New-York tribune., 1908-06-09
DIR. PETERS'S REJO[NDER
CASE OF PROF. HILPRECHT
Says DR.. Mcclellan Missed the Real
Meaning of the Charges.

The Rev. DR. John P. Peters. commenting yester-
day addition to the controversy over charges
, made several years ago against Professor H V
Hilprecht. of the University of Pennsylvania. by
DR.. George Mcclellan. professor Of anatomy IN
Jefferson Medical College. said that he thought Dr.
Mcclellan in his pamphlet the discoveries in
Nippur had not altogether grasped the real mean
ing of the charges DR.. McClellan's paper, en-
titled "A Non-Partisan View of Professor Hill
precht's Work. was first read at a meeting on
April % in Philadelphia the house of Mrs. John
King Van Rensselaer, and later printed by re-
quest.
DR.. Mcclellan said that he was prompted solely
by of Justice to examine into the whole
matter, and that with this in mind he called on
Professor Hilprecht and asked him for frank
statement Of the facts. He impressed. he
said. by Professor Hprecht's honesty and truth
in all particulars that he Immediately undertook to
read all the literature published in English the
subject The greater part of his paper was taken
I'D with discussion OF personal motives which
possibly led to the attacks upon Professor Hill
precht, which he declared. were in sense from
scientific motives
In closing his pamphlet Dr. Mcclellan said that
"a careful study Of the facts leads one to concede
that the omission OF the foot notes from Professor
Hiprecht's manuscript. which qualified his state
ments as to the illustrations in Explorations in
Bible Land has been unfortunate, as 1t deprived
him of the means of explaining TO the reader his
for his conviction as to their origin This
omission. DR. Mcclellan said due to the pub
Iisher's economy.
This pamphlet which you have shown me con-
tains in one sense something new. said DIR. Peters
yesterday 70 a Tribune reporter "Dr. Mcclellan
seeks to find occasion of personal aninosity for
the charges made against DR.. Hilprecht by various
scholars His information with regard to the facts
of my own relation to the university and the ex-
pedition on which he bases his statements Is new
to me. 1t seems me, in looking over Dr. McClel-
lan's pamphlet. that he has scarcely read all the
ate al hS has alrOESther Srasped
the real meaning of the charges
DR. Peters pointed out tnat in all the reviews Of
DR. Hilprechts book reference was made TO the
tablets he had used illustrations and that every
one understood them to have been found by him
In the temple library described. DR.. Hilprecht
made attempt to correct this, general impress
sion, so far he knew, said DR.. Peters. and 1t
was more than two years later he added that the
discovery was made that the tablets had not been
found by Professor Htlprecht-
DR. Hilprecht announced the discovery in a
certain mound at Ntppur, in certain portion of
that mound, in a certain stratum. indicating It's
age OF the temple library" said DR.. Peters. He
described the contents of that library and fur
nished. in connection with the text. a number Of
cuts OF objects described as from the temple
library. The discovery was hailed with enthusi-
asrn in my own review OF the book. in general
by scholars and references we're made TO some OF
the tablets which Dr.. Hilprecht had used as Illus
trations showing that the universal understanding
was that those objects were found in the place
and in the described by DIR. Hiprecht-
Presumably he a number of these reviews or
notices.
However no correction was made. and every
body led and left TO suppose what the book
seemed clearly to say: that these objects were
found by him in the temple library described 1t
was over a year, I think. two years, after the
publication of the book before Of the curators
of the museum noticed that some of the objects
used for illustration had markings which appeared
TO show a different period and different place OF
discovery.
This led to the examination of all the objects
found. when 1t proved apparently, that every one
of the objects used illustration was either
bought ten or a dozen years before or found in
some other place anywhere from five months TO
years before the date of the discovery Of the
alleged library
''Hprecht's defence, which has been pub
lshed, admits this fact with regard to almost all
of these objects. His defence is that he did not
mean to say that precisely those objects were
found in the library but only that something Ike
them was found. and that anyway he knew in his
heart that those objects did from the library,
and that, Furthermore. all Nippur was library.
and anything found in Nppur belonged to the