EXPLORE BY YEAR
— 1930s —
April 10, 1938.
Dr. Nelson Glueck
American School of Oriental Research,
Dear Dr. Glueck,
I have read your reports on your Transjordan explorations with the greatest interest and Dr. Sjöqvist, who passed Rome on his way back to Sweden, gave me an account of the results of your important research work. This is of great interst also from Cypriote point of view and I hope therefore that you do not mind if I ask you some questions about this matter. I shall be much obliged for your answer. Needless to say that I shall treat it with all the discretion you may wish.
There are two kind of Black-on-Red ware in Cyprus; the one group represented by single specimens between c. 1050 – 850 B.B. is non-Cypriote, imported; the other group is Cypriote and appears in masses from c. 850 and onwards. The first question is the provenance of the Black-on-Red ware of the first group. We know that a ware of this type is found in Palestine and Syria during the Early Iron Age but it is not at home there. Now you have found a ware of this type on the Transjordan sites and I therefore wish to ask you if it may be Transjordan. Does it appear in such masses and has it such a selection to the other pacified wares that if can be considered Transjordanean?
When the native, Cypriote Black-on-Red ware suddenly appears in masses c. 85- B.C. a new style of decoration, for concentric circles, intersecting encircling lines, etc, is introduced also n the other painted, Cypriote wares (White Painted and Bichrome). This style of decoration is of course influenced by that of the Black-on-Red ware for which it is characteristic , but how shall the appearance of the Cypriote Black-on-Red ware itself be explained? I don’t think that the Cypriotes suddenly began to imitate the imported, let us call it Transjordan ware, because the imported specimens are too few, 4-5 in all form 1050-850 B.C. I am more inclined to suppose an immigration of a stock of people which produced this war. As far as I understand the Transjordanean sites were more or less abandoned in the 9th cent., i.e. at the house where the Black-on-Red ware because Cypriote. In this a mere coincidence or may we suppose an ethnic movements in the Transjordan district to the North and is a North Syria to Cyprus, i.e., that a part of the Transjordan people look reface to Cyprus in the 9th and 8th cent.
As far as I understand you find a good deal of pottery painted with dark or dark and red ornaments on a light ground (While painted and Bichrome in Cypriote terminology) on the Transjordan sites forgotten with the Black-on-Red were. Are the White Painted and Bichrome wares decorated with the same ornaments as the Black-on-Red ware, i.e. concentric circles, etc. Are they approximately contemporary with the Black-on-Red wares and how much – approximately – of the total amount of painted wares is Black-on Red and how much is White Painted and Bichrome?
I have to apologize for the trouble I cause with these questions and can only hope that you have some questions to ask me concerning Cypriote archaeology to that I can do something for you in compensation. You would [oblige] very much if you are able to answer me before the middle of May because at that time I shall go to Greece and my address there is very uncertain for I shall move from one place to the offer.
Yours very sincerely
I am sorry not to have been able to reply immediately to your letter of April 10th. I have just returned for a couple of days from my excavations at Tell el-Kheleifi near Aqabah. We think it is the site of Ezion Geber.
With regard to your question concerning the black on red ware in Transjordan, I may say definitely that it appears in such masses on almost all of the Early Iron age sites in Transjordan that I have thus far excavated, and is so closely related with other typical Transjordanian painted wares, that for the resent at least, it may be called Transjordanian. In the enclosed copy of the letter I wrote recently to Dr. Sjöqvist you will find some additional remarks which I have made with regard t this particular subject. I may say that you are free to make whatever use of my letter you may think necessary. With regard to your statement which I quote: “As far as I understand, the Transjordan sites were more or less abandoned in the 9th cent., i.e. at the time when the Black-on-Red ware became Cypriote. Is this a mere coincidence or may we suppose an ethnic movement in the Transjordan distrec to the north and via North Syria to Cyprus, i.e., that a part of the Transjordan people took refuge in Cyprus in the 9th and 8th century B.C., but does not completely cease till about the 8th century B.C. I previously thought that what happened to the Edomites and Moabites from the 8th century onwards is what happened to the Nabataeans after their being conquered by the Romans. The central government weakened, some of the Moabites and Edomites, for instance, migrated to Palestine, there to become known as the Idumaeans. I am sending you under separate over a copy of an article of mine on the boundaries of Edom which deals with this particular subject. However, on the other hand it is not impossible that a large number of Transjordanians at about the 9th or 8th century B.C. may have migrated northward to Syria and then to Cyprus, and in Cyprus influenced the development of pottery. I must point out, however, what I have already pointed out in my letter to Dr. Sjöqvist, that the common source for the Transjordanian and Cypriote types in question may be in Syria. I am sending you under separate cover Bulletin 65; on page 12 you will find some remarks I have made in the connection. See also Bulletin 68.
I should say that both white painted and bichrome wares occur contemporaneously, featuring particularly horizontal bands of decoration, and to a considerably lesser extent, concentric circles. Speaking approximately, I should say that there is about an equal amount of black on red, white painted, and bichrome wares, the latter occurring on the finer types of pottery. Let me add that concentric circles occur particularly on a type of pilgrim flask, and to a certain degree, on small fine juglets.
I do not know whether these answers will satisfy you, but until I have had a chance to go over my pottery collections with these particular questions in my min, I cannot be more definite than I am in this letter. I am greatly pleased to hear from you with regard to these questions, because they are stimulating and perforce informative. I should be glad to hear from you again.
— 1940s —
I finished reading The Other Side of the Jordan some time ago and have been lending it out to people who were anxious to read it. People seem to be interested in reading about this comparatively little-known piece of Biblical territory, and your book seems to be just the thing to fill the bill. To me it was like a breath of TJ again, and it seemed to me that you presented the picture in just the way to interest the intelligent layman. I hope it will go through a second edition so you can present the material on Ezion-Geber in its revised form, for I found that it was that subject that most people were interested in finding our more about.
As I read the book I made notes of a few errors, mostly typocraphical, which will inevitably creep in. here they are: page 16, line 6: Transjordan; p. 19. l. 1 and passim: in the index and in other things you have written you refer to Tell el-Kheleifeh, not Tell Kheleifeh; p. 27, 11. 23-25, don’t you think this phonetic change could be better expressed?; p. 37, 11. 13-18: to me this statement is too strong; probably early Islamic art and Nabataean art were both influenced by the sub-antique style of Syria. Have you seen Kitzinger’s article “Notes on early Coptic Sculpture” in Archaeologia, vol. 87 (1937), esp. p. 207ff.?; p. 39: Quṣayr ‘Amrah is usually considered a hunting-lodge; p. 39, 11. 1-13: the rosettes at Qaṣr al-Kharanah are typically Sasnian and are common in Parthian architectural ornament before it; I doubt if Nabataean influence is to be seen here; p. 40, l. 2: “buxom” instead of “fat”?; p. 40: Qasr al-Azraq; p. 41: Qasr al-Tuba; p. 42, l.4: Lakhmids; p. 69, l. 25: Serabit al-Khadim; p. 88, l. 16: benzoin?; p. 108, l. 6: better Ezion-geber-Elath; p. 108, 11. 21ff. better, “the sky-scraper” type of house …… lingers on [why “in ruined form?] as far north as Ma’an,; p. 113, l.9: heyday; p.18, 1 7-8: menhir [no italics]; p. 127, l. 28: Sakhr; pp. 130, 133, 142, 144; glacis [no cedilla]; p. 139, l. 15: commas around phrase “but not completely accurate”; p. 143, l. 2 from bottom: Uyun, better ’Uyun; p. 147, l. 28: if this is plural, should be rujum malfufah, but if sing., then rujm malfuf; p. 155, l. l:’iqal; p. 158, l.22: no comma after “state”; p. 159, last line: what evidence of Nabayaean gifts in literature?; p. 178, l. 5: vine-and-leaf is less awkward.
The work on the index is progressing smoothly and I hope to get my share done well within the six months limit. They tell me the AOS meeting this spring is going to be in Chicago, which means I probably won’t be able to go, unless I get a ride out, on account of the expense.
How does teaching seem after archeology? Pretty tame, I suppose.
Best regards from us both,
135 West Springfield Avenue
Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania
November 25, 1940
The references I spoke to you about Friday are here at hand; so I shall send them to you now before they go astray.
The mention of sacrificing a camel to the dead is made in a modern Arab folk-song from South Arabia. It is quoted in D.H. Müller’s Die Mehri-und Sogotri-Sprache, III (Vienna, 1907), p. 120, note 8, which is part VII of the publications of the Kaiser-liche Akademie der Wissenschaften Südarabische Expedition.
Ibn-al-Athir, in his Kamil fi al-Tawarikh, reproduced in the Receuil des historiens des Croisades, Historiens orientaux, I, p. 658, says: “In this year [AH 578, AD 1182] the prince, the Lord of Karak [i.e. Reginald de Chatillion], built a fleet, which he completed at Karakm and there remained nothing for him to do except to assemble it piece by piece and carry it to the sea of Aylah.”
Speaking of Saladin, ibn-al-Athir says in the same work (ed. Tornberg, vol. XI, p. 240), “He returned to Egypt and built ships in sections; these he carried piece by piece on camelback by land and made for Aylah, where the pieces were assembled and launched on the sea.” This was in 1170.
I hope these will be of some use to you when you come to do your final write-up of Ezion-geber. Speaking of Ezion-gever, I gathered from The Other Side of the Jordan that you considered Tell el-Kheleifeh to be the site of both Ezion-geber and Elath, yet you say in your article in the last issue of the Bulletin (p.5) that the free population of Tell al-Kh. must have lived in a better sport somewhat to the east, which is exactly where Elath-Aylah is located. I am inclined to think that Elath-Aylah existed where it is now form the beginning for the following reasons: l. Deut. 2:8 preserves a tradition that the Israelites stopped there after the Exodus ; what could it be except Aylah, since there is no other site in the vicinity except Tell el-Kh., and nothing there is pre-Solomonic? 2. It would have been impossible for Solomon or Jehoshaphat to base a fleet on the beach by Tell el-Kh., since there is absolutely no shelter there form the winds, which would have wrecked it in no time. Aylah, on the other hand, is out o the path of the wind and has that little creek into which the boats could have been run. 3. The reason why no Iron Age pottery has
been found at Aylah may be due to the fact that it was occupied for a much longer time than most of the other sites in Transjordan; it was not until about the time of ibn-Tulun (9th cent.) that the population began to shift over to the place where Aqabah now stands, and it was probably not completely abandoned until after the Crusades. This would mean that there was a lot of debris left which might conceal the Iron Age material. I would like to hear your reaction to these points, since I intended to mention them in my review of your book.
C/O The Oriental Institute
University of Chicago
Nov 7 1941
My dear Glueck
I want to write a personal line t you to tell you how greatly I appreciate all that was done particularly by yourself to make my visit to Cincinnati so agreeable. I shall certainly never forget the kindness of my reception, the excellence of the arrangements and the hospitability I enjoyed. I was made specially happy by meeting so many friends and fellow workers, and particularly enjoyed my walks with you.
Your finals and observations in Trans-Jordan are most intriguing, and I wd like to congratulate you on having accomplished this extensive exploration especially under such difficult conditions. To judge from the Palestinian criteria there can be no doubt about the validity of your conclusions. One can explain theoretically the absence of many characteristic LB types on the supposition that Egyptian trade relations ceased at the Jordan; still one would expect to find traces, and that supposition will hardly apply to the lack of MB specimens, which were conspicuous in their plenty and variety of Jericho, and deriverather from Syria than from Egypt. Is it possible that the population moved out with the Hyksos, or was expelled by them? The episode of Amraphel and his allies sounds in its brevity rather like a raid of relatively short duration than a war of extermination. Certainly some disaster must have occurred: I begin to wonder whether there was a long period of local seismic disturbance. Is it possible to give so recent a date to the formation of the lava fields such as one sees on the way to Ma’an. I hope that you may be able in the not too distant future to examine some of the larger tells, to see whether their normal growth was interrupted in the same way.
I would like if you agree to send a note to the proper quarter about the German agitato you spoke of, and your offer of help to lay him by the heels. Could you send me confidentially ten or twelve lines on the subject, as you told it to me, and I will take it up at once.
With kind regards to you both, and renewed thanks
November 17, 1941
Professor John Garstang
University of Chicago
My dear Garstang:
I was very glad to receive your letter of November 7th. I believe it is unnecessary for me to assure you that your lectures here were received with great interest and delight. I have heard numerous favorable comments about them during the last week. It was particularly pleasant for me to be able to see you again and to have an opportunity to talk with you.
The apparent, but perhaps not real, discrepancy between your finds at Jericho and my finds in Transjordan has perturbed me considerably for a long time. I confess hat I am still unable to put into consonance the results of these finds and the Biblical tales upon which they have or ought to have bearing.
I do believe it possible, although not demonstrable, that the gap in the history of sedentary occupation in all of Transjordan approximately south of Irbid from about the 18th to the 13th centuries B.C. was due some disaster associated with the Hyksos.
I hardly think that the great lava fields one sees on the way to Ma’an and throughout the entire desert east of it could be recent enough to have any bearing on our problem.
The name of the German spy that I mentioned to you is Fritz Frank. In 1934 when I was exploring the Wadi el-Arabah, he was there also doing some archaeological reconnaissance. I imagine, however, that that was a front for other activities. He was as you know an enemy agent during the last war. A day or two before the outbreak of this war he and some of his friends disappeared. It was thought that they left Palestine. I am convinced that many of hem did not leave. I have no idea where Fritz Frank is now, but I should not be at all surprised if I were to resume my wanderings in Transjordan, to come across indications of his presence there now.
I should at any time, tomorrow if necessary, be perfectly willing to return to Palestine or Transjordan in any capacity that might be decided upon to be useful to your government if it met with the approval of our own State Department. I think I could be most useful continuing to do what I previously did that is examining parts of Transjordan square mile by square mile, for archaeological remains and incidentally learning a great deal about what is going on among the Arabs there.
I confess that on numerous occasions in the course of my archaeological explorations, I learned considerable about so-called bandit or rebel activities of individuals who were going to or coming from the disturbances in Palestine. I did not consider it my business then, for many reasons to divulge to anyone any such information that came to my attention.
I confess, also, that for scientific reasons, I should like very much to return sooner or later and the sooner the better, because it might be possible for me during the rapidly changing events of the present, to enter areas such as the Wade Sirhan or Northern Arabia for archaeological research into which I could not previously penetrate.
So far as my general usefulness to the government is concerned, may I say, in all modesty, that there are very few people who are acquainted with Transjordan and its Arabs as well as I am. I am fully prepared to render whatever service I can.
With kind regards to you and Mrs. Garstang, and with many thanks for your lecture to the Cincinnati Branch of the Archaeological Institute, I remain as ever
You probably remember very well the signet ring of Jeroboam (I believe it was) that Abbas found at the base of the wall one Friday at Tell el-Kheleifeh. It has always puzzled me that a ring this kind should have been found in such a place, and just now I have come across something which may shed some light on it.
While looking over Alan Rowe’s Discovery of the Famous Temple and Enclosure of Serapis at Alexandria (Cairo, 1946), published as Cahier No. 2 of the Annales du Service des Antiquités d’ Egypte, I found a statement on pages 18-19 that he (Rowe) had found at Beisan a finger-ring bearing the cartouche of Amenophis III below the north wall of the local temple of that king, besides several faience cartouches of Ramses I below the walls of the temple of Seti I; he mentions also foundation deposits of previous materials found in the Southern Temple of Ramses III at the same place.
I don’t recall whether Jeroboam’s ring was found actually under the foundation of the wall, but if it was it might indicate that he was following the Egyptian custom and that this actually indicates his foundation deposit, which would definitely identify the builder of that wall, at least. In any case, I should like to receive your reaction to this suggestion.
Last June I stayed at the School while driving up to Beirut, saw Burrows and Jeffery, and was glad to see that it was flourishing again. Now, however, I hear that they are pretty well boxed in by the civil war and that the future looks questionable.
About a month ago we took a Sunday drive to the Fayyim (along with Franz Rosenthal, of whom we see much here) and had a most enjoyable visit with Albright and Henry Field the day before they left for Sinai to work in the Wad- al-‘Arish. It’s a pity you couldn’t have been with them, since I hear you are longing to get back into the field.
We are all reasonably well and expect to stay here until February 1949, when we shall be back in Washington again.
Best regards to you and Helen,
— 1960s —
Thank you so much for your letter and for your offer to answer questions which have been raised in connection with your work in the Arabah. I do hope that they are not too lengthy as I realise you have more than enough to occupy you.
I would not trouble you but for the fact that I am interested in the facts of your work. Rothenburg in the PEQ has produced arguments based on what he understands you to have seen. Tocounteract his arguments with similar arguments of my own seems a waste of time. Obviously your own hypothesis is more valid sinceyou have been able to weigh all the data which he has not been able to do. Nevertheless you may slightly have altered the details of your thesis in the light of other material.
On the smelting sites in the Arabah Rothenburg states (PEQ 94 p 15) “In spite of the most intensive search …. We reached the conclusion that no smelting furnaces of stone were built.” The buildings you describe as furnaces at the sites he identifies as tombs. Although copper furnaces were used in Iron Age Palestine (cf. for example at Qasileh) have you any direct evidence that smelting was done in furnaces and not in charcoal heaps in the Arabah?
From his study of sites in the western Arabah Rothenburg concludes: –
i Smelting was done in open fires with tuyeres built into the side of the pile of charcoal and ore. In the base of the fire globules of reduced sulphide collected to form ingots of copper. (he deduced this although none were found in situ).
ii Hefinds no evidence that the sites were worked at any other period other than between 1000-900 B.C. Would you still defendthe view that they were worked later in the Iron Age?
iii He proposes that the industry far from being the basis of foreign trade wasnot even a paying concern, and was carried out only to enable the Temple to be built.
iv the copper produced was rough and needed refining. This he suggests was done in the Jordan valley between Succoth and Zarethan (1 Ki. 7 46) and not as you suggest at Ezion Geber. The latter is too out of the way. He states, “There is no evidence whatsoever for the assumption that Solomon exported copper in his Tarshish
fleet in exchange for gold, silver, etc.” This is a contradiction of your views aswell as those expressed by G.E. Wright, W.F. Albright and John Bright. Obviously many will be unhappy with them.
Tell el-Kheleifeh Rothenburg believes to have been a caravanserai. He does not believe it to have been a refinery on two counts; –
First; if Tell el-Kheleifeh was a refinery as late as the 5 century B.C. where did its raw materials come from? This since he believes the mines were worked only in the 10th century B.C. as mentioned above.
Secondly; Since the ores were reduce to copper in one stage at the Arabah sites the need of further refining he sees as superfluous. (this despite his already avowed understanding of the clay ground of 1 Ki 746 as the “melting-refining-casting workshops” to which “the rough copper produced in the Arabah must have been sent.” (p. 493) ) Thus he finds;
the reports on the excavation add numerous pertinent problems.
1. Slag: Arrefinery using even the flapping method of refining must over several
Centuries have produced considerable slag. Where is it? Is it possible that the slag piles were formed away from the main buildings or put in the
2 Flues sea?
2 Flues: The flues could not have provided the requisite draught to reach the high
Temperatures needed for the fusion of copper. The lower set of flues pierced only inside walls, and in any case were soon buried beneath debris. The upper set led into an inter-wall channel along which a small and ineffective draught could have blown. Further he adds, the additional separation wall “which was not bonded into the walls of period 1” had two rows of flues merely joining the two halves of a divided chamber. On Rothenburg’s understanding the flues could not have been flues at all so ineffective must they have been. The flues seem reminiscent of those found in modern brick-works, which connect chambers allowing them ot be fired and cooled successively. Under this system some part of the kiln is always working and hot air circulating through the flues aids the firing process. Whether there could be any parallel is uncertain. If the furnaces were sealed during use the hot air in the system might possibly have impeded oxidation of the melt.
3 Staining: The yellowish-green stains on the walls (whether exterior as well as
interior seems important, ) Rothenburg explains as being due to the presence of impurities in the bricks which reacted when the refinery was destroyed by fire. I feel that this explanation would not account the bricks being “consistently well baked” as you described them (BASOR 71 p. 5.).
4 Crucibles: The pottery as crucibles Rothenburg suggests were merely domestic vessels of a type since found to be common.
It seems that crucibles with metal adhering to the sides occur
at Chalcolithic Tell Abu Matar (Israel Expl. Journal 5 p. 80.), Iron Age Qasileh (IEJ 1.) and Shechem (BA p. 119.). Moreover he states that on the crucibles there was “no slag or any copper incrustation” – in apparent ignorance of your record in BASOR 159 p. 14.
5 The Industrial Square: This he seems to interpret as a typical Solomonic
case-mate wall. He adds that if this were the industrial square and centre of the local industry it is off that it should have been built over in period II.
6 Wind: This could not he suggests, have been a significant factor in the siting
of the establishment as it varies very little along the northern shore of the Gulf of Aqabah. The local nature of the storm which you recorded he explains not as a local wind phenomenon but as dust from the excavation which had been caught by the wind
As you will see from the above Rothenburg has raised a number of problems in his paper. Many of them seem to be based on either faulty or invalid reasoning. I expect that you will be able to answer most of them from your own work at Tell el-Kheleifeh and subsequently.
The case for there having been a refinery at Ezion Geber seems all too well established to discount so easily. It appears that in hte light of meteorological data his doubts about the wind and flues are justifiable. The general impression that Rothenburg’s paper gives is one of subject invity. He appears to have twisted some of the facts to suit his hypothesis.
One further question I have is about Iron smelting in the Arabah sites – Have you any further light on this? Wright et al seem to doubt that this was done as early as the tenth century B.C. You yourself did not do much other than suggest that thi was in fact the case.
I do greatly appreciate your offer of help in trying to sort out these difficulties so that I can the more clearly assess the nature and significance of mining in Solomon’s Israel. I do apologize for the length this has to and trust that I haven’t taken up too much time.
I have been travelling so much and have been so frantically busy that this is my first opportunity to attempt very briefly and very hurriedly to answer your letter of January 15, 1963.
With regard to whether or not any crucibles were used, I am sending you two enlargements of one particular fragment of pottery with slag coating on the inside of it. They show its outer surface and its inner surface. This is part of a large pottery vessel and can only be part of a crucible. Somehow or other, copper was smelted in this pottery vessel. It is the third sherd from the top down on the left side of Fig. 7 in BASOR 159, Oct. 1960, p. 13.
There is a degree of frightening scientific irresponsibility about Rothenberg’s article which makes it difficult to deal with.
During the three years that we excavated at Tell el-Kheleifeh, we excavated almost always with our backs to the north so that we wouldn’t be blinded by the very frequent sand storms. His reports on the meteorological phenomena are simply not correct/ I lived with those sand storms for three years, as did all the members of our staff. I recall Yigael Yadin telling me that he remembered very vividly being in one of those sand storms when he visited in the first or second season of our excavations. Several years after we left the site, the wind blown sands covered up our excavations almost completely.
If Tell el-Kheleifeh were merely a caravansary, there would have been no logical reason for the tremendously strong walls which surrounded it for a large part of its history. Furthermore, it would have made no sense whatsoever to have placed the caravansary in the location of Tell el-Kheleifeh. I caravansary would have made sense only at Aqabah or by the side of Aqabah, where there is a plentitude of fresh water and protection from the winds and the comfort of large, fate palm groves.
Tell el-Kheleifeh was also not built primarily as a fortress, because it could not have served major strategic purposes. As I have pointed out in many places, during the Iron Age II especially, and also during the preceding Iron Age I, fortresses were built on high places, on top of hills, places where they could dominate roads and command sources of water. Any enemy force could easily have circumvented the site of Tell el-Kheleifeh and passed within a short distance of it without its garrison being aware of its coming or going. The only reason that the various sites on Tell el-Kheleifeh were enclosed within heavy, strong, formidable, protective walls was that it contained tremendously valuable buildings such as the refinery which had to be protected. I am sure that some time or other a fortress of EI II will be found in the hills immediately overlooking Aqabah.
I have always said there was preliminary roasting at the Arabah mining sites. The pottery found at the mining sites at Tell el-Kheleifeh testifies to the occupation of the Wadi Arabah, as of Tell el-Kheleifeh, from at least the tenth to and through the sixth centuries B.C. I think it correct that the most intensive mining activity took place during the period of Solomon.
Rothenburg was certainly not ignorant of my article in Basor 159, p. 13, in which I speak about the slag incrustation on a piece of pottery, photographs of which I am enclosing for your examination. Somewhere he mentions it and waves it aside!
For him to say that the flues were not flues simply doesn’t make any sense. After the excavation of the refinery was completed and the debris had been removed, by placing our hands against the flues on the south side of the south wall of the building we could feel the drafts of air which entered on the north side of the north wall of the building, permeated the walls of the building and came out on the south side. No other Iron II building that I am aware of has such a complicated system of flues.
I am not absolutely sure how the refining process was carried out, but the answer may lie along the suggestion that you have in number “2” of your letter under the subject of “flues.”
There were some latter crosswalls put into the refinery, after the flues had become stopped up.
I think the weakest part of my preliminary report made some 25 years ago, was in with regard to the yellowish green stains on the walls. I have never had them chemically examined but will do so at the first opportunity.
Inasmuch as the ores were given a preliminary roasting in the Wadi Arabah, there would have been very little slag left when the crude cupriferous mass was left after the original smelting or roasting was accomplished. The refining at Tell el-kheleifeh would therefore have resulted in little slag being produced, and such slag as was produced would have been removed and may have been dumped probably into the sea. There was a small quantity of slag found.
I think it quite possible that Rothenberg has discovered another method in which the copper was given a preliminary roasting in the Wadi Arabh. To deny, however, that the numerous small buildings were used as roasting or smelting ovens and to make all of them graves is to go against all the evidence which has been adduced.
I am enclosing a copy of an article which I wrote recently for the new Encyclopedia that the Hebrew University is putting out, and this article deals with Tell el-Kheleifeh. Naturally, over the years I have revised many of the conclusions I came to during the first flush of the experiences of the excavations and as a result of other information gained from other excavations.
I am just finishing the first draft of a very large book on my excavations at the Nabataean Temple of Khirbet Tannur in Transjordan, and as soon as that is out of the way, in addition to another volume which will be a rewriting and a combination of “The Other Side of the Jordan” and “The River Jordan,” I shall tackle the final publication of my excavations of Tell el-Kheleifeh.
With cordial regards, I am
P.S.The article I am enclosing is for your private information. I prefer that it be not quoted or shown around until it has been published. I don’t know you from Adam, but I trust you.
28th February, 1963.
Dear President Glueck,
Thank you for your letter and enclosed article and photographs. It seems that you have covered the problems raised by Rothenburg quite adequately- at least to my satisfaction.
You can rest assured that I won’t show the copy of your manuscript around or quote from it prior to publication.
OAK HILL COLLEGE
26, February 1964
Dear Dr Glueck,
You may remember that you corresponded with me somewhat earlier on my work on the matter of the Iron Age metal works of the Arabah. (Letter from you on 12. XI. 1962)
My work has progressed since then. I managed last summer to visit Kh Nahds and collect some specimens form there and do a preliminary survey of the site. I have had this analyzed and am working on the results. One thing I should like ti know is, if you in you work found slag of the same type as the black masive slag of Nahas at Tunna (Maneiyeh)? It is fairly crucial that I should know if this type are oceans on both sides of the Arabah.
Incidentally you may be interested to know that I found pretty clear indications that crucibles were used at Nahas at some period as other. Do you feel fairly confident that main buildings at Nahas date from the fourth century? Here certain can one be that the slag dates from activities at this period? It would be thrilling to do some more work at this and similar sites were it possible. I found the Arabah an exciting and exhiliatory place even in August!
I will be delighted to forward you in my conclusions and [?] at a later date.
Thank you for your valuable cooperation,
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE- JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
CLIFTON AVENUE, CINCINNATI, OHIO 45220
March 9, 1964
Mr. David Gerrish
Oak Hill College
London N. 14, UNITED KINGDOM
Dear Mr. Gerish:
I have your letter of February 26, 1964.
I am pleased to learn that you managed to visit Khirbet Nahes and collect slag speciments from there. The same kind of slag is found at every copper mining site in the Wadi Arabah, and is exactly the same type as occurs also at Tinna (Mene’iyeh).
I am particularly pleased to learn that you picked up fragments of pottery crucibles at Khirbet Nahas. The Inland Steel Company, on the basis of fragments of pottery crucibles, to the imades of which slag was still adhering, reproduced the entire process for me at their experimental plant in the vicinity of Chicago. They made a small pottery crucible; put in it crushed copper are from the Wadi Arabah that I have them together with some flux materials, placed the entire crucible in a [?] of charcoal and fired it. When the fire died down, they cut the small crucible in half; there at the bottom of the crucible a circle of copper, and slag adhered to the inside surfaces of the crucible insofar as it hadn’t run out or been poured out.
I cannot state with absolute certainty that the main building at Khirbet Nahas dates from the tenth century. I can only state that to judge from the pottery fragments on the sire, as on most of the other copper mining sites in the Wadi Arabah, pottery fragments date from the tenth to the sixth centuries B.C. One cannot date from the slag itself the period of mining activity.
I should be pleased to learn of your conclusions and to have copies particularly of photographs of the fragments of crucibles which you picked up at Khirbet Nahas.
You are free to publish any of the material that I have written to you about.
With cordial regards, I am