The Forum

014

Blame Big Brother, Too

Your article “The Great MFA Exposé,” AO 02:02, by Hershel Shanks, rings with an unfortunate truth: All too often, governments care nothing about archaeology.

I’m only a junior in high school, but I have read about sites being destroyed because of lack of government concern.

I whole-heartedly agree with selling artifacts, after they’ve been studied and cataloged, to finance scientific excavations. I felt the need to let you know that an aspiring archaeologist agrees with you.

Archaeology Inc. I

Having read “The Great MFA Exposé,” AO 02:02, I feel compelled to put in my own two cents. The moral high ground taken by archaeologists on the issue of suspect antiquities is merely a facade for their own self-interest. They have dedicated their lives to studying antiquities and they’ll be darned if some rich fellow gets hold of what they feel is rightly “theirs.” Archaeologists seem to want the key to the antiquities storeroom and full ownership of everything inside.

Opening up sites to commercial enterprises may be anathema to some, but it would open doors for a new generation of archaeologists. Moreover, it would be in the interest of legally sanctioned diggers to document their data carefully—thus adding considerably to the finds’ value. Protecting the “rights” of archaeologists by making commercial ventures illegal benefits only the least scrupulous, who use the most expedient excavation methods to dig and then scram.

Archaeology Inc. II

I wonder why archaeologists haven’t organized themselves to accomplish their goals. I am not an archaeologist. But having worked in the banking industry for close to 20 years, I have witnessed many groups create non-profit organizations to help them meet their needs: for example, credit unions, which allow members to borrow money for cars and homes they normally would not be able to purchase; and medical clinics, which care for those who can’t otherwise afford medical treatment.

A logical solution would be to establish a structure of non-profit corporations to support research, education and the preservation of artifacts. A central holding corporation might be created to oversee activities and provide legal support to smaller corporations created in different geographical areas. Universal policies would have to be drawn up to govern operating procedures for each research site and facility—offering a clear and precise outline of how these corporations could sell artifacts, what qualifies as a salable artifact, and the manner in which proceeds are distributed. There might even be an annual 015international auction for the sale of valuable duplicates to fund special projects or to pay for new excavations. The non-profit corporations would still be able to seek and accept donations to help with their expenses.

This plan would certainly help protect existing sites and open new areas for research. Clerical and other staff could be made available for researchers to help process the information and artifacts they have collected, allowing them to expedite their final reporting. Archaeologists could be given access to new technologies that would assist them in their research. Various facilities could be established to educate the public and increase interest and support for archaeology worldwide.

It would be a huge endeavor, but well worth the effort.

Israelites at Giza?

In “Who Really Built the Pyramids?” AO 02:02, Zahi Hawass is guilty of a common mistake made by those who have not really studied the Hebrew Bible. He writes: “We can now dispense with the notion that these great structures were forcibly constructed by whip-driven slaves—as suggested in the biblical account of Moses.”

The account in the Book of Exodus says that Israelite slaves built the storage cities of Pithom and Ramses (see Exodus 1:11). It never ever says they built the pyramids.

We are pleased to have such attentive readers: The pyramids at Giza were built hundreds of years before Israelites, according to the biblical account, first took refuge in Egypt (mid-second millennium B.C.).—Ed.

A Bone to Pick

I thoroughly enjoyed Zahi Hawass’s enlightening article on the pyramid builders.

However, I must submit a minuscule correction in anatomy—the ulna and the radius have always been found in the lower arm rather than in the upper arm as the author states in the article.

Ms. Schwartz is correct: These bones are found in the forearm.—Ed.

Have We Really Found the Workers’ Tombs?

I am somewhat confounded by the leap in logic taken by Zahi Hawass.

He quotes Herodotus’s report that “100,000 workers labored 20 years to build Khufu’s pyramid.” Hawass does not argue this point; therefore, I must think he accepts both the number of laborers and the time frame.

Then he says that the lower cemetery was occupied by laborers. But only 700 graves have been found from a labor force of 100,000. This seems implausible. Rather, the graves in the lower cemetery were probably not for the laborers but for the foremen of the various gangs. The foremen sustained injuries or developed arthritis because they were exposed to heavy labor and, perhaps, reached their status by working their way up through the ranks.

Finally, given the skimpiness of the evidence, how can Hawass possibly conclude that slave labor was not used to build the pyramids?

Is History Bunk?

In Editor’s Page: When Past is Prologue, AO 02:02, managing editor Jack Meinhardt suggests that ancient history “offers little of practical benefit.” I disagree. Even ancient history has much value to today’s learning. Without history, we would not have writing, language, mathematics and many inventions. How could Newton have developed calculus and the theories of physics we still use today without a necessary scientific and mathematical foundation that comes from ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome?

In the same issue of Archaeology Odyssey, Eric H. Cline points out that General Allenby learned about Pharaoh Thutmose’s attack on Megiddo from reading James Henry Breasted’s Ancient Records of Egypt and successfully duplicated Thutmose’s strategy during World War I.

Where would America and much of the rest of the world be if it weren’t for the writings of Plato and others? Would there be such a thing as a republic today without the ancients’ writings to inspire America’s forefathers? Hasn’t the Judeo-Christian ethic affected our modern world? For good or bad, I see many people still basing their lives on the Ten Commandments, which may have been 016developed from even earlier sources, such as Hammurabi’s code.

Jack Meinhardt replies:

I’m glad Mr. Smith noticed the irony: My comments on the limited practical uses of the past came just a few pages before Eric Cline’s letter describing how General Allenby borrowed Thutmose III’s strategy in attacking Megiddo (see The Forum, AO 02:02). Cline sums up the episode as “an uncanny redramatization of a historical circumstance.” This sort of thing, in other words, just doesn’t happen very often.

But it could. You could try to recreate the past by, say, holding a Renaissance festival or embarking on an expedition to Sheba. Or you could convert to Mithraism, or worship the Aten. If you are Martin Luther King, you might find inspiration for non-violence in the ancient Greek idea of agape (love)—a word that for Christians, even today, expresses God’s love for man as embodied in Jesus.

There is nothing to prevent imaginative human beings from looking to the past for inspiration—and there to find a rich palette of colors for their dreams and aspirations. That is what I meant by the word “enchantment.” I think that ancient history is better, and more deeply, understood as a limitless tableau of wondrous, beautiful and terrible deeds than as a series of lessons telling us how to live life.

Mr. Smith is right, of course, that without history we would not have “writing, language, mathematics.” That list extends infinitely: To a large extent, the past is what we know. But the ancients don’t teach us how to speak—our parents do. Biologists have little use for the past; 017chemists less. Lawyers do not set out in pursuit of Roman precedents. And as soon as politicians begin citing the past, beware!

Make Copies!

Thank you for your enlightened and balanced viewpoint on privately obtained artifacts (“Bought on the Market: A gallery,” AO 02:02). I have another partial solution to suggest, besides making unwanted and archaeologically useless artifacts available for purchase. Why not encourage the practice of reproduction? Not many of us can afford the kind of artifacts we would like to display, even if they were available. And if we could, we’d be afraid to handle them. But I’d love to have a replica of the Baruch bulla to use in teaching about Jeremiah. And how hard would it be to make a replica of the temple ostracon in your last issue if more photos were available to work from? It would make a fine illustration when teaching about the temple and the system of offerings. If movie companies make more money from the spin-off products than from the film, why can’t archaeologists help fund their work by making replicas (even photos and videos) of their discoveries available?

Mr. Neuendorf has tried his hand at making a clay replica of the so-called Three-Shekel Ostracon, which records a gift made to Solomon’s temple in the eighth century B.C. Can you tell which of the photos above shows the real McCoy?—Ed.

Blame Big Brother, Too