The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.43, N.2

66 Pages·1980·15.34 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

BIBLICAJ L
ARCHEOLOGIST
Spring 1980 Volume 43 Number 2
Highlights of the next BA
James M. Fennelly, an
authority in ancient ritual,
takes us back to the
ceremonial citadel of
Persepolis, constructed by
Persian emperors from the
time of Darius I until the
fall of the empire to
Alexander the Great. In a
step-by-step account of the
12-day ritual celebrated in
observance of the New
Year, Fennelly recaptures
the spirit of the sacred
drama by means of which
Persian society was ritually
reconstituted in the image
of the absolute at the site
of Persepolis.
Andrew S. Ackerman,
Director of Education at
the Jewish Museum in New
York City, describes a
unique workshop for chil-
dren designed to re-create
the experience of life in
ancient times through
participation in many
activities, including those
using only the technology
of ancient man.
N THE NEXT BA
BIBLICAL(,
ARCHEOLOGIST
Editor
David Noel Freedman
Associate Editor
Harry Thomas Frank
Editorial Committee
Frank M. Cross, Jr.
Tikva Frymer-Kensky
Sharon Herbert
Charles R. Krahmalkov
John A. Miles, Jr. Robert Biggs is Professor of Dr. J. Kenneth Eakins, a licensed
Walter E. Rast Assyriology at the University of pediatrician, is Associate Professor
Chicago's Oriental Institute, where of Archaeology and Old Testament
Production Manager he is also Associate Editor of the Interpretation at Golden Gate
Bruce E. Willoughby Institute's Assyrian Dictionary.O ne of Baptist Theological Seminary and is
his major publications is a volume the osteologist for the Joint
Chief Editorial Assistant of early Sumerian texts from AbUi Archaeological Expedition to Tell
Kent P. Jackson Sal-bikh. This volume of texts has el-Hesi in Israel.
provided scholars working on the
Editorial Assistants Ebla tablets with their closest
Wendy L. Frisch parallels, both in date and type of
Linda E. Fyfe texts.
David M. Howard, Jr.
Terrence M. Kerestes
Graphic Designer
Cheryl S. Klopshinske
Business Manager
Tracy B. Shealy
Composition
Wendy L. Frisch
Margaret G. Jensen
Distribution Manager
R. Guy Gattis
Journal Exchange
Len Niehoff Eric M. Meyers, the author of Virginia Bortin is a California-
several recent studies in synagogue based writer and journalist with a
Subscription Services architecture and archeology, is particular interest in archeology.
Belinda Khalayly, Manager Professor of Religion at Duke Among her credits are TV
Andrew E. Hill University. He has been involved in documentaries, a series for tele-
Hamid Merati archeological excavations in Israel vision, and magazine articles.
since 1964, most recently as Currently she writes a syndicated
Director of the Meiron and Gush column for newspapers called
Ebla photographs in this issue of Halav excavation projects. "Digging the Bible."
BA are by permission of the
Director, Department of Antiqui-
ties, Syrian Arab Republic, or by Biblical Archeologisti s published with the financial
permission of the Director of the
assistance of Zion Research Foundation, a non-
Aleppo Museum.
Compositions by ASOR Publications. Ann Arbor. MI. and sectarian foundation for the study of the Bible and
TEhisee nUbnraivuenrss.i tyW ionfo nMai cLhiagkaen. . IN. Printed by Printing Services. the history of the Christian Church.
66 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980
Cover: Illustration by John B.
Klausmeyer. Back cover photo
courtesy of the Joint Expedition to
Tell el-Hesi.
BIBLICAL(t,.
;
ARCHEOLOGIST
Spring 1980 Volume 43 Number 2
Robert Biggs The Ebla Tablets: An Interim Perspective 76
A careful reexamination of the tablets from Tell
Mardikh in light of linguistic information from other
ancient records.
J. KennethE akins Human Osteology and Archeology 89
A physician-archeologist examines the bones from a
Bedouin cemetery and discusses the value of his
findings for archeological research.
Eric M. Meyers Ancient Synagogues in Galilee: Their Religious 97
and Cultural Setting
A look at some early synagogues-their architectural
design and the worship that took place within
their walls.
VirginiaB ortin Science and the Shroud of Turin 109
A famous piece of cloth-believed by many to be the
burial shroud of Jesus-undergoes a series of
thorough examinations at the hands of highly trained
physical scientists.
(BWibilnictearl .A Srpcrhienogl.o Sguismt (mISeSrN. F: a0l0l)0 6b-y0 8t9h5e) iAs mpuerbilcisahne Sdc qhuoaorltse rolfy Letter to the Readers 68
OrientalR esearch.I ts purposei s to providet he generalr eaderw ith
an accurate, scholarly, yet easily understandablea ccount of Polemics and Irenics 69
archeologicald iscoveriesa nd theirb earingo n the biblicalh eritage.
Unsolicited mss. are welcome but should be accompanied by a Notes and News 118
stamped, self-addressede nvelope. Address all editorial corres-
pondence and advertisingt o Biblical Archeologist. 1053 LS&A Book Reviews 119
Building.U niversityo f Michigan.A nn Arbor, MI 48109. Address
all business correspondence to ASOR, 126 Inman Street,
Cambridge,M A 02139. Tribute 127
Copyrighat 1980A mericaSnc hoolosf Oriental Research.A nnual GeraldL ankesterH arding1 901-1979,
subscription rate: $12.00. Foreign subscription rate: $14.00 by Fred V. Winnet
(Americanc urrency).C urrents ingle issues:$ 4.00.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. MI 48106. Colophon 128
POSTMASTER:S end addressc hanges to Biblical Archeologist,
1053 LS&A Building, Universityo f Michigan, Ann Arbor. MI
48109.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 67
Letter
to the
Reaaers
David Noel Freedman
For this issue of BA we along with the various theories and explanations of the
have a diversified selec- properties and features of the Shroud was in order. We
tion of articles. The sub- also promise a follow-up when the final report of the
jects range from the Ebla investigation is released. If it is asked why the BA should
tablets, by now a familiar publish an article on the Turin Shroud, whose history can
item in these pages and a only be traced to the Middle Ages, the answer is that the
conversation piece across special reverence in which it is held by many, and the
the country, to the Turin remarkable features of the Shroud already confirmed by
Shroud-equally a sub- scientific study, place it in a category of its own, and the
ject of widespread spec- purported links with the Ist century of the Christian Era
ulation and controversy. make it a fit subject for the BA.
In addition there are The Synagogues of Galilee are both important and
papers on the Synagogues unusual: important because they reflect a period when
of Galilee, a subject of renewed interest in recent years, Judaism flourished, a powerful and vital renewal after
and Human Osteology and Archeology, a highly one of the most tragic and traumatic experiences of the
specialized topic but decidedly important and rewarding Jewish community (the wars of Independence in 66-70
for the student of the past. and 132-35 which resulted in the destruction of the holy
The Ebla tablets-whose notoriety matches that of city and the holy temple, and the end of the Second
any discoveries in the past century and whose contents Commonwealth); unusual because there is clear, if mute,
have been a source of controversy and speculation-are evidence of a Judaism little suspected by scholars and
viewed by a recognized authority in the intricate study of largely absent from the Talmudic tradition-a Judaism
cuneiform, especially Sumerian and early Akkadian. which was influenced by the cultural and artistic
Robert Biggs of the Oriental Institute has published a standards and achievements of the contemporary world
substantial number of tablets from Abia Salablkh, which and which absorbed or adapted them as it proceeded on
resemble the Ebla tablets in some respects and are slightly its own uncharted way.
earlier in date (ca. 2500 B.C.E.). One extraordinary datum The remaining article belongs to the age of change,
already confirmed is the presence at Ebla of a the ongoing revolution, or reformation, of the archeolog-
topographic list very similar to one at Abii SalabTkh.T he ical enterprise. The "new archeology" is dramatically
correspondence and especially the sequence are so close different, although organically descended from its
that some relationship (presumably both are derived forebears: in essence the romantic figure of the lone
from a common original) between them is certain. How digger liberating the treasures of the past from the
and why this should be are matters for further clinging dirt has been replaced by the team of scientists
consideration. For the present, Professor Biggs deals who concentrate their minds and a multitude of
with the implications and ramifications of this extra- instruments on the same formerly discarded dirt,
ordinary discovery and makes many telling observations salvaging data of extraordinary value, and recovering
about what legitimately may be expected in the course of from the accumulated debris the essential features of a
analysis and interpretation of the texts. His is a sober and bygone society. Human bones, a subject of concern to a
settling evaluation of the claims and counterclaims, and a variety of groups, have an importance for archeology
moderate judgment steering clear of the Scylla of cheap that increases all the time, with expanding implications
sensationalism and the Charybdis of undue skepticism. for understanding the many facets of community life. The
Such dangers are clearly present in any discussion of value of osteology is limited only by the availability of
the Turin Shroud, which has been condemned as a pia primary data and the time and energy of the osteologists.
fraus at the same time that it has been extolled as both A medical doctor, J. K. Eakins, tells of his experience at
divine miracle and authentic fifth gospel. Without trying Tell el-Hesi, an ASOR-sponsored dig, what may be
to decide an issue which perhaps can never be settled learned about human beings through the study of their
entirely, Virginia Bortin has undertaken a careful bones, and what contribution it can make to an
presentation of the issue and the evidence, as much as has understanding of the human part.
been released and reported by the scholars and scientists
who recently engaged in an intensive examination of the
oblong cloth. While the final reports and evaluation of AM ~ ~-
this investigation will not be available for some months
yet, we thought that a serious appraisal of the known data
68 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980
Polemics&
lrenics
Genealogies and Number Systems second, third, fourth, and fifth place instead of the first,
I read with great interest Robert Wilson's "Between Azel second, third, and fourth. The total would then be read as
and Azel"(BA, Winter 1979: 11-22) on interpretation of twelve thousand, three hundred forty. The error is a
the function of genealogies in biblical and prebiblical factor of ten. A slip of two places would induce an error
times. factor of 100.
I would like to add a note of my own in this Referring now to the portion of the King List as
connection, regarding the Sumerian list of antediluvian referenced above, I suggest that in the scribal transcrip-
kings. It is obvious that the excessive span of years given tions and retranscriptionst he place order was slipped two
for each reign is not to be taken literally. However, I places and that each number is in error by a factor of 60-
suggest that they can be explained as a simple error in squared or 3,600. This may have been a simple error due
scribal transcription. A portion of the list, as translated in to sloppy transcription or an error based on misreading
Jacobsen's "Sumerian King List." is included here for and the tradition that antediluvian kings were godlike
reference: and their reigns intended to be longer. Nevertheless, the
error is there. I suggest that this error had become
Whent he kingdomw as loweredf rom heaven,t he kingship scribally standardized and accepted by the time that the
was in Eridu. In Eridu, Alulim became king and reigned tablets now available were written.
28,800 years. Alalgar reigned 36,000 years. Two kings In any event, if each of these reigns is divided
reignedi ts (i.e. Eridu's)6 4,800y ears.... In Bad-TiberaE n-
by 3,600, the result is exact, with no remainder in 10 out
men-lu-Anna reigned 43,200 years; En-men-gal-Anna
reigned2 8,000 years:d ivine Dumuzi, a shepherd,r eigned of 14 instances. The actual years of reign of these kings
36,000 years. Three kings reigned its 108,000y ears. ... (or groups of kings) as shown, are actually 8, 10, 18, 12, 8,
10, and 30 years. These spans are quite reasonable.
It should be noted, however, that the Sumerian It should be noted further that of the kings after the
cuneiform number system used a sexagesimal place- flood, each span of years as translated for 17 out of the
order notation. This means that the system was base- first 20 reigns is exactly divisible by 60; the place order
sixty rather than our own base-ten and that the order in has been slipped by one. Furthermore, in many of the
which each digit/symbol (or symbol cluster) appeared reign values which are not exactly divisible by 60 or 3,600,
determined the final value of the notation. the translations seem to be a round-off and are suspect by
For example, in our current system the number the author.
written "1234" means 4 times ten-raised-to-the-zero- An interesting speculation arises regarding the
power (i.e., 4 X 100 = 4 X 1 = 4) plus three times ten- unnatural ages of individuals in the antediluvian
raised-to-the-first-power (i.e., 3 X 101= 3 X 10 = 30) plus genealogies of the Old Testament. Did the extended life-
two times ten-to-the-second (squared)-power (i.e., 2 X spans, as written, stem from the author's being steeped in
102 = 2 X 100 = 200) plus one times ten-to-the-third a common tradition of "long life for the Ancients"-or
(cubed)-power (i.e., 1 X 10' - 1 X 1000 = 1000). This total were the authors simply victims of mathematical errors in
is read as "one thousand, two hundred and thirty four." the transcriptions of tablets similar to those available to
In base-sixty notation, however, the first-place digit modern archeologists?
(furthest right) would be read as times 60-to-the-zero-
power (i.e., 4 X 600 = 4 X 1 = 4); the second digit is times Burton S. Rudman
60-to-the-first-power (i.e., 3 X 601 = 3 X 60 = 180); the North Shore Society
third is times 60-squared (i.e., 2 X 3,600 = 7,200); the Archaeological Institute of America
fourth digit is times 60-cubed (i.e., 1 X 216,000). (The
parenthesized numbers are in our own base-ten system.) All of the texts that mention the reigns of the antediluvian
This numeral "1234" would, in the base-60 system, be and early'p ostdiluvian kings agree that these monarchs
read as "two hundred twenty-three thousand, three ruled for extraordinarily long periods of time. Although
hundred and eighty-four." the various texts do not always record precisely the same
Note further that the Sumerian system had neither a each king, all of them preserve the tradition that
zero nor a decimal point. A "digit" meant to be in our rtheieg ne.afrolry ' rulers were long-lived. This tradition is also
second place, for example, might have been written larger preserved outside of the Sumerian King List, most
than a "digit" meant for the first place. Consider then our notably in the List of Rulers of Lagash (Journal of
own system without benefit of zero or decimal point to Cuneiform Studies 21: 279-91), and may have influenced
designate a reference from which to count places. The the Phoenician and biblical antediluvian traditions. The
group "1234"c ould be read erroneously as occupying the precise significance qf these long reigns is unclear, and
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 69
they may simply be a way of expressing the widely held that the total number is the product of 3,600 multiplied
notion that the ancients lived in a "golden age "markedb y by 10 and saves himself the trouble of repeating the SAR
social and political peace and stability. The incredibly sign ten times. The composite sign cannot be confused
long reigns mentioned in the Sumerian King List and the easily with any other number sign. The scribe's writing
List of the Rulers of Lagash may conceivably be the result might have resulted from a misreading of the number
of some sort of numerical speculation, although no 3,600, which would have been written with a single SAR
satisfactory explanation along these lines has been sign, but the writing could not be a misreading of 360,
advanced so far. Numerical speculation may also lie which would have been written by repeating six times the
behind the long lives attributed to Israel's ancestors single vertical wedge indicating the number 60 (cf col. 4,
mentioned in Genesis 1-11. The Massoretic Text, the line 33). Similarl/i, the composite sign for 36,000 could
Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch sometimes not be the result of the scribe's mistaken reading of the
assign different ages to these early figures, and many number 10, which would have been written with a single
attempts have been made to uncover the principles lying small wedge (Winkelhaken).
behind the numerical variants. However, to date no It is thus difficult to conceive of a set of
comprehensive explanation has been found for them. circumstances under which scribal errors might have led
Even though it is not possible to determine precisely/ consistentl/v to massive inflation of the figures in the
the original function of the lengthy reigns mentioned at scribe's original. To be sure, scribes sometimes made
the beginning of the Sumerian King List, they are not mistakes, and numbers written on or near the edge of the
likely to be the result of scribal error. In addition to the tablet were sometimes abraded. But scribes did not make
*fact that the tradition of long-lived ear/v rulers is the same mistakes consistently, and the abrasion of signs
preserved outside the Sumerian King List, the way in normally leads to a decrease in a number. We must
which Mesopotamian scribes wrote numbers did not therefore assume that the scribe intended to record these
leave room for the sorts of mistakes that could lead to long reigns, even if we do not understand his reasons
fiul/y
such a large inflation of the figures. It is, of course, *for doing so.
impossible to know how figures might have been written
Robert R. Wilson
in any sources that the scribes might have used in
Yale
compiling the King List, but we may assume that there University
was some continuityvi n scribal practice. In the period
from which the King List comes. scribes mayvh ave used a
sexagesimal number system, but when they wrote a
number on a tablet they did not use a notation system Professorial Authority and the Aleppo Codex
analogous to the Arabic siystem, in which the order in In discussing the question of Canaanite inscriptions in
which each number sy'mbola ppears determines its value. America (BA, Summer 1979: 137-40), Marshall
Rather, the scribes used a system somewhat analogous to McKusick makes an astonishing suggestion. He writes,
the Roman numeral system, in which specific signs are "Here we come to the nub of an amazing conflict. In the
repeated and then added together. Thus,f or example, in good old days of scholarship it was enough to say, 'The
the text which is used as the basic text for Jacobsen 's authorities in the field agree that the arguments are
critical edition of the King List, the scribe did not write wrong'; regardless of the merit of the position, no one
the number 36 by writing the sign.for 6 and then next to it would hazard a further opinion against the weight of
writing the sign for 3. Rather, he wrote three times the august professors. But in this modern day everyone
single small wedge (Winkelhaken) indicating the numbr wishes to be his own authority. .. ."
10 and then wrote a sign composed ofsix vertical wedges, Does Professor McKusick really mean that no one
each indicating the number 1 (col. 3, line 34). Thef inal should suggest that august professors can be wrong?
number is thus the total of 10+10+10+6 (written There was a time when the authorities agreed the earth
1+1+1+1+1+1). was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and a heavy
The same system is followed in writing larger object fell more rapidly than a light object. Were
numbers. In the antediluvian section of the King List En- Magellan, Copernicus, and Galileo wrong to hazard
men-gal-Anna's 28,800-year reign is indicated by writing different opinions? The six "Canaanite inscriptions"
eight times the diamond-shaped sign 3,600 (SAR) which McKusick discusses seem to me, on the basis of the
(col. 1, line 14). Thes ign for3,600 is disti.nfocrti ve andcannot evidence presented here and elsewhere, to be without
be confused with the single vertical wedge designating the value. On the other hand, I am not convinced by
number 1, so the number 28,800 could not easily have Professor Cross' condemnation of the Shapira scrolls
been the result qf the scribe's misreading a smaller (Biblical Archaeologjy Review, January/ February 1979:
number such as 8, which is normal/l written with a sign 43); I prefer to leave the verdict open. Am I not entitled
composed bi' repreating eight times a single vertical to hold and express an opinion which is not the same as
wedge. Similarly, using a slight variation qf the system, that of an authority?
the scribe writes Dumuzi's 36,000-year reign by' writing By coincidence, the same issue of BA contains an
the diamond-shaped sign for 3,600 and then writing example of the dangers of not questioning the opinion of
inside it a single small wedge (Winkelhaken) designating an eminent authority, and of the problems which can
the number 10 (col. 1, line 15). The scribe thus indicates then arise. In his article on the Aleppo Codex, Professor
70 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980
Moshe Goshen-Gottstein says that Professor Umberto that I maintain others have the right to agree or disagree
Cassuto "flatly denied the possibility that the Aleppo without being bound by authorities in the field or by the
Codex could have been the codex used by Maimonides" weight of august professors.
and that Cassuto "never indicated the reasons for his
judgment because as he said, they were of too technical a Leslie Reggel
nature for public announcement" (p. 156). This can only Pittsburgh, PA
be described as fantastic. Did no Bible scholar question
Cassuto's pronouncement? With all due respect to
Cassuto's eminence, did he bestride the narrow world of East and West
biblical scholarship like a colossus? How could any Re: "Polemics and Irenics," BA, Summer 1979. Before I
discipline allow one person to say, in effect, "the Aleppo launch into my own polemic, I must congratulate BA on
Codex is not the one used by Maimonides. Take my word the marvelous success of its transformation in the past
for it, children. The matter is too deep for your limited few years. BA has managed the near impossible: it has
minds." Since when does modern scholarship accept the become more accessible to the average reader, and more
word of an eminent authority without demanding of a forum of lively exchange, without in any way
evidence? Are we back in the Middle Ages, unable to diminishing its high standards of academic quality.
challenge the opinions of Aristotle? I find it incredible Moshe Goshen-Gottstein's invaluable article on the
that Cassuto went unchallenged, but this seems to be Aleppo Codex is a case in point (though, being a former
what Goshen-Gottstein says: "It was inevitable that his student of his at NYU, I may be forgivably biased in this
[Cassuto's] judgment had to be accepted.... he had never regard).
stated his reasoning and nobody was aware of the In this benign context, therefore, it was with a sense
facts" (p. 156). of real dismay that I read the enigmatically irresponsible
I cannot help wondering what might have happened contribution of Marshall McKusick in the same issue,
if Cassuto had been challenged by his peers in 1946, if he dealing with another of my former NYU professors,
had stated that Deuteronomy 32 was written in 67 lines in Cyrus Gordon. It is not that I hold a particular brief for
the Aleppo Codex, and if it had promptly been shown Professor Gordon's theories concerning trading contacts
that 67 lines was what Maimonides actually called for. Is between ancient civilizations and the New World. It is
it possible that the Israeli scholars would have tried to simply that I have come to expect better of BA's editorial
exert pressure on the Aleppo Jewish community? Might policies.
we have gotten the entire Codex photographed before McKusick, with all due deference, "does a job" on
one-fourth of it was destroyed? Gordon. To lump the work of a proven scholar together
Such speculation is futile, except to point out the with the sensationalist maunderings of an opportunist
dangers of not hazarding an opinion against the weight of like Erich von Diniken and to condemn Gordon on the
an august professor. But two other questions still disturb basis of such guilt by presumed association approaches
me. First, I mean no disrespect to Professor Goshen- the scurrilous.
Gottstein when I ask if he has the right (as I interpret The only explanation I can find is that McKusick,
McKusick's comments) to challenge Cassuto's opinion. despite his bibliographic notations, has never read
Does the fact that Goshen-Gottstein is a professor give Gordon's work. He assumes, for example, that Gordon
him that right? Would he be unable to make the challenge propounds a theory of "migrations of the New World,"
if he were only an assistant professor, or if he were a like those of Fell and Van Sertima. In actuality, Gordon
scholar with no academic post? Second, Cassuto did say is far less ambitious, maintaining only the possibility of
that his reasons were very technical. Goshen-Gottstein limited trade contacts in various periods over long ages of
has made an inspired guess that Cassuto was referring to time. Such voyages were, we know, well within the
the 67 lines of Deuteronomy 32. I find Goshen-Gottstein's limitations of ancient technology and thus cannot be
reasoning quite easy to understand, and I make no dismissed out of hand.
pretense to being a biblical scholar. Is it possible that Gordon also admits the very real possibility of
Cassuto was not basing his opinion on Deuteronomy 32? forgery in the evidence he adduces, such as the Paraiba
Could he have based his view upon Exodus 15, or on inscription and the Kensington stone, though McKusick
some other passages in the missing portions of seems blissfully unaware of this aspect of Gordon's
the Aleppo Codex, or upon some technical aspect of the analysis (see Riddles in Histor'y,N ew York: Crown, 1974,
extant text that no one else has noticed? This lingering 2nd ed.).
doubt can never be resolved unless something is found in Finally, Gordon has, contra McKusick, "countered
Cassuto's papers. the arguments raised by Frank Moore Cross" in the
Let me conclude by saying that I agree with latter's 1968 piece in Orientalia 37. This was done in
Professor Goshen-Gottstein's opinion that the Aleppo Gordon's two subsequent books on the subject (1971,
Codex is the one used by Maimonides and with his 1974), which raise some new possibilities, such as the
reconstruction of Cassuto's reasons for taking the acrostic-telestic cryptograms, that Cross has yet to
opposite view; that I reserve the right to change my "counter." Indeed, Cross' recent summary of his 1968
opinion if any new data, or any more convincing Orientalia argument in BAR never mentions these
interpretation of the same data, should be published: and subsequent works by Gordon.
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 71
Whether Gordon's later rebuttals of Cross constitute Professor Cross published his less technical explanation
a "successful"d efense is a separate and far more difficult in the Biblical Archaeology Review in 1979 after
January'
question. We are dealing here with a controversy between myi BA was in press. The BAR article by Cross
two of the foremost philologians of ancient languages of shoualrdt iccleo.nfovrin ce every layman that the vowel marks,
modern times. My only point is that McKusick does a mixture of letters and vocabularyf rom different periods,
real disservice to the readers of BA in failing even to and substitution of Hebrew for Phoenician, all go to
acknowledge that this academic engagement is taking prove that the forgertY was based on 19th-centuryl
place. handbooks on Phoenician which contained the same
Gordon may well be wrong in his assessment of the errors as those found on the Paraiba inscription. Therei s
evidence, and his theories are certainly open to scholarly simpl' room for doubt.
criticism. But his stature and past achievements at least (2)n oW.fuhratht earb out the Paraiba cryptogram? Do
establish him as worthy of serious consideration, such as Professor Gordon's two cryptograms prove that the
Cross originally showed. McKusick, who seems to have inscription might be genuine? The book Riddles in
studied the question in some depth, may well be the one History by Professor Gordon (1974) misled a number of
to do the job. But his letter to BA, which condemns by people about the status of cryptography. I published an
association and innuendo rather than fact, is simply not article showing that the Paraiba cryptograms represented
sufficient for the task. The readers of BA deserve better. an erroneous solution to the question of authenticitiy.
This article appeared in BAR last summer (McKusick
Dr. Eugene J. Fisher 1979b) and was written to remove the last doubts
Secretariat for Catholic-Jewish Relations surrounding the Paraiba forgery. My argument was that
Washington, D.C. Profissor Gordon (1974) attempted to show that
cryptograms demonstrated the authenticity of contro-
Readers of thef oregoing letter by Dr. Eugene Fisher may versial inscriptions. Yet each case he chose represented a
be deceived by two serious charges-that my scholarship spurious solution because the examples were known
is superficial, and my discussion of Professor Cyrus forgeries-the Kensington runestone, Spirit Pond rune-
Gordon's theories "approaches the scurrilous." Dr. stones, the Vinland Map, and final/l the Paraiba
Fisher is incorrect on both counts, and I will rep/l at inscription. I refer Dr. Fisher and others to my article.
some length to clear the air. Professor David Noel (3) There is not space enough here to discuss
Freedman, editor of Biblical Archeologist, chose to American Norse cryptography. Professor Erik Wahlgren
publish my article professional scrutiny and I have just completed a lengthy and detailed study of
because it concerneadft ear .mfaavjoorra ibslseu e of great interest to the subject. Cryptography was developed by two
many readers. The title "Canaanites in America: A New enthusiastic amateurs, Ole Landsverk and A lf Monge, in
Scripture in Stone? "w as followed by two questions in the an attempt to defend the Kensington runestone, and their
text. Did the biblical world of the Canaanites extend to book on the subject applied cryptography more widely to
America? Do mysterious tablets from the Western other runic inscriptions. Every Scandinavian specialist
Hemisphere representa scripture in stone more important totalli' rejects their work. In our studiy, Profissor
than the Dead Sea Scrolls? Wahlgren, who is an eminent specialist in medieval
Either the biblical world extended to America or it Scandinavian languages, provides the first successfiul
did not. Professor Gordon says that Canaanites and translation of the Spirit Pond frauds, one of Gordon 'si ll-
Hebrew explorers reached America, taught the natives chosen examples in Riddles in History. The analysis by
human sacrifice, and did much else besides. Dr. Fisher Wahlgrens uggests that the Spirit Pond
takes the position that questions about Canaanites in picked words out of Zoiga's Old Icelarnudnice sDtoicntei.ofnbarrgye,r
A merica remain unsolved enigmas which scholarship has probably the 1967 edition, but was unfnamiliarw ith
not vet resolved. I say something very different. Icelandic grammar. He borrowed some runes and words
Scholarship has settled the matter. All of the reported ffrom the Kensington stone, elements which appear in no
Canaanite-P hoenician- Hebrew inscriptions found in Scandinavian runestones. The Spirit Pond narrative is
America are either frauds or misidentified. I must partl' pornographic andc ontains startlinga nachronisms.
emphasize here that my article in BA centered on the We are told, for example, that the Vikingsi n lOlI on the
inscriptions: "If genuine, these tablets provide unassail- Maine coast are drinking cherrlyb randy two sailing da's
able proqf that the influence of the biblical world reached fo)om Ca(nada). It turns out that the Spirit Pond
the Western Hemisphere at an early date. Iffalse, they do runestone forger scrambled the word dividers as a
not disprove the Phoenicians 'arrival on these shores, but probable spoofon dev'elopedh b'L ancdsverk
crvptograt'hl
they knock away a major prop of its linguistic evidence" and Mlonge in 1967. / mention this because I have not
(McKusick 1979a: 138). I then proceeded to explain whyl avoided the issue of cryptography, either on the Paraiha
authorities have rejected the six mostf amous examples of stone or elsewhere.
alleged Phoenicianlike inscriptions. (4) I wish to inrformr eaders that I am not a casual
(1) The exchange qf views published in Orientalia b v scholar w'hen it comes to the subject o(f trans-Atlantic
prqfoessorsF riedrich, Cross, and Gordon in 1968 con- c?ontacts. Mv hook Atlantic Voyages to Prehistoric
vinced the Phoenician experts that the Paraiba inscription America is in press. The Foreword to it is written by Dr.
from Brazil was an obvious 19th-?entury forgery'. Gl'n Daniel, DisneylP rofessor and head of archeology at
72 BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980
Cambridge University. In addition to mjvp ublications in sought escape by turning to pseudoarcheology and
BA and BAR, I have published articles this past year on speculation. The hbookso fthe New Mythologycollectivelv
other topics dealing with mysterious visitors to the New describe Atlantis, wandering Vikings, ancient Irish,
World;t hese are listed at the end of this reply to establish astronauts from outer space, Neolithic Scandinavians,
my- credentials in viewing the theories of Professor Chinese explorers, Indian my'stics, Iberian seafarers,
Gordon and Professor Fell with skepticism. Theyla re Australian aborigines, Egyptians, Crete,
both, in the words of Professor Daniel, "deluded Greek sailors, and of course the Carneafaungietees-P. frhoomen icians.
scholars, " a conclusion he reached after reading their If'all these speculations were true, there would have been
books, and his review was published in the New York no the American Indians.
Times in 1976. roTohme.sfeo rb ooks have been written by zealous, misin-
(5) Dr. Fisher states that "McKusick, despite his formed amateurs abetted by the commercial presses
bibliographic notations, has never read Gordon's work. " which profit from their work, for the books often have
He uses as examples that Gordon admits the ver- real huge sales. Unfortunately, there is a handful of misguided
possibility of forgery to explain the origin of the scholars such as Professor Barry Fellf rom Harvard, and
Kensington runestone and the Paraiba inscription. As his they have misled the reading public about prehistorv. It
third example he states that I have misrepresented appears that Professor Gordon is another academic
Gordon 's position about migrations to the New World, member of the team supporting the New Mythology. I
whereas his professor only suggested limited trade write only oqfhiss peculations about prehistoric America,
contacts. I will cite chapter and verse to show that Dr. which is not an area of his academic specialization. It
Fisher may wish to reconsider his views. must be emphasized that I am not criticizing his well-
According to Gordon (1974. 35-36) "Monge', known contributions to Mediterranean studies.
encouraged by Landsverk, has authenticated the Ken-
sington Stone by' solving its cryptograms. " He further
states that "The Paraiba, Kensington, and Spirit Pond
texts have cryptograms confirming dates byhth eir double.
Thisf eature locks the three texts in together as examples Bibliography
qf the same historic development " (Gordon 1974: 155). General references appear at the end of my 1979 BA
Elsewhere he states that "The Kensington Stela, like the article; thef bllowing list simply gives citations from this
Paraiba Inscription, is demonstrably authentic .. reply, from m' own work.
(Gordon 1974: 113). Similar statements which clearl/v mainl.
define his position occur et passim. If more recent Cohane, J. P.
evidence has led Professor Gordon to change his 1976 The Key. New York: Schocken.
interpretations, this would clarifiym atters, for I am citing Cross, F. M.
positions published in his 1974 book. 1979 Phoenicians in Brazil? Biblical Archaeology Review
Does Professor Gordon limit his theories to 5.2: 36-43.
Gordon, C. H.
restricted trade contacts? I did not misrepresent his views. 1971 Before Columbus. Links between the Old World and
For example, "The links we have observed between the Ancient America. New York: Crown.
Old World and America reflect the contributions of 1974 Riddles in History. New York: Crown.
numerous peoples, from different directions, during McKusick, M. B.
many millennia "(Gordon 1971: 174). In another context 1979a Canaanites in America: A New Scripture in Stone? Biblical
he writes "that there was a scientififcal/v and techno- Archeologist 42: 137-40.
logically developed civilization that penetrated virtuall/v 1979b A Cry ptogram in the Paraiha Inscription from Brazil.
every'p art of the world in remote antiquity "(1971: 174). BiblicalA rchaeologyR eview5 .4: 50-54.
The Key by John Philip Cohane (1976) traces what the 1979c The North American Periphery of Antique Vermont.
author alleges are Canaanite loanwords in ancient Antiquity 53: 121-23.
languages throughout the world, and a reader ofthe book 1979d The Davenport Stone, A Hoax Unraveled. Early Man
1: 9-14 (Spring).
is encouraged to accept such a conclusion because of the 1979e Some Historical Imnplicationso f the Norse Penny from
Preface written by Prqfessor Gordon, who explains that Maine. Meddelelserf ra Norsk NumismatiskF orening
world commerce was united bi a Semitic trading network 3: 16-24.
of merchant mariners. In press Atlantic Voyages to Prehistoric America. Carhondale, IL:
(6) I now speak to the broader issue. During the 1970s Southern Illinois LUniversityPvr ess.
new speculations about prehistoric times have flooded Wahl~ren. L., and McKusick, M. B.
the paperback marketplace. Examples of these hooks 1979 American Norse (CrptographY in Theory and Practice.
be found in every airline terminal and bookstore in 40- page typescript submitted to American Antiquity.
rmay
the countrY, Ia nd they are commonl/l sohi in
larger.foocl
stores, drug stores, and ev'erywhere that has a rack of' Marshall McKusick
paperbacks. During the 1970s we have seen w'hat I 'will UIni'ersiti of lowa
term as the "New Mythology" filled with frmntasies,
n vsticism, and compouLlndeder rors. The de?ade of the
1970s has been a period when the reading public has
BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGIST / SPRING 1980 73