EXPLORE BY YEAR
1930s
1938
1940s
1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1947
—1930s—
1938
Jerusalem, July 7, 1938.
Hebrew University
Dear Mr. Glueck,
The samples do not show anything characteristic. We did of course not look after small amounts of rate ingredients, but only examined the main constituents.
Sample 1. Limy Marl. CaCO3 57.9%. Some Iron and Alumina; much Silica in form of coarse sand. No sulphates.
Sample 2. Loamy Soil (Loess). CaCO3 6.0%. Much Iron, Alumina and Silicic acid. Organic material present.
Sample 3. Marl. CaCO3 20.5%. Much Alumina and Silicic acid. Almost no organic material. No sulphates.
I hope this will be sufficient for you and I beg again to point out, that we did not make a complete qualitative analysis.
Your sincerely,
Aday Reifenberg
—1940s—
1942
Amman, Transjordan
Oct. 31, 1942
Dear Otto:
Just before leaving Jerusalem yesterday, I received your letter of October 12 and a lot of delayed mail. Lou Egelson’s letter of Sept. 3 had arrived only a few days earlier. There is no rhyme or reason to the arrival of mails. Yesterday also I got a letter, registered air-mail written by Helen in September, while a few days earlier I had gotten one written by her in October. I have not yet received your letter of September 18th. I shall reply to Egelson’s letter when I return to Jerusalem. I was certainly glad to get your letter and reestablish some connection with you again directly, however tenuous mail connection is today. (I am now writing some three hours later in Jerash).
Jerash, Transjordan
As per usual, I find that nothing has been done about arrangements I had previously made, and they only begin to be made when I arrive on the scene. Years of dealing with these people has taught me what to expect, but each time I hope some miracle will happen the next time, and my orders be obeyed in advance of my arrival, so that we can start for our destination the moment I arrive on the scene of the appointed meeting.
I can well understand that the Executive Board may decide that a new man must be appointed in my place. I had thought before I came over that the affairs of the School should be settled in a comparatively short time and that I could then return home to the work that was cut out for me there. It seems, however, that the work of the Schools cannot be finished as quickly as I had hoped it might be. No one knows what the immediate much less the somewhat more distant future holds, so it would be useless for me to say that I shall be back on any certain date. I only know this, that I shall return as soon as I possibly can, and devote myself with all my might either officially or unofficially to the furtherance of our mutual interests. And if for no other reason, as soon as my work is finished here, I want to get home at the earliest possible minute, to be with my wife and son, without whose company my life is deprived of much of its meaning and purpose.
I may be back in Amman within a few days, because I may be going south on an interesting trip with Mr. H. M. Foot, the Assistant British Resident of Transjordan. When I get back to Amman, I shall stay with Mr. Kirkbride, the British Resident. Last night I stayed with Mr. Harding, who is the Curator of Antiquities of Transjordan – a very nice and exceedingly capable chap, for whom as for Mr. Kirkbride, I have much regard. I think Mr. Foot is in the same class. If they had a similar calibre of officials in Palestine, the situation there would be drastically better mould the life of our future now in our present. No man dare say today that our only concern is winning the war, nor repeat what Churchill is supposed to have said in Washington, “that we do not now care to put our heads into the jungle of the future.” And I say “if no now, when then?”
However, circumstances beyond your control and mine may make it impossible for me to join you soon. If it becomes desirable and I can understand how in many ways it be imperative, for an active head to be chosen immediately to carry on where I had not yet begun, you will know that I shall continue to be your and his most loyal supporter.
As ever devotedly yours,
Nelson
P. S. Please have a copy of this sent to Helen for my files.
1943
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 28, 1943
Dear Maurice:
I am sorry that I was unable this week to get in touch with Dr. Glueck.
Is he going to be down here again?
With kindest regards,
Yours sincerely,
SAMUEL I. ROSENMAN
President
Dr. Maurice B. Hexter
71 West 47th Street
1944
May 1, 1944
Mr. Harry Craig Richardson
2554 Derbyshire Road
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Dear Mr. Richardson,
Your letter of March 29th has just reached me. I am very pleased indeed to have the reports on the ores and slags of Ezion-geber. I have not gone through it in detail yet, and am writing now merely to acknowledge receipt of the material. I have no objection whatsoever to your publishing your own conclusions and the enclosed reports you sent me wherever you wish to publish them. I should appreciate you sending me a reprint whenever you do publish the materials, or rather two reprints, one to this address, and one to my Cincinnati address. As soon as I have digested this material, I shall take occasion to write to you again.
With cordial greetings,
Sincerely yours,
1947
February 13, 1947
Judge Samuel I. Rosenman
165 Broadway
New York City
Dear Judge Rosenman:
I wish to congratulate you on your election to the Board of Governors of the Hebrew Union College. I am sure you will carry the responsibility of this position with your usual energy and thoroughness. It is no mean one. The Hebrew Union College is a great institution, not only has it pioneered the idea of a permanent Israel in a lasting American democracy but it has supplied the main power for promoting that one hope for the salvation of the Jews of the United States and probably of the world. There is no institution in Jewish history that parallels it in bold ideals and enormous possibilities. I shall be happy to cooperate with you at any time in promoting the welfare of this unique and at the present time tragically necessary institution.
With kindest personal regards in which Mrs. Wise joins me, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Jonah B. Wise
–
February 24, 1947
Rabbi Jacob Philip Rudin,
Jewish Institute of Religion,
40 West 68th St.,
New York 23, N. Y.
Dear Rabbi Rudin:
I shall not be able to attend the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Founders Day Dinner in honor of Dr. Stephen S. Wise, founder and president of the Jewish Institute of Religion. I would be gratified, however, if you would convey to him my regrets and congratulate him and the Jewish Institute of Religion upon having achieved this milestone in his and its career and in the cause of serving Judaism. May he enjoy great length of days. We have great need of his leadership.
Sincerely,
–
WESTERN UNION
162 GLENMARY AVE VIN
HAVE RECEIVED INQUIRY FROM OUR LONDON OFFICE AS FOLLOWS QUOTE. PLEASE CHECK WITH DOCTOR GLUECK ASK IF HE HAS WORTHWHILE STORY TO RELATE OF DISCOVERY AFTER TWO THOUSAND MILE TRIP BY STATION WAGON THROUGH TRANSJORDAN AND PALESTINE FULLSTOP IF STORY AVAILABLE WOULD APPRECIATE BRIEF OUTLIEN UNQUOTE PARAGRAPH GRATEFUL YOU WIRE USE THIS MATTER TO PRESS COLLECT REUTERS NEW YORK THANK YOU =
REUTERS NEW AGENCY 50 ROCKFELLER PLAZA NEW YORK CITY.
—1960s—
1960
September 24, 1960
The Editor
The Illustrated London News
Ingram House
13-15 John Adam St.
London, W. C. 2, Great Britain
Dear Sir:
It is always a pleasure to see your excellent journal, and particularly to study the archaeological pages.
But it was with surprise that I read the article in your September 3, 1960 issue, entitled “King Solomon’s Mines: A New Discovery,” by Mr. Beno Rothenberg. My first impression was startled “What, discovered again?”
You published the story, “Copper Mines of King Solomon” on July 7, 1934, and related accounts of Ezion-geber: Elath on July 20, 1938, and August 5, 1939, all by Dr. Nelson Glueck.
More detailed reports of Dr. Glueck’s discoveries of King Solomon’s copper mines and of his dating them for the first time through pottery finds may be read in the Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research for 1934, 1935, 1939. Their Bulletin contains many articles by Dr. Glueck about the mines, tools used by the miners, water-tight cisterns, and particular discussion regarding dating by him may be found in Bulletin 138, April 1955, 152, December 1958, and 155, October 1959. The Biblical Archaeologist, published by the American Schools also contains numerous articles, especially the December 1959 issue, which also includes an excellent summary of Dr. Glueck’s achievements, by the distinguished scholar, Dr. George Ernest Wright, of Harvard.
In February, 1944, “The National Geographic” published an article by Dr. Glueck entitled “On the Trail of King Solomon’s Mines.” The Smithsonian Report for 1941 contained similar material. There are so many references to the mines in the Wadi Arabah in other papers and magazines printed since 1933 that it is not possible to list all of Dr. Glueck’s reports here.
In Dr. Glueck’s book, “The Other Side of the Jordan” (1940) is an entire chapter on King Solomon’s Copper Mines, and there are numerous references in his other books, “The River Jordan” (1946) and “Rivers in the Desert” (1959).
Mr. Rothenberg worked for Dr. Glueck for five years as a photographer, who had access to all his unpublished photographs and records. In the Preface to “Rivers in the Desert” is this glowing tribute:
“Many thanks are due my chief assistant, Benno Rothenberg, who is responsible for all the photographs published in this book, unless otherwise specified. He has been an invaluable member of our archaeological team, and I am deeply indebted to him for his helpfulness in every possible respect.”
Because of the high standards of accuracy and scholarship inherent in your fine publication, I thought you would like to be informed about
King Solomon’s Mines – an old discovery.
Sincerely,
Eleanor K. Vogel
1961
March 15, 1961
Dr. E. F. Campbell, Jr.
Chicago 14, Ill.
U.S.A.
Dear Dr. Campbell:
I had your letter of Febr. 26 and the returned article on the Solomonic copper mines just as I was going to post to you the F. S. on the Nabataean copperworks and a short summary of our survey of the entire Arabah.
Of course it is not up to me to questions the policy of B.A., but I am rather astonished, that you should consider a publication in an Illustrated Newspaper in England contrary to the interests of your publication. More so, as my manuscript is not at all the same article. Although I have used some descriptive parts in both articles it is by no means a “republication”. Whilst in Ilustr. London News I say: As the metallurgy of the Solomonic enterprise is still being investigated, we shall here only draw a preliminary picture, without going into detail – the manuscript returned to me included all the metallurgical details and the description of four addition periods of metalproduction in the Arabah, not reported on so far by anyone.
For the same reason I am surprised to learn that Prof. Wright has written a summary of my work according to Ill. London News (written at the end of 1959) although he has read my manuscript of 1960 and must have realized that the Ill. London News report contained several details we had to reconsider after further work in the field and the labs. May I point out to you that the final investigation of the pottery established an exclusive Solomonic date for all Iron Age sites on the westside of the Arabah. Contrary to my first statement in Ill. London News (written still under the influence of Dr. Gluecks publications): “from some time before Solomon, and we also could establish that some time after Solomon cooper was produced in W. Timna” I stated in my manuscript returned by you: The pottery of our survey has been worked over by Dr. Aharoni, resulting in an exclusive Il-IO c. BC dating”. Historically speaking this dating makes all the difference and I would be obliged if you could point this out to Prof. Wright in order to avoid misrepresentation of our views.
Further points changed since my paper for Ill. London News was written: We have no longer to relay on estimation of the weight of the copperingot [sic] produced in the Solomonic smelters in W. Timna etc. as we have in the meantime an inget from Timna consisting of 5 ½ kg real copper. We also found several complete smelters in the ground, including all details of the process, which prove without a shadow of a doubt that no pottery crucible or stone-build furnaces were ever used. This as well is written in any returned manuscript. Also: no details of the ore were given in Ill. L. N. whilst in my manuscript the ore was defined and details of decisive metallurgical importance added. The ore was not “roasted” in W. Timna and sent – as has been presumed by Glueck – somewhere else for further processing but real metallic cooper was made in W. Timna, W. Amrani etc.
I did not post the P.S. on the Nabataean copper industry as I see no point in publishing this P.S. separately whilst not publishing the material on the chalcolothic industry – the oldest establishment of its kind ever discovered.
I have no objection to you publishing the photographs of the Iron Age cooper mine we discovered in w. Amrani or the smelting camp in Central Timna which we found – together with a summary by Prof. Wright. Yet, I would appreciate it very much if I would be given a chance to see the text to go with the photographs in order to avoid misunderstandings…
Allow me to add a few personal remarks to the sentence in your letter: “Prof. Wright has written a full summary of the Ill. London News article as a sequel to earlier reports from Dr. Glueck, showing how your discoveries have filled out the picture in many important ways”. You probably know (see Rivers in the Desert, p XIII) that I have worked with Dr. Glueck for many years in the Negev. Much to my personal regret did my investigation of the copper industries in the Arabah during the year 1959-61 force me entirely to contradict Gluecks view on every point published by him on this subject. Dr. Glueck, who received from me the fullest verbal and written information on my discoveries already in 1959, acknowledged my views with the following words: “I welcome your new finds and explanations…My explanations of processes were guesses…it does not hurt my feelings to have you propound new and better informed once (in a letter to me dated 7.9.59).
In my publications on the copperaines I have so far tryed [sic] hard to avoid any clash with Dr. Glueck, simply because I have worked with him so many years, and I have certainly welcomed his above quoted declaration. Yet, unfortunately, Dr. Glueck has not acted in accordance with this and his various publications on the subject of copper mines since 1959 (in B.A. and BASOR) prove my statement.
I shall not in any way try to take from Dr. Glueck any credit due to him but I believe in certain things – amongst same is the sacredness of scientific truth. These are some simple facts (concerning also the “sequel to earlier reports from Dr. Glueck”):
All the smelting sites in the Arabah, published or mentioned by Dr. Glueck in AASOR of 1935 and later on were discovered first by Fritz Frank and published in ZDIV in 1934. Dr. Glueck has acknowledged this at the time, but, unfortunately since apparently forgotten it (see Rivers in the desert, p. 154-161, this means also the site of Tell el-Kheleifeh-Ezion-geber-Elath). Dr. Glueck has added to Franks discoveries his dating of the pottery. Yet nobody before we has ever seen any of the real sines worked in ancient times, which are f.i. in Timna at a distance of 12 km from the site published by Frank-Glueck. Furthermore, nobody has bothered to study the metallurgical processes and any description of such processes in any of Gluecks books are, unfortunately, not only guesses, as he himself said, but very much wrong guesses.
To state the situation clearly and plainly: To my great sorrow, my work in the Arabah has disproved every single point of Dr. Gluecks statements of facts and their interpretation on the copper-industries in the Arabah, as published by him up to this very day. Our discoveries, based on highly specialized work by a team of experienced metallurgists, geologists – besides the archaeologists – and on two solid years of work in the field and the laboratories, are not at all a “filling in” of Dr. Gluecks earlier reports but completely new facts and an entirely different historical and metallurgical conception.
I do not say all these in order to belittle in any way Dr. Gluecks work. But dr. Glueck worked only for 4 (four) hours in W. Meni’jeh (now Timna) before publishing his views (see AASOR, 1935, p. 42[?] whilst we worked in the same area for 5 solid months and much longer after that in the metallurgical laboratory.
Prof. Albright, who has first read my manuscript, and who sent it on to you for B.A., doubtlessly realized the full meaning of my work, even as regards Glueck. This made your request – in spite of the personal situation involved – to publish my article a step which I and my colleagues greatly appreciated. The return, now, of my manuscript and the “summary as a sequel to Dr. Gluecks earlier reports” has left me a very sad person indeed.
Yours sincerely,
Beno Rothenberg B. A.
–
March 27, 1961
Mr. Beno Rothenberg
P.O.B. 372
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Dear Mr. Rothenberg:
Professor Campbell sent me your letter to him. It seemed to me unfair that he have to reply, since I was the one who recommended to him that your article not be published in The Biblical Archaeologist. Instead, I planned to submit a news report about your work.
The reasons I made this recommendation are: (1) a peculiar attitude toward Nelson Glueck that I do not understand; (2) certain generalizations from your work at Timnah and Wadi Amran that are applied to the whole Arabah, when in certain respects that is a question as to whether sufficient evidence has yet been collected to enable on to go quite so far; and (3) publication of a major portion of a MS in another journal after submitting it to the B.A. without initially asking the Editor whether this would be permissible.
When I first read your ILM report, I could not believe my eyes. The articles sounded as though you were dismissing your predecessors and teachers with scarcely a nod inorder to claim all credit for yourself. It is simply not true that Glueck’s work is to be placed beside that of Frank with nothing more to be said. (See my evaluation in the Dec. 1959 B.A.) It is Glueck who first was able to date the Arabah missing-smelting industry, and these to bring it into the area of articulated history. Archaeology is a branch of history, to which chronology is basic. If, then, one cannot date, then one’s finds remain curiousities unusuable by the historian. Glueck first brought the mines into history in this sense.
After reading your [?], I was still more puzzled. Why this peculiar attitude toward the [?] in your area, the one who introduced you to the subject and initially taught you what to look for? Had Glueck done something to you to hurt your feelings? Or was this simply a way to make oneself appear greater, but devaluating the work of those on whose shoulders we stand? I saw immediately that you indeed had more interesting, important, and fresh observations to be made. But I also noted that nearly all of them were possible because you had a group of technical experts with you who were new concentrating on one problem alone. The purpose of a surface survey like Glueck’s is to establish broad patterns of occupation, so as to pull an area, hitherto little known, within the historians focus. The next stage is concentration in depth on special items derived from the survey. Now obvious any man has a book of MB I, Nbataeans, or mining, or any one of several items of Glueck’s primary work. All he has to od is to go back over the ground and explore more intensively. Obviously in regard to mining-smelting all one needs to do is get the services of a geologists and metallurgist and make a more thorough and technical study, with, if possible, some excavation. This is just what you have done, and it would be most peculiar if you and your experts did not come up with something to correct certain initial impressions of an archaeologist who is not a specialist in mining: But why does that give one the right to look down on one’s pioneering predecessor as a poor, misguided person who did nothing but make mistakes! It is most peculiar.
Certain of your statement are at this stage questionable to me as generalizations applying to the whole of the mining industry in the Arabah, when you have examined in detail the one area only. If there were no crucibles ever used, what of those at Tell Casileh, and the large sherd fragments with slang adhering to them as published by Glueck? Also can all your expert’s conclusions at Timnah account for the situation at Feinan and elsewhere on the eastern side of the Arabah? If the industry is to be confined to the days of Solomon, what were they fighting about in the area during the 9th and 8th centuries? Where did the smelter at Ezion-geber get its ore, etc.? Professor Aharoni may be correct in dating the particular sherds he saw, but that by no means solves the whole problem. Besides, it must be remembered that our knowledge of Iron Age pottery, particularly from that Arabah area when Edomite influence was surly present, is not yet precise enough to enable us in all cases to distinguish definitely between the 10th and 9th centuries, or between the 9th and 8th centuries — let alone know the origin and history of such material as published by Glueck in BASOR 159 (Oct. 1960), Fig. 6.
I believe this item speaks for itself.
Since the B.A. is an official publication of the American Schools of Oriental Research, it has always been our policy to try and present material objectively and to stay out of matters that may require its pages to be opened for personal controversy. If you published your article as it was written, I would have felt compelled to add a few paragraphs to put your work in some kind of proper perspective. In this case I decided that I preferred to take care of the matter in another way.
Sincerely yours,
G. Ernest Wright
–
April 11, 1961
Mr. Beno Rothenberg
P.O.B. 372
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Dear Mr. Rothenberg:
Sorry for the delay in replying to your letter of March 25, which needed some thinking over. I have had a chance to discuss it here with Dr. Glueck and in New York this Saturday with Dr. Wright. My reactions were approximately the same as theirs, but there are various facts which I lacked.
It is perfectly clear in retrospect that your mistake has been to disregard and even to belittle your precursors in the exploration of the Wegev and the Arabah. Now this a mistake which beginners often make and frequently without intending to do anything of the sort. The TLN article made a very bad impression on all of us who are acquainted with the situation. This may perfectly well have been the fault of the editors of the journal in question and not your own fault, but it means that you will have to make a very special effort to give full recognition to your precursors when you publish next. Glueck knows the pottery of the Negev as no one else does. Since coming home I have been over the material myself and I am entirely satisfied with the 10th-9th century dating as against Haron’s 11th-10th century dating. The point is that there was a considerable break in pottery styles between the 11th and 10th centuries and much less of a break between the 10th and 9th. In my opinion, most of Haroni’s 12th century pottery in the early Israelite sites in Galilee should be 11th century, and much of his 11th century pottery should be 10th. This in no way affects the value of his work or the quality of his scholarship, which are both very high. I think you are generalizing too much with regard to the non-use of clay crucibles. There can be no doubt at all that he found such crucibles at Ezion-Geber and the absence of slang in the crucibles there shows that the copper which was melted there had already been freed from slag. This does not mean for a moment that your discoveries in the Arabah are not extremely important and interesting. I wish you every possible success in continuing your survey of the ground and your discovery of underground smelters and new mines.
Just as it was Musil who discovered the first ancient copper working in the Feinan and Frank who discovered many other copper sites and especially Tell-eh-Khleife, so it was Glueck who dated these sites for the first time and who discovered new ones and called attention to their importance. In most cases Glueck’s dates stand, and it is unfair to emphasize error and insufficiencies which are inevitable in the case of pioneering work instead of stressing the great value of his contribution. Your quotation from a letter written to you by Nelson Glueck under date of 7/9/59 shows better than anything else can how willing he was to welcome work of younger men, but there is a difference between welcome work of younger men, but there is a difference between welcoming their contribution and accepting kicks in the face. One never gains anything from trying to advance onself by denigrating one’s predecessors, especially when one owes so much to them as you do to Glueck.
I have written as frankly as possible so there will be no misunderstanding and earnestly hope that you will not take anything I said amiss, because I am genuinely interested in your work and eager to see it in print.
If you care to write a short article on some of the new technical points, referring back to ILN for the general background, I shall be very happy to consider it for BASOR.
Cordially,
W. F. Albright
–
April 11, 1961
Mr. Beno Rothenberg
P.O.B. 372
Tel-Aviv, Israel
Dear Mr. Rothenberg:
Sorry for the delay in replying to your letter of March 25, which needed some thinking over. I have had a chance to discuss it here with Dr. Glueck and in New York this Saturday with Dr. Wright. My reactions were approximately the same as theirs, but there are various facts which I lacked.
It is perfectly clear in retrospect that your mistake has been to disregard and even to belittle your precursors in the exploration of the Wegev and the Arabah. Now this a mistake which beginners often make and frequently without intending to do anything of the sort. The TLN article made a very bad impression on all of us who are acquainted with the situation. This may perfectly well have been the fault of the editors of the journal in question and not your own fault, but it means that you will have to make a very special effort to give full recognition to your precursors when you publish next. Glueck knows the pottery of the Negev as no one else does. Since coming home I have been over the material myself and I am entirely satisfied with the 10th-9th century dating as against Haron’s 11th-10th century dating. The point is that there was a considerable break in pottery styles between the 11th and 10th centuries and much less of a break between the 10th and 9th. In my opinion, most of Haroni’s 12th century pottery in the early Israelite sites in Galilee should be 11th century, and much of his 11th century pottery should be 10th. This in no way affects the value of his work or the quality of his scholarship, which are both very high. I think you are generalizing too much with regard to the non-use of clay crucibles. There can be no doubt at all that he found such crucibles at Ezion-Geber and the absence of slang in the crucibles there shows that the copper which was melted there had already been freed from slag. This does not mean for a moment that your discoveries in the Arabah are not extremely important and interesting. I wish you every possible success in continuing your survey of the ground and your discovery of underground smelters and new mines.
Just as it was Musil who discovered the first ancient copper working in the Feinan and Frank who discovered many other copper sites and especially Tell-eh-Khleife, so it was Glueck who dated these sites for the first time and who discovered new ones and called attention to their importance. In most cases Glueck’s dates stand, and it is unfair to emphasize error and insufficiencies which are inevitable in the case of pioneering work instead of stressing the great value of his contribution. Your quotation from a letter written to you by Nelson Glueck under date of 7/9/59 shows better than anything else can how willing he was to welcome work of younger men, but there is a difference between welcome work of younger men, but there is a difference between welcoming their contribution and accepting kicks in the face. One never gains anything from trying to advance onself by denigrating one’s predecessors, especially when one owes so much to them as you do to Glueck.
I have written as frankly as possible so there will be no misunderstanding and earnestly hope that you will not take anything I said amiss, because I am genuinely interested in your work and eager to see it in print.
If you care to write a short article on some of the new technical points, referring back to ILN for the general background, I shall be very happy to consider it for BASOR.
Cordially,
W. F. Albright
–
HEBREW UNION COLLEGE – JEWISH INSTITUTE OF RELIGION
CLIFTON AVENUE, CINCINNATI 20, OHIO
November 2, 1961
Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr.
McCormick Theological Summary
800 West Belden Avenue
Chicago 14, Illinois
Dear Ted:
I am appending a few added notes to my article on Nabataean torques, and am pleased that it may appear either in the February or May issues of the 1962 Biblical Archaeologist.
The other matter troubles me. Mr. Rothenberg simply does not understand scientific method. I refused some years ago, – and I realize now with increasing correctness, – to write an introduction to his book on Sinai, because I felt that I would first have had to check every fact he mentioned, – which neither time nor conditions permitted.
For instance, with regard to his statement concerning the photograph, Figure 7, p. 13, which I published in Bulletin 159, October 1960, he says that “The slag fragments published in BASOR 159, p. 13, fig. 7 have the slag adhering to the outside and are well known to us as parts of clay … The three upper left fragments, however, are fragments of bellow nozzles…”
These are the same fragments of pottery, with slag adhering to their inside surfaces, that G. Earnest Wright saw in Cincinnati. For Rothenberg to maintain that the slag on the pottery fragments I published in Figure 7 is on the outside is nonsense, or worse, particularly in view of his undoubtedly correct statement that there was open-pit smelting. To deny, however that there was smelting in pottery crucibles, fired in numerous small stone furnaces at almost every Iron II mining site in the Wadi Arabah, is to ignore the evidence in order to magnify the importance of his own observation, – which is indeed a welcome observation.
To explain away all the fragments of pottery with slag coating on the inside which I published in Figure 7 as parts of clay tuyeres and the “three upper left fragments” as “fragments of bellow nozzles” is simply contrary to fact.
Those would have had to have been impossibly huge nozzles.
Incidentally, what real difference is there between the impressive word “tuyeres” and that of “nozzles?”
Now, however, let me be even more specific. Look, please, in Bulletin 159, Figure 7, at the left hand row, third sherd from the top! The inside surface of this sherd belonging to a crucible is coated with slag. The other surface, which is not visible and which is intact, is obviously the wet-smoothed face of a baked pottery vessel. This vessel was definitely used as a crucible, although most of the crucibles were coarser and larger.
Furthermore, this particular sherd was found in 1955 at the Iron II site in the Wadi Amrani, when Rothenberg was present as my photographer. He may possibly not have seen it, but I told him about it later on!
For your edification, I am sending three photographs, showing the inside and outside of the sherd in question. One photograph is a duplicate of Figure 7. Will you please return these photographs to me?
I am going to Chicago this Saturday and Sunday and will take the sherds in question with me on the chance of being able to see you and show them to you.
I am troubled, I must confess, not by what Rothenberg writes, but by the scientific respectability accorded him by including his material in our ASOR publication. To my knowledge, the Israel Exploration Journal and related scientific journals in Israel have not accepted his material.
I am not going to answer any of his statements anywhere. For instance, in a recent article published in a Hebrew newspaper in Israel, he asserts that he checked on the wind and sandstorms in the Wadi Arabah, and finds that my statements concerning them are incorrect, there are no wind or sandstorms, and that therefore my explanation of why the builders of Ezion-geber placed the smelter with its flue holes which we discovered there in the path of these strong winds is baseless and that indeed thus Tell el-Kheleifeh is not to be equated with Ezion-geber!
This is on related par with his asserting that there were no pottery crucibles in the numerous Iron II sites I dated in the Wadi Arabah, nor any stone furnaces, etc.
If you and G. Ernest Wright still want to publish his article, then I suggest that in Earnest’s editorial note, in its second last line, the word “inner” be placed before “sides.” He did add this word “inner” on the top line of Biblical Archaeologist XXIV:2 (1961), page 61.
With best regards,
Sincerely,
Nelson Glueck
P.S. I have marked on the back of these photographs the inner and outer surfaces of the particular sherd.
P.P.S. I have indicated with a red check on the copy of my article on “Nabataean Torques,” which I am enclosing, a number of additions that I have made in the text, copy of which you have.
I am enclosing another photograph of Zeus Hadad, showing an enlargement of the torque.
1963
2/6/63
Before I am to Jordan you had mentioned I should meet Dr. Glueck as he had spent considerable time in this area.
After I got here I heard the history of the Ancient city of Elate which is located under the Hotel I am building. Late I heard about the German who had excavated and located portions of the old city. One night the English Harbor master mentioned the German Dr. Glueck who had completed excavations to the north, and the American Missionary said you mean Dr. Glueck the American. The next time you see Dr. Glueck I would appreciate it if you would tell him that Rev. Donaldson sends his regards. Reverend Donaldson was serving in Jerusalem at that time and has been in Aqaba for three years. Also I would like to clear up a few rumors about the Roman City. The information given to me is that the hotel is over or near one of the gates of the old city which they believe is the southwest corner of the city. Brown asked me to do some digging to see if I could spot anything. I dug several holes but the seawater is 2 meters deep and the pumps I had were not large enough to permit us to excavate large areas or to go deep, so of course we found nothing. Would you tell Dr. Glueck that we are building 200 meters east of the army pier, on the coast and 350 meters west of no mans land. I have been dying of curiosity about this.
William B. Reeves
–
February 6, 1963
Dear Mrs. Vogel:
I am enclosing the excerpt that I read you from Bill Reeves’ letter. As I explained to you, Mr. Reeves is an architect, formerly with our firm and is now constructing a hotel at Aquaba. He is very interested in the history of the area, or has become so in the past six or eight months that he has been there, hence his inquiry. His address is W. B. Reeves, c/o Brown Engineers International, Amman, Jordan.
I know that he will be most interested in receiving any information you can give him and I am equally as sure that he will be pleased to get any information for you that he can.
It was nice talking to you and I hope you will both gain by this association.
Very truly yours,
Howard L. Elliston