, BAR 17:01, included the addresses of four Mormon organizations to whom readers were invited to write for materials defending archaeological claims made for the Book of Mormon.

While it is to be expected that Mormons would wish to defend the credibility of their founding document, the fact remains that there is no archaeological basis for sustaining the pre-Columbian Hebrew immigrant civilization depicted in the Book of Mormon. This fact has been repeatedly emphasized in the published work of both Mormon and non-Mormon professional Mesoamerican archaeologists.

This issue cannot be adequately addressed within the confines of a letter to the editor. Interested readers who would like to receive free, scholarly materials on the issue of Book of Mormon archaeology that include the published views of both Mormon and non-Mormon professional archaeologists, are invited to write to:

Institute for Religious Research
1340 Monroe, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49505

Holum Hooks a Renewal for BAR

I had decided that when my present subscription to BAR expired I wouldn’t renew it. Some of the articles and topics of a controversial nature are getting more attention than necessary, becoming more of a focal point of my favorite magazine for 11 years than the heretofore wonderful educational features. My tastes run to simpler written items of scholarship and archaeological finds, I suppose.

Then, praise be, there came Kenneth G. Holum’s wonderfully written “From the Director’s Chair: Starting a New Dig,” BAR 17:01. His story, plus the descriptions of “1991 Excavation Opportunities,” BAR 17:01, made me get my check in to you pronto for my renewal.

Thrilled to See the Results in Print

I was thrilled to read “What’s a Roman Villa Doing Outside Jerusalem?” BAR 16:06, by Gershon Edelstein. As a volunteer during the summer 1986 season, I worked many hours literally digging out and hauling up many a bucket of sheer rock and soil, under the kindly direction of Gershon Edelstein. Now to see that my efforts in some small way contributed to the marvelous finds after that is most rewarding! My time at the Ein Yael site with so many other volunteers and the friendly staff was already memorable; to read of the fruits of my labors makes the memories outstanding. Thank you for publishing 074this outstanding article. I look forward to revisiting the site in the near future.

P.S. It was through BAR that I heard of and was able to respond to the opportunity to dig at Ein Yael.

BAR’s Free Press

I feel comfortable when I read your magazine because it represents a free press and not any one doctrine or set of beliefs.

Thank you for presenting archaeology of Bible times in such a rich and exciting way. My subscription will run as long as I do!

From a 75-Year-Old Admirer

I’ve been a Bible reader all my life. My Grandpa Kennedy used to tour Missouri and Illinois selling fruit trees and berry bushes and such. Then on Sunday he “did no labor” but he went about the farmlands “preaching.” When Daddy and Mama moved from St. Louis to the suburbs, my Daddy “preached” in a small community house there. I’m 75 years old so you know my grandparents are dead, as are my folks, my aunts and uncles, etc. As for myself, I liked church, but I loved Bible classes. I taught a teen-age group that started with 15 young folks and ended with 30. I also “talked” at an adult class once when our real teacher was ill. My Grandma Kennedy, at age 86, was one of my listeners. She had come to stay for three days with my husband and me, but ended up staying three months. I lived in a house Grandpa had personally built in 1881—“ally-by-himself,” as he would say. So Grandma not only loved the room 076I gave her but also the Bible classes I took her to.

But I ramble on. I have just completed my 18th reading from cover to cover of my old, old Bible. Each time I read the Bible new doors are opened to me. And now—your magazine!—with pictures of places I never dreamed I’d see, with all your people digging, dusting and diagramming for us who read it—the actual spots where history happened so long ago.

I look forward to sharing the coming year with you; said as sincerely as I can.

BAR as a Teaching Resource

When I was a student in grade 4 in a little town in the San Joaquin Valley of California, I saw a picture in my reader about the Egyptians and became very interested in mummies. I decided to make my own mummy, using an old doll and strips of paper to wrap the doll. I then painted hieroglyphics as they looked in my reader. Those were Depression days, but my teacher bought a little bottle of gold paint and encouraged me to enter the mummy in the Tulare County Fair—and it rated a blue ribbon.

Many years later, as a teacher, I was able to go on a trip to the Middle East. Egypt was wonderful—just as I thought it would be. When we crossed the Allenby Bridge, I thought I had died and gone to heaven! Israel was just as I thought, too, from our Sunday school quarterlies.

For the last 20 years, I have been a resource teacher in a large school of black and Hispanic children. One of my duties is to teach science and prepare students to enter the annual science fair. The archaeology projects are very popular. We have made papyrus paper, “mini” digs, clay lamps, scrolls and models of buildings. As you may know, the education of students now aims to integrate the curriculum; archaeology is a perfect medium for doing this. BAR is a wonderful resource for me and an attraction for the children.

BAR’s Sideshow

Your Queries & Comments section seems to function as a sort of sideshow where your magazine can allow devotees of unusual viewpoints to freely vent their spleen, without harming BAR’s reputation in the stuffy halls of “main line” archaeology.

Mere Coincidence?

I write to express my dismay in the feature article “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” BAR 17:01, by Erika Bleibtreu.