EXPLORE BY YEAR
1920s
1929
1930s
1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1937
1940s
1940 | 1941 | 1945 | 1946
1970s
1970
—
— 1920s —
1929
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
December 24, 1929
Dear Mr. Glueck:
I want to thank you for your kindness in sending me in separate form your paper read before the Central Conference of American Rabbis on Recent Archaeological Work in Palestine. I am glad that you called the attention of the assemblage to the need of more support for archaeological work in connection with the Hebrew University.
You will be interested to know that nearly all the work of Doctor Sukenik was supported by the Dropsie College and that we have recently furnished one-half the fund, the Hebrew University furnishing the other half, for the publication of two volumes by him, one on the Third Wall and the other on the Ancient Synagogues in Palestine.
I think about Four or Five Thousand Dollars a year does go annually from America through the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society, most of which is turned over to the University.
Very sincerely yours,
CYRUS ADLER
1932
5th January, 1932
Professor Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Professor Glueck:-
Dr. Montgomery has asked me to communicate to you the amount of money appropriated for “Operating Expenses” at the School in Jerusalem for the fiscal year beginning July 1st, 1932 and extending to June 30th, 1933, and I take pleasure in doing so herewith.
Before our recent annual meetings in New York, I had written Director Burrows asking him for an estimate of what appropriation should be made for this purpose. In reply I received from him the following:
Operating Expenses:
Secretary’s salary $672
Housekeeper’s salary (with room and board) $480
Library $480
Garden and grounds $336
Office $120
Repairs and furniture $672
Entertainment $96
Travel $192
Electricity $156
Miscellaneous $216
Total $3420
—
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
April 5, 1932
Dear Doctor Glueck:
I learn from Professor James A. Montgomery and also from Professor Isaac Husik that you were present at the Dropsie College as a representative of the Hebrew Union College at the funeral of doctor Max L. Margolis. My colleagues and myself appreciate this tribute to a man and a scholar by whose learning both of our institutions were so fortunate to benefit. It is a great loss to scholarship.
Very sincerely yours,
Cyrus Adler
President
—
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
November 28, 1932
Dear Doctor Glueck:
Would you be willing to write a review of Doctor Albright’s “Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible” for the Jewish Quarterly Review, say in about one thousand words? Being on the ground, you could do it more vividly than anyone else I think.
Trusting that I shall hear from you favorably, I am
Very sincerely yours,
Cyrus Adler
Editor, Jewish Quarterly Review
1933
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
October 18, 1933
Dear Doctor Glueck:
Thank you very much for your review of Albright’s “Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible”, which will be published in the early number of the Jewish Quarterly Review.
Very sincerely yours,
CYRUS ADLER
Editor, Jewish Quarterly Review
—
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
October 31, 1933
Dear Doctor Glueck:
I am enclosing herewith manuscript and galley proof of your review of Albright’s Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible. Will you please read this proof carefully and return it to me with your corrections and with the manuscript?
Very sincerely yours,
CYRUS ADLER
Editor, Jewish Quarterly Review
—
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES
MEMBER OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ACADEMICS
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
907 FIFTEENTH STREET
WASHINGTON D. C.
1 December 1933
Dear Professor Glueck:
Your application will be presented to our Committee on Fellowships and Grants at its meeting in March, and you will be informed of its action not later than April first.
Sincerely yours,
Donald Goodchild
Secretary for Fellowships and Grants
1934
AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LEARNED SOCIETIES
MEMBER OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ACADEMICS
EXECUTIVE OFFICES
907 FIFTEENTH STREET
WASHINGTON D. C.
19th May 1934
Dear Mr. Glueck,
I enclose herewith a check in the sum of ninety-seven and 229/1000 Palestine Pounds representing the grant of $500.00 towards expenses of your survey trips in Eastern Palestine.
Very truly yours,
Donald Brock
Assistant Bursar
—
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
JERUSALEM, PALESTINE
den 1. Juni, 1934.
Herrn Professor Dr. Albrecht Alt
Leipzig C. 1
Ferdinand-Rhodestr. 7 III r.
Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!
Ich bein eben zurückgekommen von einer zweiten grossen Reise in Transjordanien, and habe Ihren freundlichen Brief erhalten. Ich danke Ihnen für die Nachricth über die zu erscheinende Publikation, und freue mich darüber. Ich glaube nicht dass sich die Frank’ schen Erkundüngen mit den Meinigen überschneiden warden. Ich habe mich besondersfür die älteren Dinge interessiert, obwohl ich alles [xxxxxxxxxxx] was nur zu finden war studiert habe. Wir sind von Kerak bis zum Toten Meere, und vom Toten Meere bis zum Golf von Aqabah geritten. Viel Römisches haben wir nicht gesehen, und da sich die Frank’schen Erkundungen besonders den Romischen Dingen gegolten haben, warden Ihre Untersuchungen meine eigene Arbeit schön vollenden.
Ich schicke Ihnene einen Zeitungsbericht, der einen kurzen Uberblick über meine Arabah Retse gibt. Ausser den in diesem Bericht genannten Orten haben wir auch Rujm en-Nemeireh, et-Telah, el-Hosb, Kh. et-Taiyebe, Gharandel, und Aila neben Aqabah besucht, die alle ausschlieslich [?] ursprünglich Nabatäisch waren. Nur in Feinan und in Aila fanden wir römische Keramik. Ich habe schon einen vorläufigen Bericht für das BASOR geschrieben, und vor einem Moant nach Amrika geschickt.
Seitdem habe ich fast das ganze Edomiti sche Gebiet bereist, dessen Grenzen festgestellt, und die meisten seiner Statdte und Festungen [xxx] entdect. Ausserdem haben wir viele neuen Nabatäischen Orte entdecct, und ich bin jetzt im Klaren uber den Zusammehhang zwishcen den Edomitern und den den Nabataern, besonders was ihre Keramik, Festungen, Bauarten und Lebenweisen betrifft. Nach einer Woche fahre ich wieder nach Transjordanien um diese Untersuchungen fortzusetzen. Das MS über die Untersuchungen in Moab im vorigen Jahre ist schon fertig. Es ist jetzt in den Händen von Prof. Albright, de res für mich durchliest. Es soll in dem nächsten AASOR erscheinen.
Ich reise erst am 15. August nach Amerika zurück, und freue ich mich sehr dass ich Sie hier sehen werde ehe ich abreise.
Mit den besten Grüssen,
Ihr ergenbenster,
NG
—
July 15, 1934.
Dear Mr. Brock:
This is to acknowledge receipt of the check for the sum of ninety seven pounds and two hundred and twenty nine mils Palestine which you sent me on behalf of the American Council of Learned Societies. Thank you. At the end of the season of exploration in Eastern Palestine, I shall fill out and return the form which you sent to me.
Sincerely yours,
Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, O.
Mr. Donald Brock
Assistant Bursar
American Council of Learned Societies
907 Fifteenth St.
Washington, D.C.
—
Leipzig C. 1, den 3. August 1934.
Ferdinand-Rohdestr. 7/III r.
Herrn Professor Dr. Nelson Glueck
American School of Oriental Research
Jerusalem.
Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!
Leider muβ ich Ihnen mitteilen, daß aus unserem beabsichtigten Zusammentreffen in Jerusalem nun doch nichts warden kann, da das Deutsche evang. Altertumsinstitut auf die Entsendung von Mitar beitern nach Palästina wegen der Schwierrgkeit, Devisen zu erwerben, für dises Jahr hat verzichten müssen. Ich bedaure das natürlich sehr, kann es aber nicht ändern. Wegen unserer Publikationen über die ‘Araba darf ich mich wohl noch einmal an Sie wenden, wenn Söe nach Amerika zurückgekehrt sind.
In der Hoffnung, daß Sie noch weiter recht schöne Entdeckungen gemacht haben, bin ich
mit den besten Grüßen und Wünschen für Sie und Prof. Albright
Ihr ergebenster
Nelson Glueck
AMERICAN SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
JERUSALEM, PALESTINE
—
den 11. August, 1934.
Herrn Professor Dr. Albrecht Alt
Leipzig C. 1
Ferdinand-Rhodestr. 7 III r.
Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!
Es tut mir sehr Leid, dass Sie doch nach Palästina dieses Jahr nicht werden kommen können. Was sagt man bei Ihnen – es wäre so schön gewesen, aber es hat nich sollen sein?
Vor ungefähr einer Woche habe ich Ihnene einen [xxxx] an die Propstei hier in Jerusalem addressierten Brief geschrieben. Ich schike Ihnen dessen Abschrift.
Auf der letzten Reise haben wir früheisenzeitliche Keramik auf der kleinen Festung bei ‘Ain Qudeirat gefunden. Die Keramike gehört zwischen ungefähr 1000 und 800 B.C., und is ganz der [xxxx] in Süd-Palästina zu findend en Keramik, und ist also als ein Vorposten des judä ischen Reiches zu betradten. Ich glaube dass man Kadesh Barnes boi ‘Ain Qudeirat lieber als bei ‘Ain Qadeis stellen sollte. Auf der nordwestlichen Seite des Golfs von ‘Aqabah haben wir noch ein Kupfergruben entdeckt. Auf dem Jebel Umm el Biyarah in Petra haben wir edomitische Keramik gefunden. Das gibt uns also die Stelle von Sela’, und die zwischen ‘Ayun Musa und dem Eingang zu Petra liegenden, grosse edomitische Stadt, Tawilan, ist, glaube ich, mit Bozrah zu identifizieren.
Mit dem besten Dank für den Sonderdruck “Die Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums”, und mit her Grüssen,
Ihr ergebenster,
NG
—
Leipzig C. 1, den 21. August 1934.
Ferdinand-Rhodestr. 7/III r.
Herrn Professor Dr. Nelson Glueck
Cincinnati
Hebrew Union College
Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!
Haben Sie vielen Dank für die letzten beiden Briefe, die Sie mir von Jerusalem aus geschickt haben und die soeben in meine Hände gelangt sind, sowie für Ihren Artikel aus den London Illustrated News. Alle Ihre freund lichen Mitteilungen sind mir äußerst interessant, ganz besonders natürlich die über nabatäische Besiedlung und Bewirtschaftung der ‘Araba, durch die die Beobachtungen von Frank aufs glücklichste ergänzt werden. Daß die Römer ihre Kastelle in unmittelbarer Nähe der vorgefundenen Siedlungen anlegten, Entspricht durchaus dem Üblichen und war gerade in der ‘Araba auch durch die Wasserverhältnisse gefordert. Die Kastelle selbst und ihre dauernde Besetzung sind uns so sicher bezeugt, daß die Dürftigkeit des archäologischen (speziell keramischen) Befundes nicht als Beweis für das Gegenteil verstanden warden kann. Haben Sie siechere Gründe dafür, daß z. B. das große Feldersystem bei et-Tlah nabatäisch ist?
Vorallem aber möchte ich Sie fragen, ob ich Ihre freundlichen Mitteilungen, such die brieflichen, in der bevorstehenden Veröffentlichung der Frank’schen Berichte verwerten und zitieren darf? Ich hoffe allerdings, daβ noch vor dem Erscheinen dieser Veröffentlichung such schon ein Bericht von Ihnen in dem BASOR verfügbar werden wird, möchte aber auf jeden Fall vermeiden, etwas bekannt zu machen, was Sie etwa erst in einer späteren Publikation mitteilen wollen.
Nochmals vielen Dank und die besten Grüβe und Wünsche für Ihre Rückfahrt und weitere Arbeit von
Ihrem ergebensten
Nelson Glueck
—
Nov. 28, 1934.
Mr. Donald Goodchild
Secretary for Fellowships and Grants
American Council of Learned Societies
907 Fifteenth St.
Washington D.C.
Dear Mr. Goodchild:
Under separate cover I am sending you a copy of Bulletin 55 of the American Schools of Oriental Research, in which I have given a brief report of the results of the survey of southern Transjordan, made possible in part by the grant in aid of $500 awarded to me by the American Council of Learned Societies. You will note that the expedition has been designated as being carried on under the joint auspices of the American School of Oriental Research, Baghdad, the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, and the American Council of Learned Societies. I am also enclosing under separate cover an article which appeared in the Illustrated London News of July 7, 1934 dealing with the results of the expedition, and designated there also being conducted under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies together with the other institutions mentioned.
I hope to publish the full report on the results of the expedition is a forthcoming issue of the Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Explorations in Eastern Palestine, Part I, dealing with the previous season’s survey of ancient Noah is now in press; Part II, dealing with Edom will be published in a subsequent number of the Annual of the ASOR.
Sincerely yours,
NG
—
December 21, 1934,
Dear Glueck:
Replying to yours of the 18th, I have not much to say regarding the budget. Your suggestion that the surplus of your Moab-Edom funds be applied to the next Annual so as to make possible a number large enough to include all your material is worth thorough consideration, but I cannot pronounce any decision until the Publications Committee has discussed it. I can talk it over with Speiser at New York next week, and if he and I agree we need not necessarily wait for Albright’s vote, though of course we should prefer to consult him. I take it that the funds you refer to are those which have already been appropriated but not used in full, so that the question does not involve an item in next year’s budget. The matter should be explained, however, when the budget is presented. Unless we make some such arrangement, we can’t possibly give you as much space as you want; 200 pages would be a good deal anyway. Can’t the material be spread out still a bit and some of it held until the following year? Or can’t it be condensed somewhat? We can talk this over next week.
I approve Albright’s recommendation on the reduction of the Jerusalem School appropriation and the provision for a special volume on Bethel. To provide for the latter we have both the amount taken from the school appropriation and the amount appropriated this year for the excavation (i.e. a corresponding slice out of our funds).
I agree with you that the Nies Scholarship should be larger and that to make it so the Thayer Fellowship might be reduced, but that the sum should be fixed, not a sliding scale adjusted to the candidate’s caliber (that looks too much like docking a man for failure to make grades). This matter should be decided by the Committee on the Jerusalem School, of which President Morgenstern is chairman. You might take it up with him, and perhaps the committee can have a special meeting before the budget is adopted.
Similarly the Committee on the Baghdad School should act on yoursuggestion regarding a cut in the appropriation for the Ward Library in view of probable needs for the following year.
The job you have taken over isn’t a simple one, is it? Some day, when capitalism is completely abolished and all educational and scientific work is put on the government relief appropriation, we’ll have to agitate for salaries for the officers of the Schools!
Hoping to see you soon,
Sincerely,
Millar Burrows
1935
THE DROPSIE COLLEGE
FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
PHILADELPHIA
—
January 7, 1935
Dear Dr. Morgenstern:
Answering your letter of January 3 with regard to fellowships I presume that after the meeting this is all you can say. But I still hope that the Treasurer or whoever is the proper person will explore the suggestion I made about getting funds for it would not necessarily be under the name of the Thayer Fellowship research work for other sources. If, for example, Mr. Orlinsky or anybody else who has applied, would go to Jerusalem with a definite project or definite piece of work I think we ought to take up such cases with the Council of Learned Societies, with the Guggenheim Foundation, etc., etc.
We have in the past put all our eggs in two baskets so far as Foundations are concerned – the Carnegie Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. When I spoke to Doctor Pritschett when he was head of the Carnegie Foundation, and also to Doctor Kepel, they were quite willing to make such grants provided they could do so legally, because the Carnegie Foundation can operate in the United States and Great Britain and its dominions. The matter was referred to a large committee of which Elihu Root was the head and they decided that a “mandate” was not a “dominion” and hence they could not make appropriations for work in Palestine. Then we turned to the Rockefeller Foundation and after negotiations which were initiated while Doctor Abraham Flexner was still secretary of that Foundation, and continued for almost two years, the present result was reached.
I predict a great growth of foundations in this country. As you may know the taxes on estates which run into considerable size are getting so heavy that when a rich man or woman dies 24% of their estate can go to the family and 76% will go to the Government. This I believe is going to cause a good many people to be faced with what they will consider the dilemma of giving 24% of their estates to their children and leaving nothing to charity, or creating charitable trusts during their life-time from which distributions can be made after their death by their executors or by the Trustees. It think you know about these so-called “family trusts”.
I am writing this to you to pass on to our new and very capable young Treasurer, Professor Glueck.
Faithfully yours,
Cyrus Adler
—
Leipzig C. 1, den 20. Januar 1935.
Ferdinand-Rhodestr. 7/III r.
Sehr verehrter Herr Kollege!
Haben Sie besten Dank für die freundliche Übersendung des neuen Annual mit der Fortsetzung Ihrer Forschungsberichte über Transjordanien. Sie werden sich denken können, mit welchem Interesse ich den so überaus reichen Inhalt des Bandes studiert habe, nicht nur soweit er mein eigenes Studiengebiet berührt, sondern gerade auch die Teile, die es mit anderen, mir persönlich noch unbekannten Gegenden zu tun haben. Ich hoffe sehr, daβ Sie das begonnene Werk noch weiter fortsetzen, sei es in Vervollständigung Ihrer Aufnahmen in Moab und Edom oder in Ausdehnung auf andere Gebiete wie etwa Gilead, und freue mich gerade darum besonders über die soeben bei mir eingetroffene Nachricht, daβ Sie für längere Zeit das Direktorat der Schule in Jerusalem übernommen haben. Hoffentlich lassen Ihnen die mancherlei Verpflichtungen, die Sie in dieser Stellung werden erfüllen müssen, noch Muβe genug, um für Transjordanien das Nötige zu tun; der jetzt eingetretene Wechsel in der Vertretung der Archäologie in ’Amman wird Sie daran wohl nicht hindern.
Was unseren Streit um die ’Araba betrifft, so freue ich mich darüber nicht wenig, daβ wir uns noch näher kommen werden. Ich werde voraussichtlich schon bald Gelegenheit haben, darüber ein paar Worte zu schreiben, für die ich im voraus um freundliche Aufnahme bitte.
Mit bestem Dank und Gruβ
Ihr ergebenster
Nelson Glueck
—
April 10, 1935,
Dear Glueck:
With regard to asking Mr. Warburg for a contribution at this time, I have been wondering whether it would be well for me to try to see him myself, and if so whether it would be wise to have Mr. Moon come to New York to join me in the interview. I wonder also whether it might not be wise to wait until the campaign for the University in Jerusalem is over. If you are going to ask Messrs, Patten and Warburg to review our investments again in the near future, would it be better to ask for their gifts to the Endowment before or after they do this? I think I shall write to Dr. Adler and ask his advice, since he is both a member of our Endowment Committee and a close friend of Mr. Warburg.
The reduction of the Annual Professor’s salary is a delicate matter. For 1936-7 we have already appointed Annual Professors for both schools, and both of them are from Chicago. What will be the salary of the Baghdad man? Since cuts are the order of the day, and many professors are taking cuts in salaries they have already been receiving to say nothing of appointments for the future, there can be nothing unethical in reducing the amount of these salaries. I hate to have to do it, however, and sufficient notice ought to be given to the men concerned to permit them to withdraw if the amount seems insufficient to them. That is the only reason I can see for taking up the matter with the trustees before our next regular meeting. The committees of the two schools ought to consider it first, I should think. You might take it up with Morgenstern and Barton, telling them if you wish to that you are doing so at my suggestion. If they approve, you might write to Olmstead and Graham (or get them to do it), saying that in making up the budget you find it will probably be impossible to appropriate more than a stated amount for their salaries and asking whether they think it will be possible for them to manage with that much. That much might be done before the budget comes before the trustees for a vote, and the men could not then complain that they had not received a fair consideration. If in your judgment and that of the committees, however, it seems better to consult the trustees first by correspondence (including Breasted, incidentally), I can send them a circular letter asking for an informal vote, to be officially ratified when the budget is adopted.
In any case, I am glad you are raising the question now, because I felt that last year we did not have sufficient preliminary discussion of our budgetary problems and had to act rather hastily.
Sincerely,
Millar Burrows
—
April 12, 1935
Dear Glueck:
Dr. Adler has answered my letter asking his advice regarding our approach to Mr. Warburg. He says we had better wait until he is not so occupied with his campaign for three and a quarter million dollars for refugees etc. He also suggests that it would be best if you and Albright could call on Mr. Warburg with me (and perhaps with Moon also), since he knows both of you and likes you and sees the school largely through your eyes. I wonder whether there is any chance of your coming East again this spring, so that we might do this.
How about Mr. Patten, too? Is there anybody with whom you might go to see him some time and try to land a special gift for the endowment? Of course we must consult Mr. Moon about anything we do, but we’ll have to help him somewhat and not leave all the soliciting to him, I’m afraid.
Sincerely,
Millar Burrows
1937
PLAN FOR READJUSTMENT OF ARAB PALESTINE
AND JEWISH PALESTINE
1. – Purpose of trip to attend Council Meeting.
a. To postpone implementation of Royal Commission Report.
b. To equalize apparatus of Agency between Z.O. and Non-Z.O.
c. To evolve better scheme of living with neighbors and for improving peaceful and progressive development.
d. To improve the resolutions and the actions of Zionist Congress by more moderate suggestion.
Results Achieved:
a. Since our decision to go abroad Parliament itself refused to endorse the report but referred it to the Mandate’s Commission in Geneva.
The Jews objected to it. The Press came out against it. The Arabs came out against it.
The Z.O. came out against it in its present shape but empowered the Executive to pursue negotiations further.
b. The apparatus of the Non-Zionists, -Zionists has been much improved by
The President is put under obligatory consultation with Advisory Council created by Z.O. plus Non-Zionist Advisory Board, such as Lionel Cohen, Lord Reading, F.N.W. or Gottschalk, Laski
A small Administrative Committee of 16, half and half, Z.O. and Non-Z.O. was recreated in Palestine as advisors and policy prescribing body.
Executive equalized by having at least the following self-declared independents, Shertok, Rupin, Mrs. Jacobs, plus Hexter, Senator, Karpf.
c. To evolve better scheme of Arab-Jewish relations, the Mandate Commission of Geneva requested continuation for Mandate until satisfactory solution is found, suggesting some form of cantonization similar to the scheme of which we spoke.
The Eden Committee to be appointed to discuss modus vivendi with Palestinian Arabs and Jews.
d. The Resolution of the Agency asked for conference between Jews and Arabs
for a similar purpose.
II. – What will be our contribution to that Conference and what should be our attitude?
a. – Can we American Jews find and agree on a satisfactory promising program – Z.O. and non-Z.O. alike?
b. – Can we agree that such program must satisfy
Jewish demands for large number of Jewish immigrants;
Arabs demands not to be outnumbered;
English demands for the four points of importance, harbor, aviation and military base, oil and exit to Akaba
Some of us feel that we can satisfy all three standpoints. The English demands must be fulfilled as conditio sine qus non. The Arab demands for financial help to the upbuilding of Trans-Jordania and Iraq are important and must be seriously considered by us.
We come to the Arab Conference table not empty handed. From what we are told, there is a strong desire on behalf of the Trans-Jordanian Government for the erection of electric power plant and in consideration of this enterprise a large acreage will be put at the disposal, for 99 years, of Jews and Arabs who will develop this scheme. The remuneration paid to these people will no doubt be apart in Trans-Jordania and will be helpful to the establishment of the Trans-Jordania in that way space will be created for additional Jews in Palestine.
Iraq – In regard to that country, which once supported well millions of inhabitants, now reduced to an insignificant population, we know that a very interesting and important irrigation dam has been built by and English concern for the reestablishment of that once fertile valley situation between the Euphrates and the Tigres. Iraq needs immigration, and while it prefers Arab immigration, it has not been possible to attract that type of immigration which will be steady and land-improving. We are told that considerable amount of money might be raised for promising development in Iraq, and a serious group is considering this scheme.
Could we satisfy the Arabs that, taking the Arab population of the three countries, Palestine, Trans-Jordania and Iraq, as millions, even a population of a million Jews would not be endangering their independence?
Jewish Demands:
Is it possible to reach an agreement, American Jews, Non-Zionists and Zionists, to work for one purpose, peaceful, large immigration into the three countries mentioned above, with one Jewish Canton to start with?
Some of us feel that, logically, it should be possible if we look at the problem disregarding the vanity attracting idea of Jewish State, The Jewish State limits us to the small size and puts upon our shoulders the responsibility of a defensive attitude against unfriendly neighbors. The cantonization gives us a large gield, with large possibilities. Can anybody vote for a small complicated state when he has the choice of larger numbers in larger territories against small numbers in small territories?
III. – What would be Washington’s attitude to these schemes?
It has been pointed out that the United States has a standing, to be heard and satisfied if any Mandate conditions are changed. We know how difficult it is diplomatically to obtain changes once a scheme has been promulgated. Perhaps if the Royal Commission had consulted the United States prior to declaring its Royal Commission Report as its policy, something more satisfactory might have been presented by the two important Anglo-Saxon powers.
Might it not be advisable therefore to have the progress and the proceedings of that Commission in Palestine watched by an American advisor or observer, while the work is going on. A Jewish observer would naturally be considered partial, but would it not be fortunate and desirable if a man of the type of Messersmith, now in the State Department of the United States, could be delegated by the State Department for such a post of “observer”. The standing of Mr. Messersmith, his sympathetic energy, in so well known that it would command the respect of all parties involved from the first moment on. And I wonder if the right party, persona grata in Washington, might not test Mr. Hull’s or the President’s attitude in regard to this question.
During the last two days a proposition has come before us for a Christian organization to call together a round-table conference of Jews and Arabs, right here in the United States.
The Arabs approached seem to be anxious for it, and the matter should receive most serious consideration, and it would of course be necessary to obtain consent from Agency headquarters to go into this further. We have to impress the English Commission when it sits with the interest that American Christianity, Arab and Jewish population, take in the working out of this problem. On the same day as this invitation was issued, I received a printed pamphlet from one, Saphir, giving the documents and history, with photostatic copies, of very serious conference between Jews and Arabs which took place with Dr. Weizmann’s permission and approval, which led up to an agreement ready to be signed by the parties involved. When, so to say, an agreement was reached in 1922, a powerful influence, source unknown, brought these negotiations to a sudden end, and one can only surmise what might have been the reason for it. Perhaps the ambitions of one or the other side increased suddenly. Perhaps it was not in the interest of the big powers to see Arab and Jew come to such amicable settlement that the demands for territorial or safeguard purposes would have been left unprovided for. Some of the people involved in these negotiations are still alive and can check up such story and the circumstances which prevailed. In any case, if Arabs and Jews were still on such terms that they felt that such an agreement was desirable and possible in 1922, why not try to avoid the difficulties which wrecked the negotiations then and try to resume with proper safety guards in the hope that a similar arrangement might be worked out now.
cc to:
Stephen Wise
Flexner
Karpf
Gottschalk
Goldsmid
— 1940s —
Undated, c. 1940-1945
I did not develop for Dr. Weizman my conviction that the question of forming a Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine has become completely academic, simply because there are not enough Jews left alive in Europe to come here and form anything like a majority of the population, – on which basis alone there might someday be a possibility of obtaining the semblance of an autonomous Jewish state. The best estimates at the moment seem to be that there are about a million Jews left alive in Europe, some of them in regions contained within the Russian sphere of influence. If even half of that number can be brought to Palestine, the Jews would still not form a majority here. There is no possible danger of the Arabs becoming a minority, which is what they are determinedly opposed to. There is no possibility of the Jews becoming a majority. It seems to me therefore that all this talk of creating a Jewish State or preventing its formation by respectively Jewish nationalists and Arab nationalists is a mere jousting against windmills. [Unsigned, but most likely penned by Nelson Glueck]
1940
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
held at Philadelphia
for Promoting Useful Knowledge
104 South Fifth Street
December 26, 1940
Dr. Nelson Glueck
162 Glenmary Avenue
Clifton, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dear Dr. Glueck:
I have read with the greatest interest the manuscript of the paper which you presented at the Autumn Meeting of the American Philosophical Society entitled “Ezion-geber on the Shore of the Red Sea,” and I am writing to you to inquire whether you intended that it should be published as an original contribution to knowledge in the PROCEEDINGS of the American Philosophical Society. It is a briefer paper than we generally publish in the PROCEEDINGS but is rather too long for the abstract in the YEAR BOOK. I have just received in a subsequent mail the abstract which you have sent and which is very satisfactory for the YEAR BOOK. You, of course, understand that the publications in the PROCEEDINGS of the Society are intended to be original contributions in more or less final form and are generally accompanied by a bibliography of articles referred to. Will you please let me know whether you would like to have this paper published as it is in our PROCEEDINGS or whether you would prefer to enlarge it or add a list of references. Everyone who heard your paper was immensely impressed by its importance and I should be most happy to publish in as large a form as you would care to submit it an account of the work which you have been doing.
Sincerely yours,
Executive Officer
—
AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
held at Philadelphia
for Promoting Useful Knowledge
104 South Fifth Street
December 26, 1940
Dr. Nelson Glueck
162 Glenmary Avenue
Clifton, Cincinnati, Ohio.
My dear Dr. Glueck:
In reply to your letter of May 29, I am glad to tell you that I find that you had furnished in connection with your report for the YEAR BOOK a list of seven publications which you have issued on the excavations on the Gulf of Aqabah. Of course, I cannot commit the Committee on Publications regarding the acceptance of your fuller account of the excavation for some future issue of the PROCEEDINGS, but I feel confident that they would authorize me to request you to forward your manuscript to use whenever it is ready for publication. We have been greatly interested in your work and should be glad to see it reported at length in our PROCEEDINGS.
Sincerely yours,
Executive Officer
1941
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
September 4, 1941
Dear Mr. Glueck:
In reply to my wire, Professor Garstang wired back that the November dates were possible for him. But I have not yet had time to hear from him in regard to the details, namely the financial arrangements. He has been willing to undertake a considerable number of lectures for the Institute on a expense basis, though he is primarily lecturing to sustain himself while here because of exchange restrictions. SO I do not know yet whether he will feel like undertaking another for the love of archaeology or not. Would there be any possibility of securing a paid lecture for him in or about Cincinnati? As you know, much better than I, for I have heard him only once, he is a most popular and successful lecturer. His audiences in 1927/28, when he lectured for the AIA as Norton Lecturer were most enthusiastic. And his one lecture of the Institute this year was reported as a great success. If you could suggest or arrange a remunerative lecture for him apart from his lecture to the Society I am sure that he would appreciate it and be more likely to agree to come for the Society’s lecture.
Thank you very much for calling my attention to the error I made in regard to Tello’s date. It was a slip of the eye. I read January, but I should have read February. The date is Wednesday, February 4. I hope the slip has not caused a difficulty.
Yes, the December 3-5 dates stand. I hope that nothing will interfere. After this recent experience I have moments of great terror at the thought that some sudden emergency may wipe out a whole trip, as has just happened. Apart from the damage to my morale, it also has an adverse effect upon the budget, or rather the treasury. You don’t mention the Princeton date, Monday, March 23, 1942, but I hope that still stands also.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
Meriwether Stuart
—
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
September 4, 1941
Dear Mr. Glueck:
Your letter of the 2nd makes it easier to break the news about Mr. Pope’s lecture. Not long before we left Maine I had a letter from Mr. Pope telling me that he had overtaxed himself to the extent of inducing a heart attack and that he would not be able to fulfill his engagements for the Institute. He happened to be styling in the same town where we were and I had a pleasant visit with him. He was still quite weak from an attack of lumbago. But he still felt that he could not come out to Ohio. So it becomes necessary to find a substitute.
Perhaps I had better begin by reviewing the Cincinnati program as it now stands:
Wednesday, January 4, 1942 – Tello on Peru Monday, March 23, 1942 – Brown on Dura.
If you do not mind another lecture on American Archaeology I can recommend someone to replace Pope who, I think, could give a very interesting lecture on Guatemala. The lecturer is Mary Butler of the University Museum, Philadelphia. Her subject would be the excavations she conducted in Guatemala for three years during an archaeological survey of the Alta Verapaz and western Cuchumatanes on a grant from the American Philosophical Society. She was also Director of the Hudson River Valley Archeological Survey and has worked among the West Virginia and Illinois mound-building cultures. She has very fine slides and colored photographs of both the remains and of scenes of Indian life. She comes to us on the recommendation of George Vaillant, just appointed Director of the Pennsylvania Museum.
Another possibility is Professor John Garstang. He has several lectures that might be of interest to the Cincinnati Society:
1. The Hittite Empire
2. Discoveries at Mersin in Southern Turkey
3. The Two Oldest Settlements of Man (at Jericho and Mersin).
Do you think that either of these speakers would be suitable? In any case, I shall appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible, since the time is now so short.
Sincerely yours,
Meriwether Stuart
—
American Palestine Fund, Inc.
October 28, 1941
Dr. Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Nelson Glueck:
Thank you very much for sending me a copy of How Archaeology has Contributed to our Knowledge of the Bible and the Jew. I look forward to reading it with pleasure.
I should like to take this opportunity of writing to you about something that I have wanted to do for some time, and that is to invite you to become a member of the American Advisory Board of the American Palestine Fund.
Our organization was launched to raise money in this country for the various educational, cultural and social service institutions in Palestine that do not receive support through the United Palestine Appeal and that heretofore have undertaken to raise money separately
The number of appeals from such institutions is large, and constitutes a confused situation, involving high costs and producing poor results. Accordingly, a group of leading men undertook to form a single committee, now incorporated under the name of the American Palestine Fund, to raise money to be allocated on a systematic basis to the deserving institutions in Palestine of the type named.
I enclose a descriptive booklet of the American Palestine Fund 1941 appeal. You will note the names of those who have already identified themselves with us.
It is because of what I know of you and your position as a leader in American Jewry that I feel it will be a privilege if your name could be added to the existing list of the American Advisory Board.
We would be honored if you would consent to join us, and I look forward to your favorable reply.
With cordial greetings,
Sincerely yours,
Edward A. Horman
President
1945
Jerusalem, Palestine
January 20, 1945
Dr. John Slawson,
Executive Vice-President
American Jewish Committee
386 Fourth Ave.,
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear Dr. Slawson:
In accordance with my telephone conversations with you and Judge Proskauer just before leaving America, I have initiated unofficial conversations with Dr. Weizman, Mr. David Ben Gurion and other members of the Jewish Agency.
My first interview was with Dr. Weizman. He had invited me to come to Rehevoth to see him. I informed him that I was not empowered to speak or act officially for the AJC, but that I had had conversations with some of its leading members of the subject of Jewish settlement in Palestine, and particularly with you and with Judge Proskauer, whom he knows personally.
I asked about the letter which Judge Proskauer had written him. We discussed it at some length. To get ahead of my story, and, I believe, as a direct result of this conversation, Mr. Ben Gurion informed me the next afternoon that it had just been decided to reply to Judge Proskauer’s letter.
Dr. Weizman said that he could see great benefit from the reconstitution of the Jewish Agency, provided properly qualified non-Zionists were sent out to join it in Jerusalem. I replied that that was a matter which required much more consideration from both sides, but that I felt that if a general agreement could once be reached the AJC would undertake to see that the non-Zionist representation was of the highest possible caliber. In principle, I gathered, Dr. Weizman would welcome the renovation or revamping of the Jewish agency.
We then discussed what might be the bases for discussion between Dr. Weizman and Judge Proskauer should the former come to America in April as he hopes to, and on what general lines the Zionist Organization and the AJC could cooperate in matters of mutual interest. I said to Dr. Weizman that In my opinion the most propitious moment in many years had arrived for such conversations and for such cooperation, and that he himself in recent utterances had done much to prepare that way. His emphasis now seemed to be away from further talk about the immediate establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth and more towards the practical possibilities of immigration and land acquisition and settlement. He agreed.
I said to him that those were in brief the bases and the only bases for conversations between him and Judge Proskauer and for cooperation fo the AJC with the Zionist organization. I said that I thought the AJC was prepared a) to do everything it could in conjunction with the Zionist organization to form a united front to press for the abrogation of the 1939 White Paper, against which indeed Judge Proskauer and his associates objected as strongly as Dr. Weizman himself did, b) to help promote as large as possible Jewish Immigration to Palestine, c) to help obtain unused lands in Palestine for Jews to settle, and d) to help secure private and governmental assistance for the commercial and industrial undertakings necessary for the sound economic development of Jewish settlement in Palestine.
I emphasized to Dr. Weizman that the AJC was in agreement with him that these steps would undoubtedly be advantage to all of the inhabitants of Palestine, and that the AJC would oppose any undert kings prejudicial to the general interests of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. I further underlined that in my opinion the AJC would not only not support any new attempt to secure the creation now or in the foreceable near future of the Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine but would oppose it, and on that score would disassociate from any cooperation with the Zionist organization which might be agreed upon even as it had withdrawn on that score from the American Jewish Conference.
Dr. Weizman declared himself deeply interested and very pleased to hear this exposition of what I thought might the bases for cooperation with the AJC to be explored in direct conversations with Judge Proskauer later on. Since my interview with him he has expressed himself to an intimate of his and of mine in Jerusalem as being delighted with this interview.
Dr. Weizman then told me in considerable detail the results of a very important conversation he had with Churchill about Palestine just before he came her recently. He also expressed to me the conviction, based in part on an interview with a member of Churchill’s immediate entourage which took place just after the Moyne murder, that Churchill had in no essential point changed his mind from the time when a few days previously he had talked to Weizman. I would rather not repent the details of these conversations, but let Weizman do that himself if he wants to. They encourage me greatly, however, in my conviction that a great historic moment has arrived in which the AJC can render service of incalculable value to world Jewry.
I left Dr. Weizman when he told me that he wanted to think over what I had to say to him and to have a chance to consult with his colleagues. Since then I have had a long interview with Mr. David Ben Gurion and another with Dr. Senator, who is the only non-Zionist member left on the Jewish Agency. I want to conclude this letter now, however, in order to get it office in the pouch. I assume that in replying to me you will not mention that it has come to you via the pouch, and that besides showing this letter to Judge Proskauer and to any others of the AJC you may care to, you will regard this letter as confidential
With my best salaams to you,
Sincerely,
Nelson Glueck
American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, Palestine
—
American Jewish Committee
January 26, 1945
Judge Joseph M. Proskauer
11 Broadway
New York City
Dear Judge,
Before this letter arrives you will in all probability have seen the letter which I wrote to Slawson, and whichh was intended naturally also for you. I have directed and will direct similar letters to Slawson in order to preserve the proprieties of the centralized organization of the American Jewish Committee whichh is his official concern.
I have now had interviews with the three most important leaders of the Zionist Organization at present in this country, namely Weizman, Ben Gurion and Shertok. I have also talked to Senator, who is the last so-called non-Zionist representative of the Jewish Agency.
Weizman is coming to America in April. I believe I have laid the groundwork for his meeting with you to discuss the possibilities of united effort on the part of the Zionists and non-Zionists in America, the latter represented particularly by the American Jewish Committee, for Jewish settlement in Palestine. My definite conviction is that he is far from being enthusiastic about, or inwardly committed to the Biltmore politics of Ben Gurion and company, which have been pursued so intensively particularly during the last two years. I think that Weizman, as well as an increasingly large part of the Jewish community in Palestine, are convinced that if more attention had been paid to the basic essentials of removing the White Paper, getting permission for large Jewish immigration and for the acquisition of unused lands in Palestine, than the development of the maximum political program of the immediate obtaining of the Jewish Commonwealth, more real progress could have been recorded than is now possible. I find that the protagonists of the Biltmore platform are increasingly on the defensive. I have said to Weizman that I believe that on the basis of a program of immigration and land almost complete unity of action could be obtained among Jews in America to help achieve what is realistically possible. I almost wish I could be present for some of the discussions at least between him and you, or between the representatives of the Zionist Organization in American and the American Jewish Committee. I know I have your confidence; I feel that I have obtained Weizman’s. I want to emphasize that I made plain to Weizman, as I made plain to others with whom I have been having discussions, that in my opinion the American Jewish Committee could not be induced to support a renewed propaganda for the realization of the Biltmore program.
I felt that both Ben Gurion and Shertok were less sympathetic to my exposition of what I thought were the realities and necessities and possibilities of united American Jewish effort with regard to Jewish settlement in Palestine. Both insisted that there must be some political mechanism, by which they meant the Jewish State, of course, to enable the maximum possible number of Jews to immigrate into Palestine and to secure the necessary lands and economic assistance and possibilities of industrial development for them. I explained that
I thought they were putting the cart before the horse, and that in no event did I think political supremacy would be given to a Jewish minority in Palestine over all the rest of the inhabitants of the land, aside from many other considerations which would prevent it. I told them that I thought that the chances of securing a haven of refuge in Palestine for the largest possible number of Jews in Europe who had no other hope but to come here, were being seriously hurt by this insistence upon achieving immediately the Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine.
I have not yet developed for them, but will probably do so in future conversations, my conviction that this insistence upon a political state must inevitably raise again the question of partition in Palestine, which I consider iniquitous, no matter how it may be sugar coated. I think they also realize, although they refuse to admit it yet, that even if the gates of Palestine were to be completely opened to as many Jews of Europe as wanted to come here, it would still be impossible to achieve a Jewish majority. My own estimate is, and I have reason to believe that it agrees with their own private estimate, that out of the million Jews approximately who may survive the war in Europe, at the very most half a million could with herculean efforts be brought to Palestine. If they are to be brought at all, or if any portion of that half million is to be brought, it will have to be done, I am convinced, within the next five years.
If Ben Guiron and his followers would only listen to reason, and I believe that Weizman is already convinced, I think the bases in fact exist for a mighty attempt by unified American Jewry to save a large part of the remnant of Israel that still survives in Europe that can be saved. I am firmly convinced that Palestine can easily hold another half a million Jews.
The above in outline is the situations as I see it today. With cordial greetings,
Sincerely yours,
NG
—
January 28, 1945
Dr. John Slawson
Executive Vice President
American Jewish Committee
386 4th Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear Dr. Slawson,
In addition to my interview with Dr. Weizman, I have had interviews with Mr. Ben Gurion and Mr. Moshe Shertok and with Dr. Werner Senator. The last mentioned is the administrator of the University, and the only so-called non-Zionist representative left of the Jewish Agency.
Mr. Ben Gurion and I had a very long interview. I presented in essence the same considerations as I had laid before Dr. Weizman, and which I outlined in my letter to you of January 20th. As I have already written, Weizman had in between apparently communicated with Ben Gurion, who informed me that it had been decided to answer Judge Proskauer’s letter with regard to the possibility of initiating discussions with the American Jewish Committee for the renewal of eventual revamping of the Jewish Agency.
Both Ben Gurion and Shertok asked me if I thought the American Jewish Committee would Insist upon the 50% representation on the Jewish Agency whichh had previously been accorded to the non-Zionists. The question was asked in a form to convey to me, I think, the feelings of these two gentlemen, that they for their part would not agree to anything like this proportion. I replied that I was not prepared not authorized to enter into discussion of such details now, but that for my part I felt that the American Jewish Committee would certainly not be satisfied with a mere token representation on the Jewish Agency, Is indeed discussions got to the stage where it was decided that the Jewish Agency should be reformed along something like its old lines.
I sensed a certain degree of resentment on the part of Ben Gurion that I talked to Weizman before I talked to him. I was very careful naturally to do that with malice aforethought. Ben Gurion replied to my statements that the most important things to be done were to save those Jews of Europe who could be saved and who wanted to settle in Palestine, and to help acquire lands for agriculture and other possibilities for industrial and general economic development there, that he naturally agreed about the primacy of these considerations but asked me if I did not feel that a political mechanism was necessary to translate them from wishes into reality. He went on to say that he himself was really not interested in a store, nor in political authority as such, (statements which I completely discounted), but that he felt that unless the political machinery envisaged in the Biltmore program were provided, it would be impossible to bring in large numbers of Jewish immigrants or to open lands for settlement for them in Palestine. I replied that I thought that was in effect.
putting the cart before the horse, that on the whole much had been done without that particular kind of state mechanism that he envisaged, and that all the political realities anyways were against any present possibility of achieving his goal.
I pointed out in bare outline to him what I am personally convinced of as a result of all my contacts, that the British and American governments and people will never agree to give a Jewish minority in Palestine political control over an Arab majority, aside from any other considerations against it. At any rate, I went on to point out to him and to Shertok, that the cooperation of the American Jewish Committee could not be secured, I felt, if the project of the Jewish commonwealth continued to be placed in the forefront of Zionist objectives, and to my way of thinking to the harming of obtaining as much immigration and land as might otherwise be secured.
He then asked me to develop my ideas of what I thought the necessary mechanism for obtaining immigration and land would be. I replied that I thought it was a matter which could be gone into later on, and that anyways I felt that such a mechanism could much more easily be perfected and be widely and officially approved of than the state he felt was so necessary. I find that both he and Shertok and Leo Cohn, the political secretary of the Jewish Agency with whom I also had an interview, have really now become convinced that even if the gates of Palestine were completely open, if facilities were provided to bring as many Jews from Europe as wanted to come here, it would be possible within any reasonably near future to obtain a Jewish majority in Palestine. My reply has been definitely in the negative, and if their fears for the Jews in America should unfortunately be realized, and it become impossible for Jews to live there, I declared that then it would be impossible for Jews to live in security anywhere in the world, including Palestine.
Actually, I am convinced that Weizman, and I feel that even Ben Gurion and Shertok would, if they could do so gracefully, retreat from the political impasse which has been created by this insistence upon obtaining the Jewish Commonwealth of Palestine. Weizman had already beat a retreat in several of his recent speeches, in which he has emphasized the necessity of concentrating on practical possibilities. I feel that the compulsion of events will force Ben Gurion to follow in Weizman’s wake, as much as it goes against his grain to give up the political advantage he has gained amongst his numerous adherents in Palestine against Weizman. There is much reason, I believe to think that when Weizman comes to America, probably in April, solid constructive results can be achieved by discussions between him and Judge Proskauer.
I have had in addition, as I have already said, a long talk with Dr. Senator, who was very much in agreement with my own thinking with regard to these matters, which, I assume, is more or less in line with the thinking of the American Jewish Committee.
I have had discussions with a highly placed British official, who is an intimate friend of mine, with regard to the general point of view of the American Jewish Committee, and particularly with regard to the necessity of leaving the discussion of obtaining the Jewish Commonwealth out of consideration and of concentrating on less ambitious but more realizable projects of increased Jewish settlement and land acquisition in Palestine. He applauded this point of view, and said flatly that on such a basis alone as that which I outlined to him, could any reasonable degree of solution to the so-called Palestine problem be achieved.
The question of partition has come up again. I have definite ideas with regard to it, but see no reason for developing them at this moment. I can only say that I consider any kind of partition iniquitous from every point of view, and that I fear that Ben Gurion may be prepared to obtain his Jewish state by becoming President of a large Tel Aviv.
This entire question of Jewish settlement in Palestine can naturally not be divorced from our concern for the welfare of the Jewish in Europe. I shall be pleased to have you and Judge Proskauer’s reactions on behalf of the American Jewish Committee with regard to these letters.
Sincerely yours,
NG
[Handwritten notation]: P.S. I learn that Ben Gurion is planning to come to American at the same time as Weizman. At the moment, I am inclined to think that that will injure the possibilities of successful discussions for cooperation between the Zionist Organization and the AJC.
—
January 28, 1945
Dr. John Slawson
Executive Vice President
American Jewish Committee
386 4th Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear John,
I am sending this letter to you through Mr. Gordon Merriam, of the State Department in Washington. If he forwards this letter to you, you can take it as meaning that you or Judge Joseph M. Proskauer, President of the American Jewish Committee, 11 Broadway, New York City, can write to me in his care, and that your letters will then go through the pouch. You understand, of course, that in that case your letters will be censored by the State Department. I take it for granted that if this proves possible, you will make no mention of it in any letters which may go through the ordinary mail.
Sincerely yours
NG
—
The American Jewish Committee
February 28, 1945
Dear Nelson:
Your two letters to me dated January 20th and 28th, and your letter addressed to Judge Proskauer dated January 26th, have been received. By the time my letter reaches you, you probably will have received the acknowledgement from the Judge.
The two letters addressed to me have been distributed to our inner circle: Jacob Blaunstein, Fred Lazarus, Jr., George Z. Medalie, David Sher and Alan M. Stroock. Everyone, including myself, found the contents extremely interesting, and the conversations that you have had with Weizmann, Ben Gurion and Shertok, illuminating. The procedure that you have been following is completely in accord with the position that the American Jewish Committee has taken, and I feel certain that much good will come out of the contacts that you have made.
In your letter to the Judge you express a wish to be present at some of the discussions between Weizmann and him. I do hope that this wish can become a reality, for your presence here during these conversations would contribute greatly to a successful outcome. Could this be arranged?
I have simply one observation to make with regard to your conversation with Ben Gurion and Shetok as related in your letter of January 28th. I quote, “I replied that I was not prepared nor authorized to enter into discussions of such details now, but that for my part I feel that the American Jewish Committee would certainly not be satisfied with a mere token representation of the Jewish Agency…”
It has been our view that parity should be achieved on the Jewish Agency between the non-Zionist and Zionist representations. The American Jewish Committee does not intend to either select persons to represent itself nor to do the selecting for others. It would make its facilities available for the purpose of bringing together the non-Zionist contingent in the United States. The latter, of course, represents a far greater constituency than that of the Committee. It includes the Agudas Israel, perhaps the Jewish Labor Committee, and similar organizations.
I am quite certain that you know these facts and probably used the Committee as symbolic of the non-Zionist constituency. Most of us here have been very much concerned with making it clear that the American Jewish Committee as such does not represent the non-Zionist constituency in the United States. I am sure you agree with this point.
Please keep us further advised. We are very eager to obtain your observations and advice, as matters here are shaping up rather rapidly, particularly in relation to the forthcoming United Nations meeting at San Francisco in April.
For your information, Max Gottschalk is in London and his address is c/o Anglo Jewish Association, Woburn House, Upper Woburn Place, London, W.C.l.
With best regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
John Slawson
—
Dr. Nelson Glueck
American School of Oriental Research
Jerusalem, Palestine
The American Jewish Committee
March 1, 1945
Dear Nelson:
Your cable received re Weizmann. Judge Proskauer sent you today the following cable: “Would you please convey to Chaim Weizmann my great desire to meet with him when he arrives in United States.”
Judge Proskauer did not feel that he should contact Weizmann directly.
Kind regards.
Sincerely yours,
John Slawson
—
March 4, 1945
Dr. John Slawson
Executive Vice President
American Jewish Committee
386 4th Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear John,
The Judge’s telegram arrived yesterday, and I have transmitted its content to Dr. Weizman,
who was very pleased indeed to received the message. I had suggested that such a telegram be sent to him, and am delighted it was done, because I hoped it would help to strength his hand in his present statesmanlike orientation over against more extreme elements in the Zionist camp. I had a long and very satisfactory interview with him this last Wednesday, February 28th, which had been arranged the week before, and I had hope that the telegram from the Judge would arrive in time for that interview. However, it serves its purpose just as well now.
I drove down the Rehovoth to see Dr. Weizman last Wednesday in response to a fairly urgent request to come the day after his secretary phoned me long distance. We spent an hour together talking about his forthcoming visit to America, his impending interviews with Churchill and Roosevelt, and about the conversations that I hope will be initiated between him and the American Jewish Committee and others like mind.
He received me very cordially indeed. For some reason or other, although the last interview was the first time I had ever really met him, I seemed to have gained his complete confidence. He told me things which if I were to repeat them in public, would result in a very serious upheaval within the Zionist organization. Actually, I think that his immediate suspicious of what is going on in Weizman’s mind at the moment, and are there fore beding every possible effort to see to it that he does not go to America alone.
I am reluctant even in a letter such as this, which travels through special channels, to say more about the most intimate and revealing parts of his conversation with me, than I have already hinted at. We again discussed the bases of possible cooperation between him and the American Jewish Committee. I pointed out to him that if he could go to see President Roosevelt with the support of the moderate Zionists, and with the assurance of the backing of the non-Zionists, he would very possibly secure a better hearing and obtain more satisfactory results than he might otherwise hope to. I emphasized again the very deep interest that Judge Proskauer and all his associates of the AJC have in doing everything possible to help remove the White Paper and to secure the largest possible maximum immigration of European refugee and homeless Jews into Palestine, and securing lands for them to settle on. I was constrained, however, to underline again my personal conviction, which I felt was shared by the AJC, that there could be no basis for negotiations in America along the lines of continued demands for the immediate establishment of the Jewish Commonwealth, or along the lines of discussion of the creation of a Jewish State in which a minority of the population would control the entire country.
I emphasized the damage to what I considered the greater cause of Palestine that had already been done by the thrusting forward of the Biltmore program into the foreground of discussion. In this connection, because of openings in the conversation which he afforded me by making remarks about Mr. Ben Gurion, very direct, very open and very sharp remarks, I said to him that I was chagrined to read in the morning’s paper that Mr. Ben Gurion was to accompany him to America. He regretted it too, he replied in no uncertain terms, but wanted to know why I thought Ben Gurion’s going to American might be inopportune at the moment. I replied that I thought both in Jewish and non-Jewish circles in America, both so far as our group was concerned, and the State Department and the President were concerned, Ben Gurion was identifies as the person who in particular had raised, and who continued constantly to underline, the politics resulting in the Biltmore program, and that I thought that further emphasis of that program now would militate against the obtaining of as beneficent resukts as might be secured if Weizman went to America alone, and saw the President alone. Dr. Weizman replied in effect that he agreed completely, that he for his part had no intention of helping Mr. Ben Gurion to secure the necessary priorities to go to America, and that if Mr. Ben Gurion did succeed in getting there, nevertheless only he, that is Dr. Weizman, would see President Roosevelt.
I then bluntly asked Dr. Weizman what he would say to Judge Proskauer, and later on to Roosevelt, or perhaps in reverse order, when he saw them. He then told me: “I shall tell them what I said to Sir Edward Grigg, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, whom I saw with Lord Gort at Government House yesterday. Sir Edward asked me, he continued, “what my minimum and maximum demands were. I replied that first of all the White Paper had to be removed or there would be trouble. Secondly, I wanted the right to bring in a million Jews into Palestine, and the legal possibilities and governmental machinery to settle them on the land”, And Dr. Weizman continued and said to me with great emphasis: “And that is all that I said to Sir Edward and Lord Gort.”
I consider that statement to Lord Gort of great historical importance I confess being greatly exhilarated when I heard it. I continued, however, for further clarification in my own mind, to press on further question to Dr. Weizman. “Does that mean, Dr. Weizman”, I said to him, “that you did not and will not demand the Jewish State or the Jewish Commonwealth?” His reply to me was: “I am asking and will ask for that which I mentioned to Sir Edward.”
I did not want to discuss with Dr. Weizman how, why, and from where the million Jews were to be obtained. I am far from confident, as I think I may have explained to you in a previous letter, that there are a million Jews left in Europe who within the next ten years can be brought into Palestine. That is neither here nor there. The important thing is that Dr. Weizman, if he is allowed to have his own way, which is very debatable, intends to press for all of us could go along with him all the way along the road that he has mapped out in his discussion. I should like to leave the matter of political statehood completely out of the discussion for the moment, and let the future take care of that.
And then Dr. Weizman turned to me and said: “You must go to America with me and help me with my talks with the non-Zionists.” I replied that I was willing to do everything that I possibly could in this connection, but that I did not know if I could secure a high air priority to fly to America and back here, and that if I went I would have to go as a completely private citizen, and not in his entourage. I continued to say to him that in any event Judge Proskauer and the rest of the American Jewish Committee would welcome him with open arms, and that I was sure that on the basis of his presentation to me, he would find the greatest cooperation in them, and would find that they were willing to do everything possible to support him in the attempt to realize this crucially important program of his which he has delineated to me.
Events are moving very fast. I doubt at the moment very much whether I can get to America at the time that he does, or at all for that matter for the present. At the moment I feel I have done everything possible to pave the way for conversations between the Judge and Dr. Weizman, and to bolster his hope that the good old days of wonderful cooperation between him and Marshall and Felix Warburg, for instance, could be succeeded by a new and equally helpful cooperation between him and our group today.
Come what may, I feel that no stone should be left unturned to do everything possible to secure the salvation of those remnants of European Jewry that can be rescued and want to be brought to Palestine. I am certain that this country can contain them. The way must be found.
I trust that my previous letters to you and to the Judge have safely arrived. You and the Judge will understand that the contents of this letter must be kept very private indeed. If I thought there would be much hope of my getting to America next month, I would not commit them to paper at all.
With cordial greetings,
Sincerely yours
Nelson Glueck
—
The American Jewish Committee
April 17, 1945
Dear Nelson:
I am extremely grateful for your letters. I am glad to hear that you have gained the confidence of Dr. Weizmann and that we might be able to work with him. I think have stated to him very well the position of the AJC. We are indeed anxious to do everything in our power to bring about the abrogation of the White Paper and to secure the largest possible Jewish immigration into Palestine. Weizmann talks about a million new Jewish immigrants. As far as our information goes, we cannot see where he will get that number, especially since the largest groups of surviving Jews are at present in countries from which it seem they will have great difficulty to emigrate (Russian area of influence). However, whatever the figure may be, if Weizmann is willing, as he has indicated to you, not to insist at the present time of a Jewish commonwealth, I believe we will find a basis for cooperation with him.
Judge Proskauer and Mr. Blaustein recently met with our late President and the officials of the State Department. They were given to understand that our government at the present time would not like to have the Jews press for a definite commitment on the political status of Palestine. We are glad that our policy is in full accord with the position of our government.
You can readily understand how deeply shocked and grieved we were to learn of the President’s death. Our hope is that the new administration will follow in his footsteps.
The AJC has scored a great success in having been officially invited by Secretary of State Stettinius to send a consultant to the American delegation in San Francisco. The American Jewish Conference was the only other Jewish organization to receive that distinction. Judge Proskauer is going as our consultant, together with messrs. Blaustein and Medalie. We have presented our post-war program to the government. I am sending you a printed copy under separated cover.
The San Francisco Conference, it is now clearly stated, will deal only with the setting up of the machinery of the new world organization. Many problems, which are of great concern to us, including Palestine, will not be on the agenda. In our recommendations we ask for the establishment of three commissions, a Commission on Human Rights, a Commission on Migration and a Commission on Statelessness. These, we feel, should be part of the machinery and therefore comes within the scope of the San Francisco Conference. Other organizations are cooperating with us in the promotion of these commissions. You may also be interested to know that as soon as the Yalta decisions were announced, we invited the American Jewish conference, the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish Labor Committee and the Agudas Israel of American to get together with us on a common platform in San Francisco. We thought that since Palestine is not within its scope anyway, there was no real reason why the Jewish organizations should not cooperate there. The Jewish Labor Committee and the Agudas Israel accepted our invitation; the Conference and the Congress refused, the Conference stating that it alone represents American Jewry.
An attempt has recently been made by the Zionist Organization of American, in the face of considerable grass-roots discontent in the provinces, to heal the Wise-Silver rift by setting up a commission to investigate the whole affair. Little is expected from the commission, for the Silver group has already denounced it as loaded in Wise’s favor. The Zionist Emergency Council has been greatly re-staffed since the split, because a large number of the staff followed Silver into the Zionist Policy Committee. At present, each group is seeking to outbid the other in its maximalist demands, with Silver forcing the Wise group to become more vociferous Biltmorists than heretofore. Lipsky has been steering a middle course and is active in the peace forces. Weizmann has cabled his desire that unity be effected, since disunity would naturally impede his activities in the United States. He has not yet arrived, and a recent report indicates that he will be delayed in London for some while yet because of an eye illness.
Write soon.
With all good wishes,
Sincerely yours,
John Slawson
P.S. All your letters are confidentially distributed to the usual “inner group.”
—
June 27, 1945
Mr. John Slawson
Executive Vice-President
American Jewish Committee
386 Fourth Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear John,
I have your letter of April 17th. There is very little new to write about with regard to the general situation in Palestine, except to report that there is an increasing tenseness throughout the country. I do not expect any disturbances to break out for the present, but the possibility of an eruption must always be considered. It seems fairly obvious that no decision with regard to the White Paper is going to be taken by the British Government until after the elections in England in July. Until that time, it may be expected that nothing of a violent nature will occur in Palestine. After that unless that is a decision taken by the British Government and strongly enforced, which both sides can acquiesce in if not agree to, almost anything can happen in this country.
I personally wish that some large scale measure could be undertaken to bring, say, 50.000 to 100.000 Jewish children from Europe into Palestine as soon as possible, aside from all considerations with regard to how many Jewish immigrants are eventually be allowed to come into Palestine, or with regard to the type of government that is to prevail here in the future. If these children are to be saved physically and spiritually, it ought to be done now. They cannot wait till political complexities are unraveled and diplomatic niceties are carefully weighed. This is a project, it seems to me, which ought to elicit the support of all fair-minded people with humanitarian instincts. I am sure that the money for such a project could easily be raised. This country can take care of them. There does not seem to be any other place in the world today where they can be as well and decently provided for as here in Palestine. It seems to me that the time has come when, instead of simply endorsing a Jewish immigration as possible into Palestine, the American Jewish Committee might in addition undertaken negotiations with other American Jewish groups for a specific project such as this. I should like to recommend very strongly that the American Jewish Committee consider this matter immediately.
Thanks for the copy of “To the Councillors of Peace”. It is a splendid volume. I am delighted to learn that the “human rights declaration” was adopted at San Francisco, and apparently, as I gather from a letter from Fred Lazarus, in no small measure due to your efforts.
I shall make an attempt to come to American late this summer or early this fall. If Weizman has not yet gone to America, I may stop off in England to discuss matters with him again.
With cordial greetings,
Sincerely yours
Nelson Glueck
—
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
September 30, 1945.
Dr. Nelson Glueck
c/o Dr. S. Iglauer
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Dr. Glueck:
The Archaeological Institute of America has a small fund, established by the late James Loeb in honor of Professor Charles Eliot Norton of Harvard University, and founder of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1879, for the purpose of bringing eminent scholars from abroad to lecture before the Affiliated Societies of the Archaeological Institute. Under exceptional circumstances, according to the terms establishing the fund, scholars already in this country may be chosen. The present moment is one of such emergency and, following the precedent employed during the last World War, we have in the last few years followed the custom of inviting, each year, three scholars to act as Norton Lecturers, each representing a definite field of special interest at the present time.
Having in mind the fresh material that you have accumulated in the Near East, it seems to the Committee on the Charles Eliot Norton Lectureship that we should take advantage of your presence in this country, if you are to be here during the present winter, and to invite you to serve, while it is still possible to ask Americans in this capacity, as one of the Charles Eliot Norton Lecturers of the Institute.
In agreement with the vote of the Norton Lectureship Committee, therefore, and following their indications as to choice, I am extending to you a cordial invitation to serve as one of the three Norton Lecturers of the Archaeological Institute of America for the year 1945-46. The tentative idea would be that you should prepare a single illustrated lecture which should be given before twelve of the Affiliated Societies of the Archaeological Institute, the honorarium for this being $600, which of course would cover your expenses and enable you to meet colleagues in various archaeological field as well as, in some cases, to see museums and collections in which you might be interested.
Matters of itinerary and dates, which of course would have some effects upon your expenses, would have to be worked out later in consultation with the Affiliated Societies. The present question would be that of letting us know whether you would be able to accept this invitation and could inform us as to the period which you would regard as most convenient, and also the title of the lecture which you would prepare. If, by chance, you wish to offer a choice between two lectures (which might, if two different subjects were chosen by the Societies on closely connected dates, involve the necessity of carrying a double supply of lantern slides), this would be quite satisfactory to us.
Very sincerely yours,
William B. Dinsmoor,
President
—
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK 27, N.Y.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL SECRETARY
October 10, 1945.
Dr. Nelson Glueck
c/o Dr. S. Iglauer
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati 20, Ohio
Dear Dr. Glueck:
I was delighted to learn from your letter to Professor Dinsmoor that you will be able to undertake some lectures this Fall for the Institute, even though it will not be to the full extent I wish we could persuade you to undertake.
The material that you outlined sounds intensely interesting and with your first-hand knowledge, both before the war and during these four years of semi-darkness archaeologically, The River Jordan should be a very great treat for the Societies fortunate enough to hear it.
Specifically, because of the shortness of the time, both in terms of our program and the limits you are obliged to set on your availability, I wonder if you can undertake to lecture at Philadelphia on Thursday, November 8; Richmond, on Tuesday, November 6; Baltimore, on Wednesday, November 7; with the possibility of a lecture at Hartford on Friday, November 9? The lecture that I am most anxious about is the Thursday, November 8, one, to which Philadelphia has committed me as a fixed date. Other suggested lectures could be shifted one way or another if you would prefer that.\
Again, because of the shortness of the time, it would be most helpful if you could wire, at the expense of the Institute, immediately reply to this proposal.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
Meriwether Stuart,
General Secretary.
—
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
October 13, 1945.
Dr. Nelson Glueck
c/o Dr. S. Iglauer
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Dr. Glueck:
I am delighted that you can accept the Norton Lectureship, even though on a restricted schedule. The Societies of the Institute who may have the opportunity of hearing you will all be very grateful. You will shortly hear from Dr. Meriwether Stuart, the General Secretary, with regard to a tentative program to be submitted for your approval.
I should be very interested in learning whether you are to be available for the Christmas meeting of the Archaeological Institute, which is to be held at Cincinnati on December 27–29. If you can be present at that occasion, it would be a very advantageous one for a general discussion of problems of future research in archaeology. I know that John Wilson is very much interested in the same thing.
Very sincerely yours,
William B. Dinsmoor,
President
—
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
October 20, 1945.
Professor Nelson Glueck
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Professor Glueck:
This is a postscript to my letter of yesterday which I wasn’t able to add at the time concerning the prospects for additional lectures in the East.
Originally, without realizing that you would be in this country so short a time, our hope had been that you could lecture for the Institute in the months of January through April at one of two periods, since the program for the Fall was fairly complete at the time of writing. But now, with returns in from all Societies involved, I find that my schedule is already closed because most of the Eastern lectures come late in November or early in December. Thus, with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, and the clearance of a week or more which they usually require for best results, an additional lecture would be impossible to schedule at a time that would not follow upon an earlier lecture at too short an interval to guarantee a suitable audience. I am personally very much distressed that this is the case and shold like nothing more than to hear that for some pleasant reason you had shifted your departure to a later date. If that should, by any chance, be the case, I hope you would notify me at your earliest convenience.
Apart from the Richmond lecture which you were not able to undertake, the only other possibility is a lecture in Cleveland to be given perhaps on the 12, 13, or 14 of December. Would that be possible for you? Cleveland, of course, is hardly an Eastern Society, but it is very active and pleasant one and such a trip might perhaps fit in with other plans that you may have. If you could accept it I should be very grateful.
Sincerely yours,
Meriwether Stuart
General Secretary
—
c. November 13, 1945
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The composition of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry which was announced in Washington and London on November 13 and which will operate under a rotating chairmanship will be as follows:
Joseph C. Hutcheson, Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court at Houston, Texas (American Chairman).
Sir John E. Singleton, Judge of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, London (British Chairman).
Frank Aydelottte, formerly President of Swarthmore College, now Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, and American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust.
Frank W. Burton, Editor of the Boston Herald.
Wildred P. Crick, Economic Adviser to the Midland Bank, London, formerly with Ministry of Food.
Richard H. S. Crossman, Member of Parliament (labour), formerly Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford, assistant editor of New Statesman and Nation, and Deputy Director of Psychological Warfare, A.F.H.Q., Algeria.
Barley C. Crum, practicing law in San Francisco, has been named in place of O. Max Gardner, who was unable to serve.
Sir Frederick Leggett, until recently Deputy Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Services.
Major Reginald E. Manningham-Buller, Member of Parliament (Conservative), a barrister.
James G. McDonald, formerly Chairman of the Board, Foreign Policy Association, High Commisioner for Refugees, and member of the editorial staff of the New York Times.
Lord Morrison, (Robert Craigmyle, Baron Morrison), Member of Parliament (Labour).
William Phillips, formerly Under Secretary of State, Ambassador to Italy, personal representative of the President with the rank of Ambassador at New Delhi, and Delegate to the London Naval Conference, 1935.
As announced by the two Governments on November 13, 1945, the terms of reference of the Committee will be as follows:
1. To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the well-being of the peoples now living therein.
2. To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been the victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine or other countries outside Europe.
3. To hear the views of competent witnesses and to consult representatives Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraphs 1 and 2 above and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Untied States for ad interim handling of these problems are well as for their permanent solutions.
4. To make such other recommendations to His Majesty’s Government and the Government of the United States as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph 2 above, by remedial action in the European countries in question or by the provision of facilities for emigration to and settlement in countries outside Europe.
The Governments of the United States and Great Britain urge on the Committee the need for the utmost expedition in dealing with the subjects committed to it for investigation and request that they may be furnished with report within 120 days of the inception of the inquiry.
The procedure of the Committee will be determined by the Committee itself, and it will be open to it, if it thinks fit, to deal simultaneously through the medium of sub-committees with its various terms of reference.
—
December 21, 1945
Dear Sir:
The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, appointed by President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee will begin hearings at 10:00 A.M., January 7, 1946, in Room 474, Department of State, Washington, D.C. The President’s statement of December 10, 1945, announcing the membership of the Committee and its terms of reference is appended to this letter.
The Committee invites you to submit at this hearing written evidence and views, and if you wish, to make an oral presentation.
Most of the basic facts affecting the problems being considered are available to the Committee in the mass of publications already collected and to be collected by it, and the members of the Committee will supplement this by hearings in London and by personal observations and committee hearings in Europe and Palestine. The Committee does not contemplate extensive oral hearings in Washington but rather wishes material to be submitted in concise written form with excerpts from or references to the underlying documents. The documents themselves should be submitted if there is doubt as to whether the Committee already possesses them.
The Governments of the Committee have requested it to submit a report within 120 days of the inception of the inquiry. The hearings in Washington will therefore be brief and oral presentations will be based upon the material presented by various groups or otherwise available to the Committee.
Where interested organizations or individuals have substantially the same views it is suggested that they join in presenting their written and oral material in order to aid the Committee in an early termination of its work.
1946
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITVTE OF AMERICA
SCHERMERHORN HALL
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
NEW YORK, N.Y.
January 3, 1946.
Professor Nelson Glueck
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Professor Glueck:
We are in receipt of a letter from Professor Raubitschek stating that you have agreed to speak to the New Haven Society of the Institute on Monday, January 21.
On consultation with Professor Dinsmoor, I find that he is under the impression that some verbal arrangements had been entered into between you and him. In consequence, there will be forwarded to you in due course the usual honorarium of #60 for your lecture in New Haven.
Mr. Meriwether Stuart has retired as General Secretary and I am taking over the next year or two. My address will be: c/o Fogg Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge 38, Mass.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen B. Luce
General Secretary.
—
The American Jewish Committee
386 Fourth Avenue, New York 16, N.Y.
January 3, 1946
Dear Dr. Glueck:
Although I am sure you have had informal intimation that we want you to serve on our Foreign Affairs Committee and on our Committee on Peace Problems, I should like to extend this formal invitation for you to serve on both of these important groups.
I realize that you are not out of the country a great deal, and that even when here you cannot always manage to attend our meetings. However, your background is so exceptional that we feel you have an invaluable contribution to make to our thinking, and I am hopeful that you will attend as many meetings as you possibly can.
Members of the Committee on Peace Problems are assigned to various subcommittees of which the not least important is that on Palestine. Naturally it is on that subcommittee I am inviting you to serve.
Faithfully yours,
Joseph M. Proskauer
President
—
American School of Oriental Research
Jerusalem, Palestine
August 4, 1946
Mr. John Slawson
386 Fourth Avenue
New York 16, N.Y.
Dear John,
For various reasons I am writing instead of cabling. I assume this letter is for the inner circle only of the American Jewish Committee. I consider the present British Federal Plan for Palestine to be pernicious and malevolent. it represents, for all practical purposes, a sugar coated petrifaction of the 1939 White Paper. It has all of the disadvantages of even a decent type of partition, and none of its advantages.
Any scheme of federal division or of partition which excludes most of Galilee, practically all the Jordan Valley, all of the Negev and even the Dead Sea concession, from the orbit of possible Jewish settlement and new or continued development, means nothing more than the schematization of the iniquitous White Paper.
All that is offered actually as an inducement for the Jewish acceptance of this Federal Scheme, which was already mooted and rejected at the time of the Peel Commission, is the holding out of the promise of allowing the 100,000 immigration to come in within 12 months after the scheme has been accepted, and added to that, the severely conditioned permission for Jews to immigrate into the Jewish province in accordance with the economic absorptive capacity. The High Commissioner of Palestine would have the final say in determining what the economic absorptive capacity would be. In other words, even in the fractionalized postage stamp area where the Jews would have nominal control, the central British government in Jerusalem could exercise veto power over the most fundamental issue of continued and creative Jewish life in Palestine, namely further Jewish immigration large enough to satisfy the most fundament Jewish interests, and enable a healthy growth of the Jewish settlement in Palestine. I can envisage a thousand and one possibilities when, for a multitude of reasons, concerned primarily with the British Imperial policy, and not with the obligations involved in the Balfour Declaration, immigration into the Jewish area could be so restricted by the central British government in Jerusalem, as to nullify its value altogether.
The Federal Plan gratuitously asserts that the smallness of the proposed Jewish area will have no effect upon the growth of the Jewish canton. The Jewish settlement, it is stated in this plan, would naturally become predominantly an industrial one. The healthy counterpart to any industrial community of a thriving agricultural background is dismissed with the stroke of the pen. But even assuming, as well might be the case under normal circumstances, that the Jewish settlement in Palestine would, in the course of time, become predominantly an industrial one, and thereby exercise a natural and beneficent role in the Near and Middle East, what guarantees are offered that the Jewish settlement would be allowed to say the least, unhindered to develop in that direction. I could fill pages, citing instance after instance, demonstrating how the British government has not only prevented certain types of industry from developing in Jewish parts of Palestine, but also showing how industries which have grown up during the war, and which have a natural economic basis also in peace time, are being stifled and methodically destroyed. No guarantee whatsoever is given that the Jewish industrial setup would in the future, any more than in the past, be able to trade, for instance, freely with America, or to purchase or sell or produce according to natural economic compulsions and possibilities.
No assurance, furthermore, is given, and I am certain that it is not envisaged. that Jewish schools and hospitals and old age – and sickness insurance and other related matters will be mainly supported out of direct and indirect taxes paid by Jews, instead of receiving, as they do now, a diminutive and disproportionate share of what the Jews contribute in the form of taxes.
The entire emphasis seems to be on the desirability of improving the economic and social conditions of the Arabs of Palestine. The official statement reads that the program suggested “will include the provision of a health service, comparable to that already available to the Jews, the expansion of educational facilities, the provision of cheap credit for Arab cultivators”, and so forth. The statement insinuates that the health service available to the Jews stems perhaps from government support, and to that degree is misleading and mendacious. One can applaud the suggestion that the health and education and welfare services for the Arab community in Palestine be improved, but one wonders why the United States Government should pay for those improvements. If the Arab world is really as interested in the welfare of the Arabs in Palestine, as the various Arab states and Moslem groups claim to be, then why shouldn’t they dig into their pockets as the Jews have done and build up out of private funds institutions comparable to the Jewish ones, which are almost completely supported by private Jewish contributions, over and above the comparatively modest sums which some of the Jewish institutions in Palestine receive from the Palestine government. Comparable Arab institutions in Palestine derive their sole support from the Palestine government.
Not only is the United States taxpayer requested to furnish the principal financing for Arab development projects in Palestine proper, but to furnish “large scale development loans to be made through an appropriate agency for the development of the Middle East region, including Palestine”.
All of these hundreds of millions of dollars which America is being asked to furnish in order, ostensibly, to enable the realization of the Jewish part of the Federal Scheme, would be naturally be administered by British officials throughout the Near and Middle East, and I am convinced, would serve British Imperial interests far more than they would the needs of the various native Arab populations. Perhaps indeed, it is to American interests to support the British imperial interests in this part of the world, but then let it be said so clearly, and be dealt with on that basis. The use of the funds that America is being asked to furnish would serve, I am afraid, to support the reactionary feudal cliques which Great Britain seems to like to work with in this part of the world. How much, may I ask, has the average Iraqi benefited from the huge oil revenues accruing the Iraq government from the oil being drawn out of Iraq by the I.P.C.!
I could develop this line of thought much further, but what I want to stress is that honest development projects dedicated to the welfare of the Arab people cannot, in the best circumstances, be superimposed upon the, but must stem, at least to an appreciable degree, from their own interests and through their own initiative. There is considerable wealth in the Arab world today, and yet I am convinced that nothing remotely comparable to the Jewish institutions in Palestine could be achieved for Arabs in Palestine from spontaneous and determined and continued Arab support alone.
I am incensed, after the experience of recent years, and, in particular, recent months, at part of the statement that “in the British and American zones in Austria we are doing our utmost to assist resettlement and eradicate anti-semitism.” The statement was made by Mr. Morrison. If examined by itself, one could dismiss the first part of the statement as being naïve. Indeed, I do believe that honest efforts are being made in the British and American zones to eradicate anti-semitism, but I know of no competent observer who feels, that for a very long time to come, Jews can be reintegrated as full fledged citizens into the life of Germany or of other large stretches of Europe. But my anger at the statement stems from the fact that it and related statements in the British government’s presentation of the Federal Scheme, are dedicated to removing interest from the central core of the problem, namely, allowing Jews to settle and development their lives in Palestine in accordance with the Balfour Declaration and the promises, explicit and implicit, in the British Mandate over Palestine.
In a word, I would recommend to the American Jewish Committee that it opposes, with all possible force, the Federal Scheme as presented to Parliament recently.
What are my alternatives?
b) The recommendation of the Anglo-American Inquiry Committee for the admission immediately of 100,000 Jews from Europe into Palestine, without any strings whatsoever attached to their entry, be accepted at once, and that the promise made in this connection to the American government be fulfilled without any more temporizing and without trying to sell the fate of these unfortunates for the support by the United States of a long range British Scheme for building up the Near and Middle East in accordance with imperial necessities and fears and ambitions.
c) If there is no other way out than partition, that the American Jewish Committee support a partition scheme which would give Jews the right to settle freely and in unlimited numbers not only in the recognized Jewish parts of Palestine, but particularly in the hills of Galilee, in the Negev, and in the Jordan Valley. Any Federal or Partition Scheme should include 1) Unconditional guarantees giving Jews the right to develop and settle the Huleh lands; 2) There must also be no interference with the Jewish Dead Sea concession, which should have the right to establish subsidiary companies in any area in Palestine; 3) News should have the right to develop a Jordan Valley Authority in harmony with the Rutenberg Electric Power Concession and Palestine Potash Company Concessions; 4) All previous concessions must be corroborated; 5) In their own areas Jews should have complete control over immigration, courts, administration, education, customs, taxes, courts, and police, and in no instance be asked to assume burdens disproportionately heavier than demanded by the central British government from non-Jewish parts of Palestine; 6) Jews should have representation on an inter-Palestine advisory council.
c) I would prefer a return to the Balfour Declaration itself with its concern for “a Jewish National Home in Palestine”, without that idea being confused by the miserably stupid Biltmore-plan demand for the establishing of Palestine as the the Jewish Commonwealth. There must be clarification of the immigration question then, full representation for taxation; letting all except one or two government departments be directed equally by Jews and Arabs; guarantees against the restoration of the vicious police-state which now exists in Palestine; representation of the Palestine Jewish community in UNO.
d) It would be far better not to have partition of any kind, but if something must be done to allay the Arab fears of becoming a minority in Palestine, which are just as baseless as the Jewish hope of ever becoming a majority, it would be better to agree to a scheme involving political parity with all that is understood by that, without concern for the various percentages of Jewish and Arab population. That implies that the Jews publicly give up the demand of becoming a majority in Palestine; they can’t anyway, even if unlimited Jewish immigration is permitted. Even if a million Jews could be found to immigrate into Palestine, in a generation, because of the great disparity in birthrates, the Arab community would again become a large majority [?] infiltration from neighboring Arab lands, which is constantly taking place, [?] by Jewish-created economic often [?] in Palestine.
e) The present Jewish Agency has sadly demonstrated its inability to guide the Jewish development in Palestine. It ought to resign and make way for new leaders, who are not committed to the policy officially adopted at the Biltmore Conference in 1942, which has led the Zionist movement into such a disastrous blind alley. In that reconstituted Agency the non-Zionists should take an active share and play a continuous role. The reconstituted Agency must make a planned and continuous effort to tie up the Arab economy wxx in Palestine with the Jewish economy, through the attraction of Arab venture – and investment-capital, and other means.
Sincerely yours
Nelson Glueck
[Handwritten notation]: P.S. One added remark: There is one British soldier in Palestine for every six Jews. There is no possible contingency which the British army could not cope with, whether it come from the Jewish side or from the Arab site, even from all the Arab states put together. No Arab state could stand up against the smallest, well-trained European forces. In rebellion in Iraq [?] war was put down by 500 British and British-led troop against 10 [?] segments. And no Arab state is going to send any appreciable amount of its armed forces to fight the British on the Jews in Palestine. The moment the Iraq army would leave Iraq, the Kurds, the [?] would revolt, and [?] would move in. If the Syrian army left Syria, the [?] people and others would revolt. And so on.
—
[note written most likely by Nelson Glueck]
has talk of England’s [?] an American division or another division of its own to [?] of a probably Arab uprising of 100,000 Jews are allowed in now is the [?] poppycock that has ever been thrown out. The 100,000 troops which Great Britain now has in Palestine are [?] and never have been [?] to quell any remotely possible disturbances for any [?] in or near Palestine.
— 1960s —
1964
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE – JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
CLIFTON AVENUE, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45220
October 26, 1964
Professor William F. Albright
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore 18, Maryland
Dear William:
Helen and I arrived in Boston on September 29th and saw Charles and Barbara and their firstborn, David Samuel Glueck, our first grandchild. He was born on August 31st. Helen was in Stockholm and I in Jerusalem when the cables with the good news arrived. I planted a David Samuel Glueck tree in the garden of the Hebrew Union College/Biblical and Archaeological School.
Returning home, I almost immediately embarked upon a trans-continental tour, going from Cincinnati to New York City to Chicago to Los Angeles and back to Cincinnati to prepare for the first meeting of the Board of Governors this week. It was a very exciting week, because in Chicago I was able to clinch a wonderful gift to the College and induced the donor to appear as a guest of the meeting and announce the nature and name and size of the gift. It will be known as the Joseph and Helen Regenstein Distinguished Service Professorship in Religion, Ethics and the Humanities, and the sum granted for the purpose of $550,000.00. It is the largest single gift ever received by the College, and when I brought the donor, Mrs. Regenstein, to the airport Friday noon, I sort of collapsed on the way home. I had been working on this thing for two years with the soft sell approach, and during the last couple of weeks the tension built up inside of me till finally the gift was publicly announced by Mrs. Regenstein at the Board meeting. She will not permit her picture to be published or the amount of the gift, so I do not know how to publicize it. She has given two similar professorships to the University of Chicago, that is , similar in amount, but to the University of Chicago Medical School, and I imagine that much also to the Menninger Foundation; and to judge from what one sees in the Art Institute of Chicago, she must have given it millions of dollars. We shall not appoint anyone to the Professorship for a couple of years, but invite internationally famous people for single or more lectures or to spend a semester or a quarter rather on the campus. The scope of the Chair is tremendous. If any particular names occur to you to recommend to me to be invited, I should appreciate it. We want you again whenever you can come for a series of lectures and/or seminars or for a quarter. The honorarium will be satisfactory, I can assure you.
The enclosed copies of a letter from Mr. D. R. Elston, who wrote the London Times article that Mr. Horn from Minneapolis sent you, and my answer to him speak for themselves. I really have no intention of getting into a public debate or discussion with or against Rothenberg. I had a discussion about him with Gershon Scholem some months ago in Jerusalem. If you ever meet Scholem, who is coming to American this year or who may already be here, it will amuse you to hear Scholem on the subject of Rothenberg. The description of him that he used frequently was “Hochstapler.” Rothenberg’s animus against me began, as I may have told you, when I refused to write a foreword for his “Tagliyot be-Sinai.” I knew then that his scientific judgment and word could not be relied upon and told him that I could not write a foreword unless I were in a position to check every single statement he made. That did it! However, enough of him, although perhaps it is not right to let his distorted and reckless assertions go unchallenged. However, I think, at least so far as I am concerned, it is better to let the materials I have published and the materials I shall publish in the Ezion-geber volume speak for themselves. It is a pity that the editors of reputable journals like the Palestine Exploration Quarterly and the Illustrated London News have no way of judging the widely varying qualitative nature of his materials and statements.
Thank you very much for the review of Franken’s book. I had not examined the book and am grateful for your correcting him where necessary. If indeed Franken has discovered a smelter at Tell Deir-‘alla with flue-holes through which the strong winds blow to furnish a natural draft, it will furnish excellent corroborative material for the Ezion-geber smelter or refinery with its flue holes.
I hope to soon send you a brief article on my discoveries in the sand-dune area back of the Gaza strip this summer and also of additional discoveries the previous summer or two.
G. Ernest Wright has written me, telling me that he was happily settled in the Hebrew Union College/Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem. He wants to do a dig in Gezer this spring and needs $10,000.00. Do you know where I might possibly turn for that kind of money? I haven’t got it in the Hebrew Union College funds or in our Jerusalem School funds. I still have to raise about $150,000.00 to pay off the building debt of the Jerusalem School of the Hebrew Union College and for the present the burden of raising most of its annual budget still rests on me, so I do not know where to turn for an additional $10,000.00.
With best regards to you and Ruth, in which Helen joins me, I remain as ever
Sincerely yours,
Nelson Glueck
P.S. I have reread carefully your review of Franken’s book. The transverse and longitudinal flues at Ezion-geber could not have been used for anything else but a smelter or a refinery. The green glaze of the mud-bricks may possibly as Rothenberg has suggested somewhere not be of decisive importance. I have no objections whatsoever to reconsidering an item such as this which he dwells on somewhere, possibly in his PEQ article. You should see one of the bricks I have here in Cincinnati and note how the mortar is fused by heat to the body of the brick! I shall point out in the fuller volume of Ezion-geber in more detail than previously that copper articles were manufactured at Tell el-Kheleifeh also after the tenth-ninth centuries B.C., when small furnaces utilizing hand-bellows were re-introduced. I have clear recollections of such a hand bellows furnace in what I am sure is a post ninth century B.C. level. cf. Smithsonian Report for 1941, p. 463, where I speak of the hand-bellows system. I shall fish out the material as soon as possible. I should appreciate it very much if you would enlarge on the statement in your review that “It does seem that the manufacture of copper articles at Keheleifeh was restricted to the tenth-ninth centuries B.C.,” and being apprised of how the results of the “young Pittsburgh metallurgist” whom you mention affect this problem. I am happy to be corrected if I am in error and want all possible information at hand when I begin to write the final report. I shall undoubtedly have to revise much of what I originally reported and shall not hesitate to acknowledge corrections when I am convinced of their validity or refute them if I am not so convinced.
NG
1965
WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT
100 GILMAN HALL
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218
January 10, 1965
President Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College
Jewish Institute of Religion
Clifton Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
Dear Nelson,
Your letter of December 4 reached me just as I was recovering from some weeks of nervous exhaustion and about to start in with a major job of writing. This particular job has just been finished and I am “girding my loins” for a new volume. we missed you at our meetings in New York or December 28 which, I see, presumably took place just a day or two before your expected return to this country from Jerusalem. I have just been reading the Newsletter containing the preliminary report of Ernest Wright’s work at Gezer. I am glad to hear about Professor Ross’s appointment. I don’t recall ever having met him, but I am sure that he will benefit greatly from his stay in Jerusalem. It is certainly lucky that you could get Frank Cross and Ernest Wright as the first two men.
I really don’t know what to suggest on your article on “Nabateaean Symbols of Immortality.” The best parallels in the recent past are my own article on “Abram the Hebrew” and Dr. Canaan’s article. The former I paid for entirely and the latter Kelso and I paid for jointly since I felt that these two articles fell outside of our normal scope and we were very short of space. If you are willing to follow our example I should be glad to take it on at the cost of $15 a page (counting all the pages and not merely those above twenty as we have had to do in the case of regular archaeological reports from Shechem, Sardis, etc.). Sorry to be so sticky but you know how it is. Costs of printing are still soaring, and there is no telling how far they will go before they stop, if they ever do. My own opinion is that printing will be completely driven out by other forms of communication, which will be great pity, but unions have only themselves to thank, as so often when they prices themselves out of the market. Automation is only part of the story, as you know. Actually, of course, it costs a lost most to print a page of the BULLETIN, but it is not fair to charge contributors for 3000 copies, etc.
Cordially,
W.F. Albright
—
April 13, 1965
Dr. William F. Albright
100 Gilman Hall
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Md. 21218
Dear William,
Thank you very much for your kind letter of March 23.
I am obligated to send an article on Tell el-Kheleifeh to the Hebrew Encyclopaedia of Excavation. I had already done an article for them but was able to recall it and have now sent them another article, copy of which is enclosed, explainging my “volte-face.”
I am enclosing an article on my reappraisal of the Tell el-Kheleifeh materials for possible publication in the BASOR. If it is too long I could abbreviate it.
Ted Campbell asked me to do an article for BA but I think this present article may be too technical for BA.
I am leaving today for two weeks in Jerusalem and will be back to New York on May 3. I have a lot of things to do there and will remain over for the meeting of the Jerusalem School Committee on the morning of the 7th. If you are coming to New York for the ASOR meetings I should love to have the opportunity of discussing things with you.
You will find enclosed Pinkerfeld’s plan of Period I and also his isometric drawing showing the main building glaçis and fortification.
With best regard.
1968
WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT
100 GILMAN HALL
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218
January 30, 1968
Dr. Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
Dear Nelson:
Please give me some idea about your movements during the next month or so, so I will know what to do with the proofs of the two parts of your monographic study on the Pottery of Kheleife. It should be ready almost any day now but, of course, I cannot predict exactly. If it turns out that you are to be out of the country, unless you have someone whom you trust in Cincinnati I suspect it would be best for us to read it here and hope for the best.
We are trying to to catch up with the Bulletin schedule but it is not easy for a long list of reasons. For one, I have found it impossible to get any word from Ernest Wright, to whom I have written several letters during the last few weeks without any reply. I am afraid that he is ill again or at least has been warned by his doctor to go slow. We can ill spare him at this juncture.
I have been told that the New York Times recently published a very unfortunate article about the school in Jerusalem. I have not seen it and do not know the details but gather that it may be disastrous in its effects. I certainly hope not!
Cordially yours,
W. F. Albright
[Handwritten notation] P.S. I have just read Fr. Casey’s Newsletter, which is a masterpiece of wit – and diplomacy.
—
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE – JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
CLIFTON AVENUE, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45220
February 2, 1968
Professor William F. Albright
The Johns Hopkins University
100 Gilman Hall
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Dear William:
I have your letter of January 30, 1968.
I am pleased to read that the proofs of the two parts of my monographic study on the pottery of Kheleife should be ready almost any day now.
I shall be in the country until April 7th, when Helen and I will go to Jerusalem for two weeks. However, I have my scientific assistant, Mrs. Eleanor Vogel, who is a marvel at reading proofs. Please send them to her, and I promise that even if I am not here, she will go over them immediately and send them back within a day or two after they arrive.
There have been several articles in the New York Times about Casey’s remarks. I am enclosing a second article in which Dr. Avraham Biran denies that the Israel Department of Antiquities is trying to get the ASOR out of Israel. Ernest Wright has written me that he has sent a copy of the first statement in the New York Times, attributed to Casey, and asked for his comments. I shall discuss him with you next time I see you.
With warmest regards, I remain as ever
Sincerely yours,
Nelson Glueck
— 1970s —
1970
WILLIAM F. ALBRIGHT
DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218
February 23, 1970
Dr. Nelson Glueck
Hebrew Union College
Clifton Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45220
Dear Nelson:
Many thanks for your letter of February 18. I am delighted to know that you have had both Dever and Holladay go over, with you, the entire collection of sherds from you archaeological survey of the Negev. Knowing that you had gone over it carefully, repeatedly, and that I had also gone over it while I was in Cincinnati in the early 60’s I am not surprised but I am naturally very much pleased – since we need as many competent independent judges as possible. I do not know whether or not you recall, but I noticed one sherd which was definitely transitional, between MBI and MBII. I have little doubt that there was some overlap between the first appearance of MBIIA pottery at Byblos and the shift from one type of pottery to the other in southern Palestine. Nor am I in the least surprised to hear that there was not a single sherd which was differently attributed.
There remains a difference in the over-all dating of periods when my dates of the past decade are compared to the dates I had previously given and to which Ernest remains attached. It is now quite certain from a long visit of synchronisms between the princes of Byblos mentioned in hieroglyphics and cuneiform texts – with pottery characteristic of MBIIA found in their tombs – that the dates given by nearly all non-German scholars are too high. In other words, the transition from MBI to MBIIA was somewhere about the end of the 19th century or the beginning of the 18th and that the MBIIA ended toward the end of the 18th century – plus or minus. Incidentally, I am more and more convinced that the decorated sherds from the Mene’iye (to be published by Aharoni), are Egyptianizing and reflect the late Ramesside period (twelfth-early eleventh century, B.C.). It is a pity that Rothenberg is calling them “Midianite”, which is probably going a bit too fast since none of these sherds seem to occur in the Negev proper. Anyway, neither Goedicke nor I can locate any Egyptian publications with identical pottery in them but since we have no serious study of late Ramesside pottery anyway, this does not seem to make much difference. The Egyptian archaeologists have not carried on the study of pottery begun by men like Guy Brunton.
In early January I slipped on the icy pavement on the Hopkins campus and hit the back of my head. Result: a mild concussion from which I am still suffering though my equilibrium is partly restored and I have not suffered at all from the enforced rest. It may be several months before I am back to normal again in this respect.
With our best regard to Helen, I am,
Cordially,
W.F. Albright
—
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE – JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
CLIFTON AVENUE, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45220
February 27, 1970
Professor William F. Albright
Department of Near Eastern Studies
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Dear William:
Thank you for your letter of February 23rd. I am leaving tomorrow for a short trip to Jerusalem.
I am distressed to learn of your fall on the ice and hope all the ill effects will disappear soon.
Some of the pottery found in the Mene’iyeh temple by Rothenberg may be LB, and especially some of the painted ware.
However, I cannot agree that all of the decorated sherds from Mene’iyeh and the Arabah are 12th-early 11th cent. B.C. Please look at my article in BASOR 188, p. 2f. again. The Tell el-Kheleifeh jug shown on p. 9, Fig. 1:2 is closely related to the Mene’iyeh one of Fig. 1:1; the Tell el-Kheleifeh painted jug cannot possibly be earlier than the 10th cent. B.C. and probably belongs to the 7th cent. B.C.
When I recently went over all the Negev sherds with Holladay and Dever, we re-examined all my Wadi Arabah sherds, including also those from Mene’iyeh and none could be dated before the 10th cent. B.C.
I do agree with you that the decorated sherds from Mene’iyeh and the Wadi Arabah could be Egyptianizing. In fact, Holladay and I had come to that conclusion, – but the datable sherds are all Iron II:
It is a puzzlement.
With warmest regard, I am
Sincerely,
Nelson Glueck