BAR posted a “special report” today on the seal publicized by Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar earlier this month. The “report” really just consists of a very short introduction, the text of Mazar’s January 16 announcement, statements by Robert Deutsch and Anson Rainey that Mazar’s original reading of תמח is clearly erroneous, and finally—the best part—the following statement (quoted here in full) from Mazar:

I accept the suggestion made by Peter van der Veen and followed by many other scholars to read Sh l m t. Actually, I love it. For the time being, this reading is preferable to my reading of t m h or h m t. This is an opportunity also to thank the many scholars who took part in the various blogs contributing their knowledge on the subject.

Good for Mazar! She made the right choice. But … why does the BAR report (which offers a better photo of the seal than I’ve previously seen online) still refer to the whole thing as the “‘Temech’ Seal Controversy,” if everybody now agrees that the name “Temech” has nothing to do with this seal?