Sunday, July 18, 2010
title 82.titl.003 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
The title of the chapter has particular resonance in the Soviet Union, where talking to strangers could get one into trouble with the secret police. Few foreigners visited, and those who did were required to register with the authorities, stay in special hotels, and they were watched very closely.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
situation 552.sit.61 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
If the Tsarist Russian state was very bureaucratic, the Soviet State was even more so. Stalin capitalized on the Russians' traditional view of language and signs in general (be they icons or political posters) as primary. Language (the document) determines reality, and not vice versa. This situation has a host of corollaries. Lacking a document means that one does not exist in some important sense. Anyone who was arrested and executed, particularly if he was an "enemy of the people," could become a nonperson. His existence could be expunged from the record. Photographs were retouched to show the new reality (see the new book The Commissar Vanishes, by David King). Names were changed: when Trotsky became an "enemy of the people" anyone with that surname could become a victim; many changed their names (this in spite of the fact that "Trotsky" was itself the Revolutionary name of Lev Bernshtein, so anyone with the real surname was not a relative!). When Beria, head of the NKVD, fell into disfavor, the B volume of the Soviet Encyclopedia had already come out. Subscribers were sent an expanded page on the Bering Straights and instructed to paste it in over the article praising Beria. The enemy ceased to exist!
Saturday, June 26, 2010
important 332.09 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
3. What makes Timothy Good so credible as a researcher?
First, it is important to define credible --
cred·i·ble : offering reasonable grounds for being believed From www.merriam-webster
As a threshold matters, Mr. Good does not come across as a crank, obviously he is well educated and well spoken, and held a job for 20 years that is very competitive to secure: he worked as a professional violinist. Other factors that, in my opinion, add to his credibility are –
First, it is important to define credible --
cred·i·ble : offering reasonable grounds for being believed From www.merriam-webster
As a threshold matters, Mr. Good does not come across as a crank, obviously he is well educated and well spoken, and held a job for 20 years that is very competitive to secure: he worked as a professional violinist. Other factors that, in my opinion, add to his credibility are –
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
rodham 332.rod.003 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived at the White House after serving as First Lady of Arkansas for twelve years. During that time she worked as a full-time partner of a law firm, chaired an education committee that set public school standards in Arkansas, managed a home, and cared for her husband and child. On many occasions, Hillary Clinton has spoken about the need to find the right balance in our lives. For her, the elements of that balance are family, work, and public service.
Hillary Diane Rodham was born in Chicago, Illinois, on October 26, 1947, daughter of Hugh and Dorothy Rodham. She and her younger two brothers grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, as a close-knit family. An excellent student, she was also a Girl Scout and a member of the local Methodist youth group. Hillary also enjoyed sports and was always interested in politics.
She entered Wellesley College in 1965. Graduating with high honors, she moved on to Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. While at Yale, she developed her special concern for protecting the best interests of children and their families. It was there that she met Bill Clinton, a fellow student.
In 1973, Hillary became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. A year later she was recruited by the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to work on the Watergate Impeachment proceedings.
Hillary Diane Rodham was born in Chicago, Illinois, on October 26, 1947, daughter of Hugh and Dorothy Rodham. She and her younger two brothers grew up in Park Ridge, Illinois, as a close-knit family. An excellent student, she was also a Girl Scout and a member of the local Methodist youth group. Hillary also enjoyed sports and was always interested in politics.
She entered Wellesley College in 1965. Graduating with high honors, she moved on to Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. While at Yale, she developed her special concern for protecting the best interests of children and their families. It was there that she met Bill Clinton, a fellow student.
In 1973, Hillary became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. A year later she was recruited by the Impeachment Inquiry staff of the Judiciary Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to work on the Watergate Impeachment proceedings.
Monday, May 10, 2010
running 332.77 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
A: After the stage in which we fought, while trying to restructure our forces, we switched to an offensive, to a counter-attack, and the plan was that Sharon's division, with all the crossing equipment, would conquer a bridge-head and lay bridges in one night, and my division would remain behind, prepared, and in the morning it would cross the bridges and go directly to Suez to surround the Third Army. What happened was that Sharon's division succeeded immensely: they crossed over, they got a good position, and acted in the enemy's rear; but then the Egyptians discovered them and terrible battles began there, bloody battles at a close range: 30 meters between them. And then in the morning, we had a bridge-head, but Sharon's division was completely worn out; they had terrible losses, they had very few tanks, they had a great number of casualties, and the passageway to the bridge-head was in fact cut off by the Egyptians: it was under Egyptian fire and it was impossible to take equipment across. What was worse was that during the night, Sharon did not manage to bring across the bridge-building equipment. This equipment, I must say, was very awkward: we had rafts, each of which weighed 80 tons, dragged along by tanks. We had a bridge that weighed 250 tons, and it was dragged through the sand dunes. It broke: the rafts got stuck in the convoys way back, dozens of kilometers behind us, and none of the crossing equipment arrived at the bridgehead. In the morning, when we reached the bridge-head, it turned out that it was under Egyptian fire, so, in contrast to our plan of building the bridges and crossing in one night, in fact in the morning we woke up with a bridge-head, a passageway to the bridge-head, but no crossing equipment at all, and it was all stuck in convoys along very, very narrow roads, with sand-dunes on both sides of the roads, and it was clear that in fact the crossing had failed in a certain sense. Now, my division was activated in the morning, because the Egyptians attacked with tanks both east and west of the Canal, and we were brought into the battle in order to push them back and get them away from the bridgehead. My division was supposed to concentrate all the crossing equipment that Sharon had left behind, and we very, very slowly, managed to get all this very heavy equipment up front, not far from the bridge-head; and during an entire day, the 16th of the month, we had battles with Egyptian tanks that were trying to drag us... there were many canals there - it was called "the Chinese farm": it was an agricultural area with canals in which Egyptian soldiers were running around. They tried to use sagger missiles against us; they would attack us and run back, so that we would run after them into the trenches and [then] they would attack us. But in fact we fought them from afar and we did not get dragged into the trenches. So an entire day's fighting went by. In the meantime, we asked for reinforcements of paratroopers, infantry, to clean out these trenches and to get the Egyptians further away and broaden the bridgehead. But in the meantime, we got information that the Third Army was sending an Egyptian brigade to attack from the south. As it was, they were attacking only from the north; now we were told that Egyptian tanks would be arriving from the south to attack us as well. Then I decided that I would put a tank brigade in ambush in the sand dunes; I would camouflage them with nets and they would be there to act against the force coming from the south. And in the morning... no, at night, that night we got paratroopers, and they went out into battle to broaden the passageway to the bridgehead. They arrived quite late; they came from Sharm-al-Sheikh, from a very far-away front, and they arrived in helicopters, very slowly... and we built up a paratrooper battalion, which entered into a very difficult battle.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
GeV 81.gev.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
In the third method of search, Fig. 10(c), only a single γ-ray is detected. The presence of a monoenergetic y-ray line would signal a radiative transition directly to a specific intermediate state. In our apparatus, this method is difficult to apply because of the severe background problems, but we were able to identify the direct γ-ray transition to the 3.4 GeV state [17]. A different experimental group working at SPEAR (a collaboration among the Uni- versities of Maryland, Princeton, Pavia, Stanford and UC-San Diego) was able to make use of a more refined detection system to observe several of these radiative transitions and to measure the v’ branching franctions of those states [19]
.
To summarize, these studies have led to the addition of four (the 2800-MeV state is still marginal) new intermediate state, all with charge-conjugation C = + 1, to the original ψ and y’ particles.
6. TOTAL CROSS SECTION AND BROADER STATES
6.1. Total Cross Section
So far our discussion of the process e+e-→hadrons has been concerned largely with the two psi particles, which are created directly in e+e- annihilation, and with the intermediate states, which are not directly created but rather appear only in the decay products of the ψ and y’. It is now time to turn our attention to the larger picture of hadron production to see what else can be learned.
Figure 4 presented the total cross section for e+e-→hadrons over the full range of c.m. energies accessible to SPEAR. This figure was dominated by the ψ and y’ resonance peaks, and very little else about the possible structure of the
cross section outside of these peaks was observable. We now remedy this situation in Fig. 13, which shows the hadron/muon-pair ratio R, with the dominating ψ and w’ resonance peaks removed, including their radiative tails.
8-
6-
B. Richter 297
We can characterize the data in the following way. Below about 3.8 GeV, R lies on a roughly constant plateau at a value of ~2.5; there is a complex transition region between about 3.8 and perhaps 5 GeV in which there is considerable structure; and above about 5.5 GeV, R once again lies on a roughly constant plateau at a value of ~5.2 GeV.
6.2. Broader (Psi?) States
The transition region is shown on a much expanded energy scale in Fig. 14. This figure clearly shows that there seem to be several individual resonant states superposed on the rising background curve that connects the lower and upper plateau regions [20]. One state stands out quite clearly at a mass of 3.95 GeV, and another at about 4.4 GeV. The region near 4.1 GeV is re- markably complex and is probably composed of two or more overlapping states; more data will certainly be required to try to sort this out.
.
To summarize, these studies have led to the addition of four (the 2800-MeV state is still marginal) new intermediate state, all with charge-conjugation C = + 1, to the original ψ and y’ particles.
6. TOTAL CROSS SECTION AND BROADER STATES
6.1. Total Cross Section
So far our discussion of the process e+e-→hadrons has been concerned largely with the two psi particles, which are created directly in e+e- annihilation, and with the intermediate states, which are not directly created but rather appear only in the decay products of the ψ and y’. It is now time to turn our attention to the larger picture of hadron production to see what else can be learned.
Figure 4 presented the total cross section for e+e-→hadrons over the full range of c.m. energies accessible to SPEAR. This figure was dominated by the ψ and y’ resonance peaks, and very little else about the possible structure of the
cross section outside of these peaks was observable. We now remedy this situation in Fig. 13, which shows the hadron/muon-pair ratio R, with the dominating ψ and w’ resonance peaks removed, including their radiative tails.
8-
6-
B. Richter 297
We can characterize the data in the following way. Below about 3.8 GeV, R lies on a roughly constant plateau at a value of ~2.5; there is a complex transition region between about 3.8 and perhaps 5 GeV in which there is considerable structure; and above about 5.5 GeV, R once again lies on a roughly constant plateau at a value of ~5.2 GeV.
6.2. Broader (Psi?) States
The transition region is shown on a much expanded energy scale in Fig. 14. This figure clearly shows that there seem to be several individual resonant states superposed on the rising background curve that connects the lower and upper plateau regions [20]. One state stands out quite clearly at a mass of 3.95 GeV, and another at about 4.4 GeV. The region near 4.1 GeV is re- markably complex and is probably composed of two or more overlapping states; more data will certainly be required to try to sort this out.
Friday, April 16, 2010
event 44.eve.0002002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Even before his downfall in 1973, Dayan was criticized by dovish, radical and/or left-wing politicians and journalists. Their criticism was motivated not so much by love of antiquities, but by hatred of his politics.� However, because of their political standing, they were treated as enemies and their criticism was discarded even when it was accurate. Such early critics included Dan Ben Amotz and Uri Avneri. Dan Ben-Amotz published detailed reports in the radical newspaper �Ha-olam Ha-zeh� (�This World�). In December 1971 he made a long list of accusations against Dayan, republished in one of his books (Ben-Amotz 1974:29-34): Dayan robbed antiquities; lied about it; abused his high position by using army personnel and material for his private aims, sold antiquities, and did not pay income taxes for profits from selling antiquities. Desperate about the authorities� lack of action, Ben Amotz staged a �demonstrative excavation� at Tel Qasileh near Tel Aviv. The police only took his turiyah [hoe] and did not arrest him. He complained at the police, but the file was closed on pretence that the complaint was unfounded (for another early critique see Geva 1977).�
7.1.4� Uri Avneri, a journalist, radical politician who was also an MK, handed a series of queries against Dayan on 6th December 1971 in the Knesset (cf. Kim 1991:4). Dayan denied all allegations. He claimed that he never bought antiquities for money and did not held �any antiquity of archaeological value that is not known to archaeologists working in Israel Museum, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Universities and the IDAM. Furthermore, archaeologists used and are using, freely, all the finds in my collection for their scientific work and exhibitions�.� Dayan said that he �never sold or gave an Israeli object of archaeological value to someone who has no authority [for dealing] in that by the IDAM ... to the best of my knowledge I do not transgress the law of antiquity and do not use bulldozers, tractors, lifts, trucks and helicopters for excavating and delivering antiquities.�� Dayan only admitted that occasionally he visited sites while on work-tours (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:532).�
Avneri (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:533) surprised Dayan with another question: �I am holding in my hand here an advertisement from the �Los Angeles Times� of 12.10.1970, where archaeological items of the Biblical period �from the famous collection of Moshe Dayan� are offered for sale, priced 100 or 200 dollars each. Have you received permit to excavate, search, trade or export antiquities, and if not- what is the origin of these antiquities�? Dayan replied (Divrei HaKnesset 1971, no. 62:533): �This is not exactly another question, certainly not relating to the Ministry of Defense, but I will gladly answer... I already said that according to the best of my knowledge, I did not transgress any law of antiquities. Second, I do not export or trade in antiquities. As for the advertisement, it is conceivable that the buyer or man from Los Angeles bought while in Israel antiquities from my collection... Occasionally, I take out surplus items from my collection and sell them, so perhaps he bought them in Israel and later sold them in Los Angeles.� Avneri�s remark: �but this is definitely against the law� remained unanswered.
A second round of queries was heard on 22.12.1971 (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1971, no. 62:721). Yig�al Alon, answering for the Ministry of Education, admitted that Dayan had not received permit to excavate, export or trade in antiquities.� Furthermore, no supervision of his collection was made �after December 1971�.�� Avneri asked Prime Minister Golda Meir on 19.1.1972 whether ministers are allowed to trade; whether she investigated if Dayan trades in antiquities; and if so, was he required to cease?� Golda Meir answered (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053) that the law does not specifically forbid a Minister to trade; that she was informed that all these complains were checked properly.� Avneri asked: �Honorable Prime Minister, it is a question of principles: does right order permits a minister in the state of Israel to be a professional trader, in any kind of merchandise? Does not the Prime Minister have an opinion about this?� Golda only mocked him: �If MK Avneri wishes to ask about good order- he may, though I am not quite sure if he is interested in my private opinion. In any case, if he is, he can ask me privately, and if I find it worthy of answering him, I shall.� (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053).
��������� As long as Dayan was a national hero the media refrained from criticizing him, turning a blind eye to his deeds, with very few exceptions. This attitude changed after 1973, but then Dayan was mainly robbing sites through help of others, or buying antiquities, not digging with his own hands.
7.2. �� Criticism by Biographers
7.2.1� Most of Dayan�s biographers do not condemn his deeds. Taslitt barely mentions Dayan�s interest in archaeology, and does so in praising terms: �the farm tools tucked away in the trunk of his car were for a purpose quite apart from agriculture- to dig for ancient sites and uncover relics from days long gone by� (Taslitt 1969:158).� Teveth (1972) does not accept Dayan�s hobby-horse as good, but repeats and accepts his arguments for defending it. Teveth also admires the man �above the law�, and his contempt is directed towards those who fail to stop him.� Teveth (1972:202) quotes Dayan�s words that �if he were given the choice of digging for antiquities half of his life and spending the other half in jail, or not digging at all and remaining a free man, he would choose the former.�� Teveth (1972:202) also admires Dayan�s collection: �the precious relics in the garden, as well as in his house, have made ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Islands an inseparable part of his daily thoughts.�� Falk (1985, cf. Adler 1987) was the only biographer who criticized Dayan�s digs clearly and consistently, perhaps because he, a psychoanalyst, was used to handle deceptive statements (regardless of the contribution of this psychological biography, which can be doubted). Falk understood that Dayan�s claim of saving antiquities is paradoxical, and that� �the fact that Israeli society was not able to limit the narcissistic greatness complex of Moshe Dayan, and put an end to the attitude that he can do whatever he wants, is a sad evidence to its lack of maturity at that time�. It was like in the period of the Judges before the Kingdom, said Falk, quoting Judges 21:25 (Falk 1985:246).
7.2.2� Surprisingly, later biographers did not follow Falk. Slater repeated Dayan�s excuses and the unfounded appraisals of his deeds: �As time went Dayan became a great expert in the subject. He had a dexterity that enabled him to take the relics and piece them together into a whole� (Slater 1991:161). �By all accounts, Dayan was a superb archaeologist... the commonly held view of Moshe Dayan as an archaeologist was unfailingly complimentary; it was said that he had a keen sense of where to dig, and when he reached a site, he had the diligence and patience of a prospector looking for gold� (Slater 1991:161-162- not understanding that archaeology is the very opposite of gold prospecting).� �Besides, through some of Dayan�s efforts, valuable relics were saved from being destroyed by oncoming bulldozers� (Slater 1991:326).� As late as 1997, Ehud Ben-Ezer still had a tone of approval and admiration: �Moshe does not intend to devote himself to archaeology, like chief of staff Yadin... he remains an amateur. But what an Amateur!� (Ben Ezer 1997:121; cf. Ben Ezer 1997:218-219).
7.3 ��� Criticism following the display of his collection
7.3.1 An event that furnished occasion for public debate about Dayan�s illicit digging was the display of his collection in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem in April 1985. Many criticized the Israel Museum for displaying stolen antiquities, and for buying them for so much money. Most clear is Tom Segev (1986:61-62). Segev mocks Dayan by reference to an old white porcelain night-pot of Winston Churchill, exhibited in the London WWII bunkers, which he had once seen, �but Churchill, as far as I know, had not stolen this pot, and if he had, his widow had not sold it back to the state�.� Other critics included Ariel (1986:9);� Bar Kedma (1986:23-24); Ilan (1986:7); Hareven (1986) and Boshes (1986).� A demonstration of a group of archaeologists took place at the opening day of the exhibition (Ilan 1986:7; Meshel, pers. com.).� Though some still admired the collection and the Museum (Aarons 1982), it seems that the wide public started to despise Dayan�s deeds as a result of this exhibition. The Israel museum soon dispersed the collection.
7.1.4� Uri Avneri, a journalist, radical politician who was also an MK, handed a series of queries against Dayan on 6th December 1971 in the Knesset (cf. Kim 1991:4). Dayan denied all allegations. He claimed that he never bought antiquities for money and did not held �any antiquity of archaeological value that is not known to archaeologists working in Israel Museum, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Universities and the IDAM. Furthermore, archaeologists used and are using, freely, all the finds in my collection for their scientific work and exhibitions�.� Dayan said that he �never sold or gave an Israeli object of archaeological value to someone who has no authority [for dealing] in that by the IDAM ... to the best of my knowledge I do not transgress the law of antiquity and do not use bulldozers, tractors, lifts, trucks and helicopters for excavating and delivering antiquities.�� Dayan only admitted that occasionally he visited sites while on work-tours (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:532).�
Avneri (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:533) surprised Dayan with another question: �I am holding in my hand here an advertisement from the �Los Angeles Times� of 12.10.1970, where archaeological items of the Biblical period �from the famous collection of Moshe Dayan� are offered for sale, priced 100 or 200 dollars each. Have you received permit to excavate, search, trade or export antiquities, and if not- what is the origin of these antiquities�? Dayan replied (Divrei HaKnesset 1971, no. 62:533): �This is not exactly another question, certainly not relating to the Ministry of Defense, but I will gladly answer... I already said that according to the best of my knowledge, I did not transgress any law of antiquities. Second, I do not export or trade in antiquities. As for the advertisement, it is conceivable that the buyer or man from Los Angeles bought while in Israel antiquities from my collection... Occasionally, I take out surplus items from my collection and sell them, so perhaps he bought them in Israel and later sold them in Los Angeles.� Avneri�s remark: �but this is definitely against the law� remained unanswered.
A second round of queries was heard on 22.12.1971 (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1971, no. 62:721). Yig�al Alon, answering for the Ministry of Education, admitted that Dayan had not received permit to excavate, export or trade in antiquities.� Furthermore, no supervision of his collection was made �after December 1971�.�� Avneri asked Prime Minister Golda Meir on 19.1.1972 whether ministers are allowed to trade; whether she investigated if Dayan trades in antiquities; and if so, was he required to cease?� Golda Meir answered (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053) that the law does not specifically forbid a Minister to trade; that she was informed that all these complains were checked properly.� Avneri asked: �Honorable Prime Minister, it is a question of principles: does right order permits a minister in the state of Israel to be a professional trader, in any kind of merchandise? Does not the Prime Minister have an opinion about this?� Golda only mocked him: �If MK Avneri wishes to ask about good order- he may, though I am not quite sure if he is interested in my private opinion. In any case, if he is, he can ask me privately, and if I find it worthy of answering him, I shall.� (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053).
��������� As long as Dayan was a national hero the media refrained from criticizing him, turning a blind eye to his deeds, with very few exceptions. This attitude changed after 1973, but then Dayan was mainly robbing sites through help of others, or buying antiquities, not digging with his own hands.
7.2. �� Criticism by Biographers
7.2.1� Most of Dayan�s biographers do not condemn his deeds. Taslitt barely mentions Dayan�s interest in archaeology, and does so in praising terms: �the farm tools tucked away in the trunk of his car were for a purpose quite apart from agriculture- to dig for ancient sites and uncover relics from days long gone by� (Taslitt 1969:158).� Teveth (1972) does not accept Dayan�s hobby-horse as good, but repeats and accepts his arguments for defending it. Teveth also admires the man �above the law�, and his contempt is directed towards those who fail to stop him.� Teveth (1972:202) quotes Dayan�s words that �if he were given the choice of digging for antiquities half of his life and spending the other half in jail, or not digging at all and remaining a free man, he would choose the former.�� Teveth (1972:202) also admires Dayan�s collection: �the precious relics in the garden, as well as in his house, have made ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Islands an inseparable part of his daily thoughts.�� Falk (1985, cf. Adler 1987) was the only biographer who criticized Dayan�s digs clearly and consistently, perhaps because he, a psychoanalyst, was used to handle deceptive statements (regardless of the contribution of this psychological biography, which can be doubted). Falk understood that Dayan�s claim of saving antiquities is paradoxical, and that� �the fact that Israeli society was not able to limit the narcissistic greatness complex of Moshe Dayan, and put an end to the attitude that he can do whatever he wants, is a sad evidence to its lack of maturity at that time�. It was like in the period of the Judges before the Kingdom, said Falk, quoting Judges 21:25 (Falk 1985:246).
7.2.2� Surprisingly, later biographers did not follow Falk. Slater repeated Dayan�s excuses and the unfounded appraisals of his deeds: �As time went Dayan became a great expert in the subject. He had a dexterity that enabled him to take the relics and piece them together into a whole� (Slater 1991:161). �By all accounts, Dayan was a superb archaeologist... the commonly held view of Moshe Dayan as an archaeologist was unfailingly complimentary; it was said that he had a keen sense of where to dig, and when he reached a site, he had the diligence and patience of a prospector looking for gold� (Slater 1991:161-162- not understanding that archaeology is the very opposite of gold prospecting).� �Besides, through some of Dayan�s efforts, valuable relics were saved from being destroyed by oncoming bulldozers� (Slater 1991:326).� As late as 1997, Ehud Ben-Ezer still had a tone of approval and admiration: �Moshe does not intend to devote himself to archaeology, like chief of staff Yadin... he remains an amateur. But what an Amateur!� (Ben Ezer 1997:121; cf. Ben Ezer 1997:218-219).
7.3 ��� Criticism following the display of his collection
7.3.1 An event that furnished occasion for public debate about Dayan�s illicit digging was the display of his collection in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem in April 1985. Many criticized the Israel Museum for displaying stolen antiquities, and for buying them for so much money. Most clear is Tom Segev (1986:61-62). Segev mocks Dayan by reference to an old white porcelain night-pot of Winston Churchill, exhibited in the London WWII bunkers, which he had once seen, �but Churchill, as far as I know, had not stolen this pot, and if he had, his widow had not sold it back to the state�.� Other critics included Ariel (1986:9);� Bar Kedma (1986:23-24); Ilan (1986:7); Hareven (1986) and Boshes (1986).� A demonstration of a group of archaeologists took place at the opening day of the exhibition (Ilan 1986:7; Meshel, pers. com.).� Though some still admired the collection and the Museum (Aarons 1982), it seems that the wide public started to despise Dayan�s deeds as a result of this exhibition. The Israel museum soon dispersed the collection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
