EXPLORE BY YEAR

1930s
1936 | 1938 | 1939

1940s
1940 | 1941 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948

1970s
1970

—1930s—

1936

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
CINCINNATI, OHIO
THE PRESIDENT
19 May, 1936
Dear Dr. Glueck:

It give me great pleasure to inform you that the Board of Directors, at a special meeting yesterday, voted to confer upon you the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, the award to be made at the Commencement Exercises on June 5.

This constitutes a recognition by the University of your distinguished work in the field of archaology and is a kind of parental blessing from your Alma Mater as you leave upon your important new work in the Orient.

Sincerely yours,
Raymond Walters

1938

My dear Nelson,

My first letter written in 1937 [?] to you. I had often though of you in the past months and even started a letter not quite knowing where to address 17 to, when your lovely letter of Dec. 11^th arrived. I was frightfully happy to hear from you. I had so often wondered whatever the riots had kept you after other from [?] or how much of them you had personally experienced.

I can hardly tell you any news about myself. I have been working pretty hard these last 3 months as my friend and to keep on telling the [?] that they most want and want patiently. I wonder what the result of the Royal Commission will be. I suppose a compromise which will imply a severe restriction of immigration for the time being.

I have spent a week over the Xmas holidays with my sister [?] in London. She has been living there for a year and a half now and she simply adores it and does not want to come back not even for a short period. The rest of my family gathered here in Hamberg over New Year. [?] married [?] is going out to [?] at the end of this month, with her husband and son. He is a doctor and has been appointed G. the Naharadja of Judore as director of public health. It sounds of fairy tale. Now that the actual time of their departure draws nearer we begin to think that is a pretty ghastly [?].

I have given up to set myself a definite dose for my departure to Palestine. On the one hand the lack of young people in the movement and work to be done here is also, minable. The few good ones are all being kept here, on the other hand I am taking the question of my actual profession in Palestine more seriously. I can no longer see myself just working in the youth office and I wonder whether I Boss for three months – the first time in her life – in Palestine. During these weeks we had to prepare and select hectically a group of 60 boys for the Ludwig Tiek handicap School at Japan. We were being bombarded by telegrams to get them ready at [?] as they seemed to be scared of a “stop immigration.” Of course nothing of the kind happened and the poor kids are still wanting, as the certificates have not yet been grounded. We are anxiously expecting the grant a new youth [?] certificate schedule. It is frightful [incomplete]

1939

Cumberland House
17 a, Gt. Cumberland Place,
London W. 1.
8^th March, 1939
Dear Nelson,

I feel ashamed of myself when I look at the date of your last letter – September 1938, but I am so drowned in letters of all sorts of people asking me for something that I simply cannow allow myself the treat of personal letters.

Your letter was forward to me to New York where I stayed from September 5^th to December 26^th. Actually my parents had more or less forced me to come along, as at the time when they left, the European crisis was just starting and they were scared that I might, as the last member of my family, be alone shut in Germany during the war. I went much against my will and after the greatest resistance as there was much work to be done and I had a feeling I left my people in the lurch. This feeling increased when I was in America and I was feeling so [?] doing nothing that I went innocently to the Hadassah asking them if I could help them in the Youth Alijah work. To my great disgust it meant speaking, something I had successfully avoided to do for the last 26 years, as I am scared stiff to speak in public. The Hadassah, however, forced me to overcome this inhibition and for 6 solid weeks I spoke about three times a week. Actually it turned out to be most interesting and I could get a better insight into American Jewish Life than and I could have got any other way. Moreover, the American Jewish public, I noticed, is the most easy audience in the world. On one of my speaking trips to Detroit I met I think the sister of yours who is married to the Rabbi in Jackson and who couldn’t have been nicer. Unfortunately I saw much too little of her. In St. Louis I met your adorable mother-in-law. I hope you got our common note.

When Munich was over, I was naïve enough to jump to the ceiling with joy as I hoped I could go back to Germany and continue with my work. But the Hadassah insisted I should speak in New York at their annual [?]. So I postponed my departure to November 8^th. When I came back from St. Louis my family insisted that if I was going to be “Meschugge” to go back to Germany, I should at least immigrate to U.S.A., first via Canada, so that, if I should have to leave Germany, I should at least have a country where to go to. In view of my return to Germany this seemed sensible even to me. I left for Toronto where I was, however, held up a week, until all the formalities where coped with and thereby missed my ship. In the meantime the 10^th November had happened. My uncle Fritz who had come back from Sweden to Hamburg for three days to help with the negotiations for the sale of the Jewish Hospital was arrested. At this point even I had to admit that it was not advisable to go back to Germany and that I was only going to be held for hostage. As the family then decided that no member of our family should speak any more in public, not even in parlour meetings to avoid the possible danger of denounciation I started an affidavit agency of my own that is I tried to make well-off people sign guarantees for urgent cases in Germany. On the whole America had a demoralizing effect on me, as I looked at people with an eye as to how much money I could get out of them and how many affidavits they would sign. When the emigration of children to England began, I decided to go back to London to help in this work. Actually, after a few weeks of nosing around in the different organizations I landed again in the Youth Alijah Office here in London which is now the Central Office for children going to Palestine from the refugee countries. I am also meddling around in the Hachscharah Scheme on Lord Balfour’s Estate in Scotland.

My future plans if one can have any in these mad times are to got back to America in the end of June in order to keep my residency up and then to Palestine. I hardly dare to say that any longer, as I have been saying it for about 3 years perpetually and nobody will believe it until I actually turn up in the country.

Mother and father are at present here but are going back to the States in May. I am staying here with my sister Anita and we enjoy it tremendously after several years of separation.

How is Helen and how are you? What are your future plans? The Palestine Conference is racking our nerves and the outcome looks more than gloomy. Do write soon again, as full an account as this one.

Tons of love to Helen and you

From yours,

Gisela

December 22, 1939
Mr. Francis R. Walton
Haverford College
Haverford, Penna.
Dear Mr. Walton:

Thank you very much for your letter of December 1^st and enclosed copy of the Inscription de Delos, 2311. The reference to Kos is a very interesting one. I think you will find in one of my articles, in either Bulletin 67 or 69, on the Nabataean Temple at Khirbet Tannur, some reference to the Temple at Delos, in connection with the Nabataeans. Thank you also for the reference to the eagle and the snake in Seyrig’s article. I shall check at the first possible moment and see whether or not I have already listed it.

I am returning to Jerusalem on the Excambion sailing January 6 and I am being recalled to Cincinnati next fall. Looking forward to the pleasure of seeing you again, I am

Sincerely yours,
Nelson Glueck

—1940s—

1940

HAROLD R. WILLOUGHBY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
OCTOBER 1, 1940
Prof. Nelson Glueck
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dear Professor Glueck:

How more than thoughtful of you to remember me with a copy of your currently published volume, The Other Side of the Jordan. I have had time only for a cursory glance at the volume, but that has told me that it is everything that such a book should be. For reasons that you will have no difficulty in imagining, you will understand that I shall read with special interest and profit your chapter on “Civilization of the Nabataeans.”

I doubt not that you are on the whole very glad to be back in the security of the United States once more. At the same time I shall not be in the least surprised if very frequently this coming year you find yourself restless and impatient for field work.

With cordial wishes for the year’s work ahead, I remain
Sincerely yours,
Harold R. Willoughby

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
CINCINNATI, OHIO
THE PRESIDENT
18 November, 1940
Dear Dr. Glueck:

I wrote at once this morning to Dr. Andelotte, sending him the program. Hearty congratulations for your appearance before this distinguished society.

Faithfully yours,

Raymond Walters

1941

PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SUMMARY
2330 NORTH HALSTED STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
July 16, 1941
842 Chalmers Pl.
Dear Nelson:

Here’s the sherd, and also the opinion — though the latter may not be worth much.

Unless it is something entirely unlike anything I’ve seen before, I should say immediately that it is Late Bronze or Iron I. If you grant that, then I should say without hesitation that it is cir. 13^th cent. The reason is the decoration. The tree design occurs on the pottery of the Ajjul painter, but I don’t know it in any datable groups of LB pottery of native traditions before the end of the 14^th cent. For example, no trees appear in the Jericho LB painted pottery, not in the contemporary Temple II of Lachish (see Tufnell, Inge, and Harding, Lachish II). On the other hand, It is very characteristic, along with animals, of Temple III pottery at Lachish (mostly 13^th cent.), and of the 900 cemetery at Tell el-Far’ah. This evidence would seem to fix the chronology, but I doubt that the last word has been said, so I would not like to be dogmatic. It appears in Megiddo VIII and VII, but there are other reasons to believe that VIII ought to be dated cir. 1468-1300, instead of 1479-1350.

From the ware and finish I should hesitate to date the piece much further in the Iron Age than early 12^th cent. So late 14^th to early 12^th cent. is the date I should like to give it. Is it a significant piece?

Orlinsky’s MS has gone to press, at long last. Albright O.K.’d it and wanted it to be left just as it was. I insisted on the Personal Credo’s demise; and after much argument, it was omitted. The rest of the MS is substantially as was, with an occasional change, correction, and omission. To get anything change meant at least two, and sometimes more, letters, and I did not have the patience to mess with it. I’ve H.M.O. already down on my neck, and have several letters which are “corkers”. I’m a rather measly, conventional brat — that’s the trouble with me!

Hope above remarks may be of some help, but rather doubt it. I’m getting to the place where I’m not overly surprised if I miss the date of a sherd by two or three thousand years.

Yours, as ever

Ernest

PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SUMMARY
2330 NORTH HALSTED STREET
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Aug. 7, 1941
Dear Nelson:

Sorry to have delayed so long in getting this note off to you on the two sherds which you sent by Phil Vogel. They are much harder than the other one. The hand I should like to date between 1300 and 1000 B.C. The painting on the back is common in that period, and the white slip seems to come in at the end of LB, is common in the 13^th cent. and continues in the first part of Iron I (Stratum IVb and Stratum III at ‘Ain Shems — Vol. IV pl. 29: 4-6, and some of the bases of pl. 37 have the same: if not gray ware, than a white or buff wash or slip).

The collared rim is still not difficult. Naturally, one would first be inclined to put it in 12^th-11^th cents. with the typical things of that period, but this form is not quite typical of that type. Still I think that the chances are good that it is roughly contemporary with the handle: cf. Ain Shems IV, pl. 29: 5, 56:1, 57:4, 59:3 and 10, 60:4, 61: 22-25. (These are not identical, but prb. give the type.)

I don’t believe that it is probable that either one of these sherds could be later than the 11^th cent., and doubt also whether they could be earlier than the 13^th. But to date them more closely in that three century span is impossible for me. What do you think? (This is fun, like a cross puzzle; send me some more!)

Sachs and I have spent one day, one afternoon, and three evenings proof reading Orlinsky’s lousy MS in Master Proof. IT should be out in three weeks. Total cost, including mailing, Orlinksky’s typing charges, cost of “clurb” folder, etc. will be around $275. Printers’ charges alone will be $227.50 apart from express charges on shipping. That is a lot of money, and I am more and more troubled about the thing paying for itself. If it were not for the war, things would be different. How much shall we charge for it? If we charge $1, we shall probably get no more than 75 to 80 cents per copy by the time 15% goes to the Schools and wholesalers get some off. Yet if we charge more than $1, I doubt whether we would sell as many. What do you think?

I’ll be interested to see what is up with regard to those sherds.

Cordially,

Ernest

ERNEST WRIGHT

842 CHALMERS PLACE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
Sept. 7, 1941
Dear Nelson:

Thanks for your letter, and am glad to know what was up with regard to the sherds. Since seeing the first sherd you send me, I would like to date the close of the gap at the site in the 13^th cent., since that sherd looked 13^th cent. to me. But then it might be a bit later, I suppose. I shall not be surprised if a number of Alb.’s earlier results in that region would have to be modified in the light of our modern knowledge of pottery. I have an idea you are quite right about 13^th cent. sherds in S. TJ. I wrote the JBL words before talking to you. It was good of you to loan us some sherds. I’ve been over them once and want to do so again. — As soon as I get started on the Top. and Archae. Dictionary of the Bible, I hope you will consent to do most, at least, of the O. T. Trans. sites.

Cordially,

 

—

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
October 10, 1941
Professor Nelson Glueck,
Hebrew Union College,
Cincinnati, Ohio
My dear Nelson:

I share your hope that Dr. Fisher’s Pottery Corpus may be made available to scholars in some form. We cannot give any definite promises about publication until we find what state the material is in. I am glad to hear from you that he went through Volume I after we returned it to him and made corrections as suggested by our editorial department.

Certainly Volume I has not been returned to us, and Mrs. Hauser of our editorial department points out that Dr. Fisher wrote to me on January 24, 1941:

“It is impossible at present to risk sending any of the completed material to you, as we cannot make duplicates; I would suggest that it is best that I complete the third volume and the revision of volumes I and II, and then send the entire work to you as soon as shipping conditions are more settled.”

The materials which we have in Chicago are a set of uncorrected Photostats of Volume I and the manuscript materials of Volume II. This is available here in Chicago for consultation, although we do not consider it in its present form satisfactory for photostating and disturbing.

We shall appreciate any help which you may be able to give us toward the problems of publishing and making available this material. Dr. Fisher’s great knowledge and experience should not be lost.

With personal regards to Mrs. Glueck and yourself,

Sincerely yours,

John A. Wilson

1943

McCORMICK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
2330 NORTH HALSTED STREET
CHICAGO 14
Sept. 4, 1943
Dear Nelson:

Was certainly surprised to hear of your return to this country, but then there is no doubt about your need of a vacation. The work that you have been doing is certainly interesting and most important. Am anxious to read more about it, among other things additional information on dolmens and Cahlcolithic sites. Wish you would find Jahz and Jazar, among many other sites. On the new Atlas which Filson and I are doing I’ve put Jahaz at Jalul or Kh. et-Teim, but was unable to decide between them. Abel’s identification at Kh. Iskander would appear to me way off, since the site ought to be near Medba somewhere. Mahanaim is another stinkler. Is Kh. Mahneh still O.K.? The Atlas is just about the enter the presses now, and any information about these debatable sites which you may have would be greatly appreciated, and due credit would be given the Intro. At two points Filson and I have not been entirely convinced. One is on Abel-meholah, and the other is on Zaphon. I don’t pretend to know anything about the latter, but from classical evidence Filson has written up a short article for the Bulletin against your thesis.

Underseparate cover the B.A. have been sent. I’m also having Mrs. Walton send you a copy of Ain Shams IV which you requested a long time ago for the School’s library. I’ve had it packed up to send for two years, but could not send it, or thought I could not. I’ve also asked her to send you about a dozen or so offprints of one of my recent articles on the terminology of O.T. religion. If you have any space, perhaps you would be willing to keep one for yourself, and scatter the rest among any who might be interested in Jerusalem. If you don’t want to bother with them, we can wait until after the war.

One other matter — we do not have enough B.A. subscribers in Palestine, and I am wondering whether the School might not act as a clearing house for the Bulletin and B.A. there. We should have a large number of Palestinians on our lists. If they could pay to the School in Palestinian currency, we could send copies in quantity there. Our offer of the Bulletin and B.A. for three years at $4 can’t be beat. It’s practically giving the things away. The only thing is the matter of secretarial help in Jerusalem — so it is up to you to determine whether it could be done. After the way, I’d like to set up English representative, and perhaps one or two on the Continent, though the latter may not be feasible. But there is no question that we should hae more subscribers to our publications in England and Palestine than we do. This, of course, is all future planning.

Emily and the Sellers join me in most cordial greetings.

Ernest

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
December 14, 1943
Professor Nelson Glueck,
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati 20, Ohio
Dear Nelson:

Since you are still available for report, let me tell you the present stage of my plans for the American end of Near Eastern archaeology.

In connection with the spring meeting of the American Oriental Society, I should like to call a committee which shall lay plans for an American archaeological organization dealing with the Near East. This is some time in the future and it is purposely so. It is extremely difficult to call a conference under present travel restrictions. The conference should be called in connection with some other occasion. I agree that it might usefully have been called for the occasion of the meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research in New York during the Christmas holidays. I was unwilling to take this occasion as I feel that we need some time for the clarification of our ideas.

Therefore, I have thrown the problem of the American interest in Near Eastern archaeology into Frankfort’s seminar. It is there being discussed by Frankfort, Braidwood, Delougaz, Ernest Wright, Ann Perkins, two Jesuit Fathers, and others. The result will be two proposals. The first proposal states the conditions which might be suitable for field work with definition of the duties and rights of the state and archaeologists. In general terms, this will follow the resolutions of the Jerusalem Conference, but may well express more of the archaeological viewpoint then the viewpoint of the state.

The second proposal will be for two bodies. The first will be an American Council on Near Eastern Archaeology which will include everyone having any interest in this subject. The second will be a very small body which will, in effect, be the executive committee for these problems. It might be called the American Advisory Committee on Near Eastern Archaeology. Its duties would be to serve as a clearing house for information and activity and to represent the American viewpoint on the subject. There will be suggestions as to the qualifications of membership and the method of selection for this committee.

Thus I propose to circulate in the near future an invitation to meet in the spring and to discuss proposals which will be laid before the invitees in detail well in advance of such a meeting. The invitees will express their reactions to the end that the spring meeting may effectively initiate some action on setting up a continuing organization and on initiating a series of activities.

I do not wish to set up a government controlled and government financed organization. I do not propose to set up an archaeological cartel which shall monopolize the field. It will probably turn out to be a profession association which will have the sanctions resulting from experimental authority. I shall not trouble you with details of the proposals until they are final and in any case, they will not be final in a full sense until put into effect by a group representing American archaeology in a fuller sense. On Thursday the seminar may have its final meeting on this question and I may then be able to send you something more specific.

A copy of this letter is going to Albright for his information on the progress of plans.

With cordial personal greetings,
Sincerely yours,
John A. Wilson

1944

26 School St.
Rockport, Mass,
Wed. Aug. 23, 1944
Dear Nelson:

Welcome back. Albright tells me you’re hard at work on your two books. I’m having the pcitures sent you by Filson from Chicago. Is there any chance of getting them back, or at least copies? Am making it a rule to keep all B.A. photos, since we have to reprint numbers so frequently etc.

Will be glad to get another article from you. Next space available will be next May. Let me know if you can furnish me copy for that number and the subject. No great hurry about it.

Welcome here next Monday for a short stay in Brooklyn while I try to find an apartment in Baltimore for fall and winter. An on a sabbatical leave. Address me c/o Albright.

Yours,
Ernest Wright

1945

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
September 6, 1945
Professor Nelson Glueck,
162 Glenmary Avenue
Cincinnati 20, Ohio
Dear Nelson:

Your letter was good reading. I am glad to know that you are back in this country and have had a chance for a good loaf. It is also pleasant to know that your Palestine stay may be enlightened by the company of Mrs. Glueck and your boy. I know that it makes a tremendous difference to have the family within shouting distance instead of thousands of miles away. It is good to read that you have hopes that the troubles may not break out for some time. We have had our fingers crossed ever since V-E Day. Perhaps the joint statements of Attlee and Truman have postponed an outbreak of trouble for an indefinite time.

George Cameron did write to you about a memorial issue of the Journal of Near Eastern Studies honoring Olmstead. I showed him your letter yesterday and he may be writing to you again.

Dr. Nelson is now talking his shots in the hope that he and Mrs. Nelson may leave for Egypt around the end of this month. I have January, February, and March earmarked for a trip to the Near East in order to smell the air. That time being so short, my trip will depend upon the possibility of flying at least one way and perhaps both. I shall hope to see you in Jerusalem, perhaps some time early in February. I need sound advice on the possibilities of resuming work anywhere in the Near East and, specifically, the chances for our final year at Megiddo.

Your News Letters remain the most interesting and satisfactory reading our world of Oriental Studies.

This brings the very warmest wishes and greetings to you.

Sincerely yours,
John A. Wilson

—

Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sept. 14, 1945
Dear Ernst:

The enclosed letter is self-explanatory. (did not sent it) The map is splendid, and I greatly appreciate all the work you have put in on it. I have made several suggestions for some minor changes, which I believe can still easily be entered into the map, although it won’t be too tragic if they can’t be.

The change I desire above all is that the missing name of W. Yabis be entered, and that the name of Brook Cherith, with a question mark after it, be placed after it, and not the whole wadi be named only Brook Cherith, as it is at present. It would appear than as W. Yabis (Brook Cherith?)

I have suggested River Zered instead of Brook Zered, to have it conform with River Arnon, River Jabbok, etc.

I prefer Lake of Galilee instead of Sea of Galilee, because in the book I consistently speak of the Lake of Galilee.

I think the type used for Jsr Sheikh Hussein and Jisr Banat Ya’aqub is far too large. I want those bridges in to be sure, but to judge from the size of type used they outweigh in importance almost anything else on the mpa, which of course they do not.

I see that the same type has been used for Birket er-Ram (Lake Phiala) as for Lake Huleh. Birket er-Ram is a small pond really, but perhaps the necessity of keeping certain kinds of type to indicate bodies of water justifies the use of the same type for Lake Huleh and for Birket er-Ram (Lake Phiala).

I am glad you are adopting my identification of Abelmeholah also for the Atlas. I am convinced that Mahanaim should be located in your Atlas also on the River Jabbok. I am not certain as to exactly which site there it should be identified with, beyond that it must be east of Penuel. It might be possibly be identified with Kh. el-Kenadiyeh and Kh. es-Suwari, (which might possibly explain its dual name), or alone with the former (cf. Annual XVIII-XIX, p. 222 and Map IIIa; or with Tell Faqqas (p. 220), or even possibly with T. Janu’beh (p. 219). The location of Mahanaim with a question mark, as it has been indicated on the map for The River Jordan, is, I am convinced, essentially correct.

This is really the first time I have sat down at my desk with the prospect of a day’s work ahead of me since I came back from Jerusalem. I hope to return in January, and meanwhile have a terrific amount of work to do. My main task will be writing up the text of Explorations…IV. The pottery plates, over 100 of them, are finished, although I shall have to cut down considerably on my discussion of the pottery. – I shall, inshallah, send in on time the article I promised you for the Biblical Archaeologist.

If possible, I should like Qeseir Amra to be indicated on the map for the cover of my book.

With best regards,
Nelson Glueck

Cincinnati, Ohio.
October 26, 1945
Professor G. Ernest Wright,
McCormick Theological Seminary,
2330 North Halsted Street,
Chicago 14, Ill.
Dear Ernest:

I get the figure of almost 230 when I multiply 70 meters by 39.370147 inches and divide by 12, and not the 221 feet that you arrived at. Try again. Similarly for the Lake of Galilee, I get the figure of 696, and not the 695 you got; we agree on the 1286 ft. for the Dead Sea.

The levels of these bodies of water, with the exception of the radical difference in Lake Huleh, should not necessarily affect the other measurements you refer to. At any rate, I haven’t all the new maps which would enable me to check all the elevations on Atlas, Pl. I.

I started to check over on my new maps some of the sites to be found there, but then decided to send my new maps to you. I confess it is with reluctance that I let them get out of my hands, but it will be better if you and Filson examine them first hand. Can you check them immediately, and then send them back to me first class, registered, as I am sending them to you, please. Inasmuch as I am using them constantly, may I have them back at your earliest convenience?

I should have no objection if you want to have them photographed or copied otherwise so that you may have them permanently.

I am sending the following 1:100,000 maps, namely, Salt, Jerusalem, Safad, Jebel Usdum, Dead Sea, Nablus, Irbid, Yarmuk, Der’aa, Ezraa, Metulla, The 1:25,000 maps hiwch I have, and on which the 1:100,000 maps are based, are not as inclusive, i.e., those that I have cover much less territory, being practically only those referring to the Jordan Vallye.

I hope that the plus 230 feet and minus 696 and minus 1286 ft. figures mentioned above can be included in the relief map for my book. Otherwise, I don’t think any of the other elevations need be changed either for the maps in my book or for Plate I of the Atlas.

I am sending the maps by separate mail.

Sincerely,

NG

1946

THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, U.S.A.
May 23, 1946
Dr. Nelson Glueck,
American School of Oriental Research
Jerusalem, Palestine
Dear Nelson:

I have been thinking of reporting to you and telling you about the developments here at Chicago after my return. Then your letter of May 10 arrived as a reminder of our talks at the School in March. I am trying to stick to my guns in the same terms of our March talks but of course it is not easy.

When I returned to the University a month ago, I reaffirmed my resignations of protest verbally. Administration then said that they would accept my resignations if I felt so strongly, although they could not agree that they had seized power arbitrarily. Their attitude was that a large university had somehow to coordinate the work in a different sections of the institution and to prevent the detached independence of any one section.

I then reported to my staff the resignations and the reasons therefor. A curious thing happened. In trying to support me against the Administration, they sent a resolution to Administration regretting my resignations and hoping that it would be possible for me to remain in office. This may have been personally gratifying but it did not give the factor of protest against administrative action sufficient backing. A committee was detailed to wait upon Administration and to gain its statement on the changes involved. To this committee the statement was that the Oriental Institute was potentially better off than before. Previously it had operated within its own funds and therefore had a fixed income which set the limits for all activities. Now it operated largely under general University funds, so that the program might be as large as anything which would be approved by Central Administration. Thus if we made a good case we might have more research activity than in the past.

This benevolence is gratifying but misses the basic point of the protest, that the effective determination of program is made by administrators rather than by the working scholars themselves. It is true that we shall have the possibility of greater activity under friendly administrators, but we are subject to their directive control in the appointment of individuals and the establishment of projects. We cannot control the decision as to which activity is good enough to secure financial means.

At any rate, benevolence seemed a gain to some members of my staff so that I found myself somewhat isolated in the nature of my protest. I have therefore had to accept the principle that I am resigning without date and will continue an office until a successor is established. This may go on for more than a year but it clearly needs time to see what the new system means in terms of our work and therefore to see how another man might run the organization.

It is impossible to report anything further on the proposed expedition to Arabia. Members of the Department of State express some sympathy with my statement but postponed any answer until it could be seen what might be the attitudes following the report of the Anglo-American-Palestine inquiry. With the best will in the world I cannot get any farther now. I shall renew the attack when things seem to be clearer.

We also have a problem in that the Oriental Institute would like to send Delougaz next fall to do a little archaeological work in Iraq. He personally would be grata to the Iraq Department of Antiquities, but he is still a Palestine citizen and may be refused entry into Iraq. We are going ahead with our plans anyhow but may run into trouble when he applies for a visa.

Thank you for the copy of your “The River Jordan”. I think it is splendid. I have read it with enthusiasm and have acted as your promotion agent in showing it to visitors. There never was a book on that part of the country which had so many fresh and exciting illustrations. To you, the method of reproduction probably seems to rob some of those illustrations of their sharp quality. However the new reader, who has not seen the original photographs, finds them admirable.

My visit with you in Jerusalem remains one of the happiest parts of my trip. Thank you for the warmness of your hospitality. This brings all cordial good wishes.

Sincerely yours,

John A. Wilson

—

H. B. WEISS

DOCTORS BUILDING, 19 GARFIELD PLACE
CINCINNATI, OHIO
July 9, 1946
Dear Nelson,

I want to thank you very much for the book, and when you come back I would like for you to autograph it.

The more I think about the problem the more important it seems to me that we have the right man at the College. It really is a challenge to someone to undertake the job.

I believe with the right kind of President a merger with the J.I.R. will not be too difficult. The Union with Eisendrath is wholeheartedly with the college in its activities, and I hope we will get some funds.

The School in New York is starting off this fall under very good circumstances. At the graduation and dinner following the whole keynote was a need for spiritual and religious revision. The Conference had the same theme. There seems to be a spirit in the air of religious fervor among the leaders, and perhaps this is a reflection of the need of the people.

I think you are the man to do it; Sol Frehof thinks so; Jonah Wise thinks so, as does Paul Berwald and many others. I wish I could write what I really have in my heart to say about the importance of the work and the job right now, and how I feel you are the man to do it.

I understand Helen is leaving in two days, and I know you will have a chance to talk things over with her directly. Julian and I are looking forward to your answer.

You must be having a fascinating, if not a difficult, time at this moment with all of the turmoil and world politics centered at your head and feet.

Stay well and have a pleasant visit with your family.

Looking forward to seeing you, and wish warmest regards, I am

Cordially yours,

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH, JERUSALEM, PALESTINE
October 15, 1946
Rev. Dr. Jonah B. Wise,
35 E. 62^nd St.,
New York 21, N.Y.
Dear Jonah:

I have held your letter written June 7, 1946 for a long time. In it, you urged me seriously to consider the Presidency of the Hebrew Union College, if it were offered me. I have not answered till now, because I wanted to be certain about what I desired to be.

I have new made up my mind. I am sending the following cable to Dr. Morgenstern.

“I shall definitely accept Presidency if offered, devoting myself to its responsibilities with all my heart and might.”

It has been a difficult decision to arrive at. I have been very happily engrossed in my archaeological pursuits in Palestine and Transjordan. Everything I touched in this connection has yielded scientific reward and personal satisfaction. I must relinquish that. The duties of the Presidency will at least for the first few years impede or even prevent the continued publication of books, which I must write.

However, I have weighed all that. I have concluded, I confess after considerable inner torment, that it is my duty to accept a call to the Presidency of the Hebrew Union College, if it is directed to me. I am impelled to that deision by my vital concern with the development of Reform Judaism in the United States, and the interpretation of the Torah at large, for which the Hebrew Union College exists, and, I pray, may long continue creatively to function.

In the even of my promotion to the Presidency, I shall count on your assistance and that of our friends who have wished to accept it.

With best wishes to you and your wife for the New Year.

Sincerely,
Nelson Glueck

1948

NELSON GLUECK
162 GLENMARY AVENUE
CINCINNATI 20, OHIO
August 4, 1948
Dear John:

I was delighted that you agreed to accept the position of Treasurer of the American Schools of Oriental Research, to succeed Mr. Kunhardt. I am writing, by the same mail, to Carl Kraeling, to inform him of your willingness to accept this office. I know that he and the other members of the committee will be as pleased as I am.

I reiterate my promise to you, to be of whatever help I possibly can, should you ever want to consult me.

With cordial greetings, I am
Sincerely,
Nelson Glueck

—1970s—

1970

AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
Columbus Day
12 Oct. 1970
Dear Nelson:

At the ASOR program with SBL and AAR (former NABI) on Monday, Oct. 26, set for the Grant Ballroom, Hotel New Yorker (NYC) in the morning from 9-11:30 A.M., the following seems to be the program:

1. Hesi
2. Gezer
3. Sherma
4. Van Elderin ([?] in Jordan)
5. Something from [?]’s program in Syria
6. Horn (Jerusalem Arch. 1970)
7. Your 70^th birthday (more or less a repeat of June 7)

The last mentioned will thus not come until the end – 11:10 A.M., if everyone sticks to schedule.

If you can be there, the occasion would be all the nicer. If you cannot, it will be understood.

Cordially,

Ernest W.