The Changing Landscape of Israeli Archaeology (Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern History) [1 ed.] 1032487143, 9781032487144

Citation preview

Hayah Katz’s book The Changing Landscape of Israeli Archaeology is an original study, which includes a number of “firsts” in terms of subjects. It treats expertly the secular archaeology of the establishment and the Academy in the first decades of Israel, and the responses to it by the religious Jewish and Palestinian-Israeli communities. The discussion of women in Israeli archaeology is a bonus. The author is a religious, open-minded archaeologist, and her writing expresses clarity and empathy. Raz Kletter, Docent for Near Eastern Archaeology, University of Helsinki

The Changing Landscape of Israeli Archaeology

Focused on the connections between archaeology and Israeli society, this book examines the development of Israeli archaeological research, taking historical, sociological, and political contexts into account. Adopting a Foucauldian framework of power and knowledge, the author begins by focusing on archaeological knowledge as a hegemonic discipline, buttressing the national Zionist identity after the establishment of the State of Israel. The liberalization of political culture in the late 1970s, it is argued, opened the door for a more democratized archaeological discipline. Making use of in-depth interviews with archaeologists belonging to various groups in Israeli society as well as documents from the Israel State Archives (ISA), the book touches on multiple fields of research, including Near Eastern archaeology, religious Jewish society, Israel/Palestine relations, and the status of women in Israel. Moreover, although the book deals with the sociology of Israeli archaeology specifically, the author’s comparative approach—which highlights the mirroring of social processes and the archaeological discipline—can also be applied to other societies. The book will be of interest to researchers and students in the fields of archaeology, sociology, and Israel Studies, as well as to readers with a general interest in the archaeology of the Holy Land. Hayah Katz is a senior lecturer in the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Kinneret College. Her main field of expertise is biblical archaeology. Another research focus is the historiography of archaeological research in the Land of Israel from the 1920s until modern times. As part of this research, she has written the biography of Ruth Amiran.

Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern History

The region’s history from the earliest times to the present is catered for by this series made up of the very latest research. Books include political, social, cultural, religious and economic history. 17. The Secret Anglo-French War in the Middle East Intelligence and Decolonization, 1940–1948 Meir Zamir 18. Histories of the Jews of Egypt An Imagined Bourgeoisie Dario Miccoli 19. The Empress Nurbanu and Ottoman Politics in the Sixteenth Century Building the Atik Valide Pinar Kayaalp 20. Britain and the Arab Gulf after Empire Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, 1971–1981 Simon C. Smith 21. Hebrew Popular Journalism Birth and Development in Ottoman Palestine Ouzi Elyada 22. The British Mandate in Palestine A Centenary Volume, 1920–2020 Edited by Michael J Cohen 23. America’s Arab Nationalists From the Ottoman Revolution to the Rise of Hitler Aaron Berman 24. The Changing Landscape of Israeli Archaeology Between Hegemony and Marginalization Hayah Katz For a full list of titles, please visit: www​.routledge​.com​/middleeaststudies​/series​/ SE0811

The Changing Landscape of Israeli Archaeology

Between Hegemony and Marginalization

Hayah Katz

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Hayah Katz The right of Hayah Katz to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Katz, Hayah, author. Title: The changing landscape of Israeli archaeology : between hegemony and marginalization / Hayah Katz. Description: New York : Routledge, 2023. | Series: Routledge studies in Middle Eastern history | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023004805 (print) | LCCN 2023004806 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032487144 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032487151 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003390411 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Archaeology—Social aspects—Israel. | Archaeology—Research—Israel. | Israel—Antiquities. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Israel—History. | Archaeologists—Israel—Attitudes. | Palestine—Antiquities. | Israel. Ganzakh ha-medinah—History. Classification: LCC DS111.1 .K39 2023 (print) | LCC DS111.1 (ebook) | DDC 933/.4—dc23/eng/20230216 LC record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2023004805 LC ebook record available at https://lccn​.loc​.gov​/2023004806 ISBN: 978-1-032-48714-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-48715-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-39041-1 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003390411 Typeset in Times New Roman by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

To my husband, Yaki

Contents

List of Figures xi List of Tables xii Acknowledgments xiii Introduction

1

Notes 8 References 8 1

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society

10

The beginnings of Jewish archaeological research  10 The religion of the soil and the religion of archaeology  20 Changes in Israeli society’s attitude to archaeology  21 Community archaeology  23 The IAA Cultural Heritage Project  27 Notes 28 References 29 2

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology The flourishing and decline of Christian biblical archaeology  35 The attitude of observant Jewish society to archaeology up to the 1980s 37 Archaeology as a symbol of secularism  40 “Archaeology of above” and “archaeology of below”  41 Bible study in observant Jewish society  42 Between theology and rabbinics  44 The attitude to archaeology in religious Zionist society from the 1980s and onwards  45 The Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at BarIlan University  45 The influence of the Six Day War  47

34

x  Contents The attitude of the Haredi public to archaeology  48 Notes  51 References  52 3

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves

56

The halakhic prohibition of moving graves  57 Between religious Zionist and Haredi society  58 The first struggles  59 The Area G excavations  66 The cemetery on the Ophel slope  67 The City of David excavations: 1981  69 The shovel test east of Area G  74 Aftermath 76 Notes 77 References 78 4

The Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology

81

The attitude to archaeology during the Mandate period  82 Between Jews and Arabs at the Palestine Archaeological Museum 86 The attitude to archaeology after 1948  88 The attitude to archaeology from the 1980s onwards  89 The archaeology of the abandoned Palestinian villages  90 Notes  95 References 96 5

Women in Israeli archaeology

99

Women archaeologists during the Mandate period  100 Women archaeologists after the establishment of the state of Israel 103 Ruth Amiran: an exemplar of an Israeli female archaeologist  105 Has archaeology indeed “escaped from the kitchen”?  109 Notes 113 References 114 Conclusions

116

Notes 120 References 120 Index 121

Figures

1.1 Mazar’s dig at Beit She’arim 1.2 Part of a stone jamb from the central entrance of the ancient synagogue in ‘Alma 1.3 Israel Exploration Society meeting at Shivta, 1953 1.4 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion during his visit to Hazor 1.5 The community excavation at Korazim 1.6 A landmark of the Sanhedrin Trail in Tiberias with a verse from the Mishnah 2.1 Shmuel Klein 2.2 Matmoney Eretz meeting in the Western Wall Tunnel 3.1 The Tombs of the Kings 3.2 City of David, Area G looking south 3.3 An aerial photo of the Ophel slope 3.4 Yigal Shiloh opposite Rabbi Uri Bloy, the leader of the ultraOrthodox community 3.5 Zebulun Hammer, the Minister of Education and Culture 4.1 The village of Zir‘in (between 1898 and 1914) 5.1 Trude Dothan, Deir el-Balah 5.2 Claire Epstein 5.3 Ruth Amiran, et-Tell (biblical Ai) excavation, 1934 5.4 Ruth Amiran, Tel Arad

11 14 17 20 26 28 38 50 60 66 67 70 71 94 103 104 105 108

Tables

5.1 Percentage of Women Who Submitted Grants to the ISF and Received Funding, between 2010 and 2020 5.2 Distribution of Grants between the Years 2020 and 2010, According to Topics 5.3 Distribution of Grants to Fund Excavations between the Years 2020 and 2010, According to Periods

111 111 111

Acknowledgments

It is my pleasant duty to thank everyone who helped me bring this book to completion. The book originated in questions that have accompanied me from the beginning of my studies in the Department of Archeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University. Over the years I have discussed these issues with friends and colleagues, but only in recent years have I formulated these ideas into actual research. The book deals with a variety of sociological and historical aspects of the growth of Israeli archaeology. I would like to thank Prof. Dan Bahat, Prof. Anna BelferCohen, Prof. Yuval Gadot, Prof. Naama Goren-Inbar, Prof. Moshe Garsiel, Prof. Raphael Greenberg, Prof. Mustafa Kabha, Prof. Jodi Magness, Prof. Ronny Reich, Prof. Anita Shapira, Prof. Dov Schwartz, Dr. Einat Ambar-Armon, Dr. Donald T. Ariel, Dr. Walid Atrash, Dr. Katia Cytryn-Silverman, Dr. Tawfiq Da’adli, Dr. Norma Franklin, Dr Mordechay Lash, Dr. Benny Nuriely, Dr. Nava Panitz-Cohen, Dr. Orit Ramon, Dr. Kamil Sari, Dr. Yifat Thareani, Omar Asfour, Ortal Chalaf, Alon De-Groot, David Even, Pirchia Eyall, Harel Gootfriend, Moran Hajbi, Michal Marmelstein, Zevulun Orlev, Gideon Solimani, Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun, and Rabbi Yosef Michael Yoskovitch. All of them took the time to clarify various issues, patiently answered all my questions, and brought to my attention details that had not been published before. I am grateful to Udi Kalner, Hala Jubran, and Tammar Friedman, who helped in locating details required for this research; to Irit Zauberman from the Open University who located articles and books for me; and to Silvia Krapiwko for processing the illustrations. My thanks to the students in the Archaeology and Politics course: in the course of classroom discussions with them, I formulated some of the ideas presented here; and to the faculty of the Department of Land of Israel Studies at my home institution, Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee, who faithfully accompanied the writing of the book. I am grateful to the readers of the manuscript, who contributed to its accuracy. Deepest thanks go to Prof. Nimrod Luz and Dr. Raz Kletter, with each of whom I conducted a fruitful dialogue that helped me refine and clarify various issues. I owe special thanks to Leigh Chipman, for the translation and editing carried out with a sharp eye and a kind heart. January 2023

Introduction

Why have so few women directed excavations in Israel until recently? Why were observant Jewish archaeologists a rarity in the early years of Israeli archaeology? And what about minority groups’ attitudes to and presence in this profession? These questions have intrigued me since the late 1980s, when I was a budding archaeologist who was always the odd one out, as both a woman and a practicing Jew. As an observant archaeologist, I tried to understand the absence of similarly observant people from the profession, and as a woman, I saw around me a female dominance in the field of pottery analysis but not in conducting excavations. Over the years, I have pondered these issues and, at the same time, begun to engage in the history of archaeological research. This book follows these questions, which have been haunting me for decades, and examines the processes of the development of archaeological knowledge in Israel/Palestine, from the establishment of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society in 1913 to the present day, from the perspective of marginalized and non-hegemonic groups: observant Jews, women (both groups to which I belong), and Arabs, the ultimate “other.” By focusing our attention on these groups, this book sets out to address a lacuna in the field and provides a fresh perspective on the development of Israeli archaeology as mirroring socio-political processes in Israeli society. In this book I aim to analyze the development of Israeli archaeological research, taking historical, sociological, and political contexts into account. The book focuses on the connections between archaeology and Israeli society. The purpose of the book, therefore, is not to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it relates to Israeli archaeology (such as issues of colonialism: Abu El-Haj 2001; Kletter 2019; Greenberg 2021) but rather to examine the divisions within Israeli society through the archaeological prism. The research is a case study dealing with the changes that occur in archaeological activities in the transition from a society mobilized to serve the hegemony to a multicultural one that strives for neutrality and professionalism. Scientific research on the Holy Land began during the first half of the 19th century and included research in the fields of history, historical geography, and archaeology. However, in contrast to the countless studies that have been written on these topics over the years, until recently, only a few researchers have focused on the historiography of research on the Land of Israel. That said, in recent years there has been a significant increase in interest in topics related to the history of archaeology, and the importance of research which engages with the processes DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-1

2 Introduction that take place “behind the scenes” and shape knowledge itself has become more clearly recognized. So far, only a few studies have been written on the development of the discipline of archaeology in Israel. Most of them have dealt with the archaeological establishment during the first 20 years after the founding of the state of Israel, both official (the Department of Antiquities, later the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums [IDAM] and the Israel Antiquities Authority [IAA]) and semi-official (the Israel Exploration Society). Moreover, the main emphasis in these studies was on issues related to the connection between the archaeological establishment and Zionist nationalism (Silberman 1989; Silberman and Small 1997; Zerubavel 1995; Abu El-Haj 2001; Kletter 2006, 2008, 2017; Feige and Shiloni 2008; Greenberg and Hamilakis 2022, among others). I discovered that this viewpoint, which relates to the aspects mentioned above, corresponds with the Foucauldian conception of power/knowledge. According to Foucault, the development of knowledge in the various disciplines is first and foremost a product of the social relations that shape it. Therefore, the accumulated knowledge not only is invested in proofs, nor is it only tested by the degree of objective truth within it, but also reflects institutional and political power structures and the changes that occur in them. The institutionalization of discourse formations is thus related to social factors; in this manner, the discourse makes certain ideas and values prevalent, while allowing others to be excluded. Another significance that derives from these power relationships, according to Foucault, is that discourse formations change over time in accordance with social and cultural changes (Foucault 1965, 1972). As we will see in this study, the development of archaeological knowledge in Israel and the changes that took place over the years were largely influenced by the profound processes that Israeli society underwent. Furthermore, the attitude of the various groups to the field faithfully reflects their social status and their degree of affiliation to the Zionist ideological collective. As noted above, nearly all the earlier studies that deal with the development of archaeological knowledge in Israel focus on the Israeli secular sphere, which reflected the hegemonic group in Israeli society in the first decades following the establishment of the state in 1948 (see below). During these early decades all archaeological activities took place within this group, either in professional settings or by volunteers, who saw themselves as seekers of knowledge and as patriots. In contrast, the processes associated with the attitudes of other groups in Israeli society to archaeology have rarely been examined. In this book, I will therefore focus on two additional groups: the Jewish religiously observant community and the Palestinian citizens of Israel.1 I will examine how changes in the status of various groups in Israeli society, including changes to do with issues of hegemony and marginal groups, are also reflected in processes related to the development of archaeological knowledge. In the first stage, I examine what processes have transpired in each group in particular, and then I analyze the reciprocal effects between different groups. The observed changes in archaeological knowledge are compared to parallel changes that occurred in Israeli society at the same time, since it is possible, to a large extent, to find similarities between the processes that Israeli society has undergone and those that shaped Israeli archaeology.

Introduction  3 The connection between archaeology and politics is the central axis around which this book revolves. Archaeology being a link in the chain connecting the past to the present was often used by peoples and nations as a tool for the construction of identity (Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kohl 1998; Díaz-Andreu 2007). This connection became significant from the end of the 19th century, with the development of national movements, and even more so—with colonization and de-colonization processes (Trigger 1984, 1995). The countries that came into being from the beginning of the 20th century onwards needed to create a common heritage that would be reflected in national archaeological remains. The sites were selected—consciously or unconsciously—also according to the possibility of serving the interests or ideology of certain groups (Faust and Katz 2019: 62). This phenomenon is as old as the modern idea of the nation, as it can be found already in the 1830s, accompanying the Greek struggle for independence (Hamilakis 2007). Since then, many ethnic groups or peoples have defined their identity through a common denominator based on their past. Examples reflecting the connections among archaeology, nationalism, and politics across regions and periods include Norway (Scott 1996), Mexico (Brading 2001), Nazi Germany (Arnold 1990), and Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is an especially fascinating case of this phenomenon: when Rhodesia (named for the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes) achieved majority rule, it was renamed Zimbabwe after the archaeological site of Great Zimbabwe, thus symbolizing the connection of the local Africans to the land (Ndoro 1997; Chirikure 2021). Along similar lines, Israeli society has made (and to some extent still makes) use of archaeological findings in political and social discourse. And even if the research conducted was fully scientific and its results were not biased for political purposes, still, it did not only serve research needs. Using archaeology to inculcate national and historical consciousness was imbued in the field from the onset of the 1920s, since the finds uncovered in the depths of the earth created a tangible expression, towards which Zionism aspired the immigrant society to return, in the land called Eretz Israel. After the establishment of the state of Israel, archaeology played a central and important role in the “national religion,” which was in fact an expression of the dominant cultural hegemony of secular Zionist society until the end of the 1970s (Liebman and Don-Yehiya 1983: 110–112, and see detailed bibliography below, in Chapter 1). However, in contrast to the central place of archaeology in the secular Zionist world, the two main groups from the 1950s to the 1970s were either located on the fringes of Israeli society or totally excluded—i.e., the Jewish religious community and the Palestinian citizens of Israel—completely avoided archaeological activity during this period. In light of this, it seems that a discussion of these groups’ attitude to archaeology requires us to also address matters of principle related to hegemony and exclusion in general and in Israeli society in particular. Hegemony is a political and cultural pattern described by Antonio Gramsci as the ideological control of one part of a collective in a country over other groups, through the adoption of monopolistic cultural positions of power. Hegemony is not based on controlling the worldview of the state or the elites who control the subordinate groups by activating mechanisms of force and coercion (such as the

4 Introduction military, the police, and the judiciary). Rather, its impact is reflected through the use of culture and the education of the masses who perceive themselves as partners in a joint project. Control is carried out by creating cultural practices that include formal ceremonies and symbols that locate the members of the collective within a world understood in accordance with the values of the hegemony. The hegemonic worldview is thus perceived as the only possible worldview (Gramsci 1971; Carnoy 1984: 69–70). Gramsci developed the term hegemony in the context of the emergence of the Italian national movement during the 19th century. Similarly, Zionism also developed as part of the awakening of nationalism in Europe in the second half of the 19th century. The Zionist revolution, which began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, aimed to create a new Jewish society based on a secular culture. Most of the immigrants who came to Palestine from Eastern Europe before the establishment of the state of Israel formed a dominant political elite through a combination of political, economic, institutional, and especially cultural means. This elite included the pioneers of the “working settlement” (ha-hityashvut ha-‘ovedet, communal agricultural collectives of various kinds) alongside the urban middle class/bourgeoisie. The establishment of the Palestine Workers’ Party (Mapai) in the 1930s led to the establishment of the Zionist elite’s control of the pre-state Jewish community (the Yishuv), and later, of the state of Israel. Due to the cultural dominance of this party, alongside its material and organizational power, it was able to maintain its place and establish its hegemonic rule even in the first decades after the establishment of the state (Shapiro 1984; Kimmerling 1998, 2004). From the beginning of the 1970s, the political-cultural hegemony of secular “Israeliness” began to crumble. The secular-bourgeois middle class that embodied Israeli culture and society lost its hegemonic cultural dominance. In its place, several separate societies or cultures began to emerge within the Israeli state. This process took place during the gradual consolidation of groups within the population that had previously been located on the fringes of the Israeli state. The culturalpolitical system, in which emphasis had been placed on Zionist secular values, became a multicultural society constituted of communities with distinct identities. There are several reasons for this phenomenon which are beyond the scope of this book. But one can largely see that the turning point in the re-alignment of status and power among the various groups in Israeli society occurred with the political upheaval that took place in 1977, when the Likud under Menachem Begin came into power after 29 years of Mapai rule (Kimmerling 2004; Eisenstadt 2005). The first group to pioneer the breaking of Zionist secular hegemony was religious Zionism.2 As stated, the national religion, which was in fact an expression of the dominant Israeli culture in those years, was secular in spirit and saw religious observance as a backward and Diasporic value that should be negated (Shapira 1995). As a result, observant young people in Israel, in the first decades after the establishment of the state, had no religious role model with which to identify. Religious Zionist society was seen as being dragged in the wake of secular Israeli society, “the kosher overseer of the restaurant car,” as they called it, and not “the driver of the locomotive.” Against this background, new models began to emerge

Introduction  5 with the aim of strengthening the community pride of observant youth. These were yeshivas that combined Torah studies with secular studies, and their graduates began to change the face of religious Zionism. They cultivated pride in religion and wanted to move religious Zionism from the margins of Israeli society to a central place under their leadership (Feige 2009; Aran 2013). These internal processes, which began in the 1960s, reached maturity during the 1970s and influenced the way in which religious Zionism perceived its place in Israeli society. Politically, this change can be seen from the 1977 elections. Until this election, the religious Zionist party (the National Religious Party, NRP)3 had been a junior partner in the government. Its transformation into a significant component of the political system following the elections held that year was another factor in the fundamental change that now occurred in the status of religious Zionism in Israeli society. The changes in religious Zionist society were reflected in the entry of influences originating in Zionist secular society on the one hand, but at the same time, an increasing desire to become an influential factor and become a group with cultural hegemony in Israeli society (Sheleg 2000: 11–22). Another marginal group that is part of religious society is the Haredim (Heb. “God-fearing,” sing. Haredi), including the ultra-Orthodox. This community is characterized by a greater strictness than other Orthodox groups regarding the observance of the commandments, commitment to Torah study (studying the Gemarah [Talmud] and its interpretations), as well as extreme conservatism in its lifestyles.4 The Haredim are characterized by a negative approach to Zionism since they regard the Zionist ideology as heretical and antithetical to the foundations of Jewish existence. The Haredim’s opposition to modernization in general, and to the Zionist worldview in particular, caused them to create independent and different systems in most areas of life. This phenomenon of seclusion within the realms of the Haredi “ghetto” was made possible mainly by the transformation of this society into a “society of learners,” i.e., a society in which most men study at a yeshiva for many years and do not enter the labor market. In contrast to religious Zionism, and Israeli-Palestinian society, where the political upheaval in 1977 affected their social status and degree of belonging to Israeli society’s national ideological collective, the agreements made after those elections with Agudat Israel (the political party representing the Haredi sector), enabled the growth and expansion of the society of learners. As a result, Haredi society became more reclusive (Friedman 1991). The Haredi community is still a marginal group in Israeli society. However, in the last few years, the “wall” of separation is beginning to crack. These changes are derived, inter alia, from the penetration of the Internet into the Haredi world (albeit contrary to the rulings of the rabbinic leadership). Consequently, even if Haredi society maintains its principles, a degree of integration can be seen at least in part of it. The Palestinian minority in ethnocratic Israel also experienced significant changes during this time. Following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, the Palestinian Arab community ceased to exist as a social and political entity. Hundreds of Palestinian settlements were evacuated, and over 600,000 refugees left their homes. A total of 156,000 Arab residents remained within the state of

6 Introduction Israel. The state granted this group only part of the civil rights due to all citizens, and the remaining Arab population in Israel lived under military government until November 1966. Military government included, among other things, imposing arrests, establishing traffic arrangements, closing areas, imposing curfews, and enforcing employment restrictions. Palestinian citizens of Israel were forced onto the margins of the Israeli collective, and in many respects, even outside it (Morris 1987; Kabha 2013: 144–160). Beginning in the early 1970s and especially following the political upheaval in 1977 and the transformation of Israeli society into a more open and multicultural one, there was a change in the way the Palestinians in Israel were regarded, in both the political and the professional spheres. The development of a new politics, in which Palestinian graduates of Israeli universities and institutions of higher education in the Soviet Union and the countries of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe participated for the first time, and the rise of modernization and a higher standard of living in Arab society, was reflected in the appearance of new elites. These factors reshaped the identity of the Palestinians in Israel, and from the 1980s onwards, a change of consciousness, a new generation, and new identities appeared in this society (Kimmerling 2004: 370–409). Finally, I deal with the status of women in Israeli archaeology. This topic, which has been discussed from the 1980s onwards in studies dealing with European and American archaeology, has so far been ignored in studies of Israeli archaeology. This issue also has cultural and social aspects, as it cannot be removed from a broader canvas that relates to the status of women in general. Having briefly outlined the changes that Israeli society has undergone, I will now describe how the chapters of the book focus on the growth of archaeological knowledge among the various groups that comprise Israeli society. The first chapter presents the development of archaeological knowledge in Zionist secular society. In this chapter, I deal with the processes that occurred in this group between the Mandate period and after 1948, the activities of the archaeological establishment as a cultural agent during the first 20 years after the establishment of the state of Israel, as well as the changes that took place in archaeology from the 1980s onwards. Among the topics discussed are the transition from Jewish archaeology during the Mandate period to biblical archaeology following the effects of the War of Independence, “national archaeology” as well as community archaeology, and the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) Cultural Heritage project and its significance. The next two chapters deal with the attitude to archaeology in the observant Jewish public. In this context, I refer to religious Zionism and the Haredi and ultraOrthodox communities. The choice of this definition—ignoring the Reform and Conservative streams—is due to the fact that this study deals with archaeology in the state of Israel, where the majority of observant Jews is bound to the halakhah in its Orthodox interpretation. In its first part, Chapter 2 focuses on the reasons for the absence of religious Zionist society from archaeology. In contrast, the second part deals with the upheaval that took place from the 1980s onwards in this group’s attitude to archaeology. I compare this to the attitude of religious Christian scholars since, seemingly, one might assume that much like practicing Christian

Introduction  7 scholars, observant Jewish archaeologists, too, would be interested in the archaeology of Israel in general and biblical archaeology in particular. In the last part of this chapter there is a discussion of the approach of the Haredi and ultra-Orthodox communities to archaeology. Chapter 3 continues the previous one and deals with a single issue, the attitude towards excavating graves. This topic is discussed separately due to its importance, as it constitutes one of the most significant points of contention between ultra-Orthodox society and archaeologists. Over the years, many conflicts have arisen resulting from ultra-Orthodox claims of damage to graves. In the context of this chapter, I focus on the main factors that led to the opposition to excavating graves and review the key points that have influenced this struggle as a whole. The second part of this chapter analyzes a single case study: the 1981 struggle in Area G in the City of David. In this part, both archaeological and political implications are discussed. Chapter 4 proceeds to another group: the Palestinian citizens of Israel. In general, this subject has hardly been discussed. The few studies that exist in this field can largely be divided into two main groups. The first comprises articles dealing with the status of Arab workers in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. The second describes the development of archaeology in Israel/Palestine from a political standpoint. The analysis in this book does not seek to take a political position but rather aims to analyze objectively the practice of archaeology among Palestinian Arab society during the British Mandate, the absence of Palestinian citizens from Israeli archaeology until the 1980s, as well as the entry of Arab archaeologists into Israeli archaeology from then on. Chapter 5 discusses the status of women archaeologists in Israeli archaeology. As noted, this topic has been discussed in many studies of American and European archaeology but thus far has not been examined with regard to Israeli archaeology. The first part of the chapter brings the theoretical background to the issue. Next, I briefly review women who influenced the development of archaeological knowledge during the Mandate period. I do not list all the women in Israeli archaeology after 1948, but discuss the most important of them, detailing only one figure, Ruth Amiran. Amiran was a pioneer both in field archaeology and in pottery analysis. Her work is representative, in many ways, of the difficulties as well as the successes of other women who worked as archaeologists. In the last part, I examine the fields in which women archaeologists in Israeli archaeology have been involved. How central are these areas to archaeological research and to what extent does their status in Israeli archaeology reflect the status of women in Israeli society? This study is to a large extent an archaeological ethnography. Its purpose is, therefore, to document phenomena that have occurred and still occur in Israeli archaeology from direct first-hand observation. It has a multidisciplinary point of view since it examines the processes and changes that have taken place in the various groups that comprise Israeli society. The methodology I have used integrated in-depth interviews with archaeologists belonging to various groups in Israeli society as well as documents from the Israel State Archives (ISA). As an observant woman, I was part of the research subjects; thus, I could also include “observations from the inside” to describe and critique my personal experience.

8 Introduction Notes 1 The Palestinian citizens of Israel are called by various other names, depending on contexts/attitudes: Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, as well as Arabs. In this study I use the term “Palestinian citizens of Israel” since I refer solely to the Palestinians who live within the boundaries of the state of Israel. 2 For an explanation of subgroups among Orthodox observant Jews in Israel, see Chapter 2. 3 The Mafdal, or National Religious Party (NRP), was a party that traditionally represented religious Zionism. It was established in 1956 by Haim Moshe Shapira as a union of the Mizrachi and Hapoel Mizrachi movements. In its early years it was close to Mapai, Israel’s social-democratic ruling party for the first 30 years of the state’s existence, but from 1977 it became a distinctly right-wing party. 4 For an explanation of what the Gemarah is, see Chapter 2, Note 11.

References Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial SelfFashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Aran, G. 2013. Kookism: The Roots of Gush Emunim, Jewish Settlers’ Sub-Culture, Zionist Theology, Contemporary Messianism. Jerusalem: Carmel. (Hebrew) Arnold, B. 1990. “The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi Germany.” Antiquity 64 (244): 464–478. Brading, D.A. 2001. “Monuments and Nationalism in Modern Mexico.” Nations and Nationalism 7: 521–531. Carnoy, M. 1984. The State and Political Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chirikure, S. 2021. Great Zimbabwe: Reclaiming a ‘Confiscated’ Past. London and New York: Routledge. Díaz-Andreu, G.M. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eisenstadt, S.N. 2005. “Israeli Society between Sectarianism and Integration.” In Society and Economy in Israel: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by A. Bareli, D. Gutwein, and T. Friling, 7–31. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Faust, A. and H. Katz. 2019. “Introduction.” In Archaeology of the Land of Israel: From the Neolithic to Alexander the Great, edited by A. Faust and H. Katz, 13–77. Raanana: The Open University of Israel. (Hebrew) Feige, M. 2009. Settling in the Hearts: Jewish Fundamentalism in the Occupied Territories. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Feige, M. and Z. Shiloni., eds. 2008. Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Foucault, M. 1965. Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by R. Howard. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Translated by A.M.S. Smith. New York: Pantheon. Friedman, M. 1991. The Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Society: Sources, Trends and Processes. Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. (Hebrew) Gramsci, A. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Greenberg, R. 2021. “Pompeo in Silwan: Judeo-Christian Nationalism, Kitsch, and Empire in Ancient Jerusalem.” Forum Kritische Archäologie 10: 55–66.

Introduction  9 Greenberg, R. and Y. Hamilakis. 2022. Archaeology, Nation, and Race: Confronting the Past, Decolonizing the Future, in Greece and Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Kabha, M. 2013. The Palestinian People: Seeking Sovereignty and State. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Kimmerling, B. 1998. “Between Hegemony and Dormant Kulturkampf in Israel.” Israel Affairs 4: 49–72. Kimmerling, B. 2004. Immigrants, Settlers, Natives: The Israeli State and Society between Cultural Pluralism and Culture Wars. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew) Kletter, R. 2006. Just Past?: The Making of Israeli Archaeology. London: Equinox. Kletter, R. 2008. “The Friends of Antiquities: The Story of an Israeli Volunteer Group and Comparative Remarks.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8. https://doi​.org​/10​.5508​/jhs​ .2008​.v8​.a2 Kletter, R. 2017. “Regional and Local Museums for Archaeology in the First Years of the State of Israel.” In LE-MA’AN ZIONY: Essays in Honor of Ziony Zevit, edited by F.E. Greenspahn and G.A. Rendsburg, 77–109. Eugene: Cascade Books. Kletter, R. 2019. Archaeology, Heritage and Ethics in the Western Wall Plaza, Jerusalem: Darkness at the End of the Tunnel. New York: Routledge. Kohl, P.L. 1998. “Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past.” Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223–246. Kohl, P.L. and C. Fawcett, eds. 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liebman, C.S. and E. Don-Yehiya. 1983. Civil Religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism and Political Culture in the Jewish State. Berkeley: University of California Press. Morris, B. 1987. Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ndoro, W. 1997. “Great Zimbabwe.” Scientific American 277: 94–99. Scott, B.G. 1996. “Archaeology and National Identity: The Norwegian Example.” Scandinavian Studies 68: 321–342. Shapira, A. 1995. “Anti-Semitism and Zionism.” Modern Judaism 15: 215–232. Shapiro, Y. 1984. An Elite Without Successors: Generations of Political Leaders in Israel. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim. (Hebrew) Sheleg, Y. 2000. New Religious Jews: Recent Developments Among Observant Jews in Israel. Jerusalem: Keter Books. (Hebrew) Silberman, N.A. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: H. Holt. Silberman, N.A. and D. Small. 1997. The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Trigger, B.G. 1984. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.” Man 19: 355–370 (Reprinted in Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by R.W. Preucel and I. Hodder. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 615–631). Trigger, B.G. 1995. “Romanticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, 263–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zerubavel, Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society

The beginnings of Jewish archaeological research Until the beginning of the 20th century, the interest Jewish society generally took in the archaeology of Palestine was very small (Shavit 1987: 47–50; Ben-Arieh 2008: 20–22). Abraham Shmuel Hirschberg, for example, writes about this in his book In Oriental Lands in reference to Macalister’s excavations in Gezer: “And of our people, for whom these studies should have been closest to their hearts, none turn to them” (Hirschberg 1977: 319). However, due to the activity of foreign institutions promoting archaeological research in Palestine from the end of the 19th century (Ben-Arieh 1999a, 1999b), as well as the recognition of the Ottoman government’s weakness with regard to this issue, Jewish Palestinian scholars began to recognize the necessity of forming a Jewish society for the study of the Land of Israel. The initiative to establish a Jewish society occurred among two groups: educated members of the Old Yishuv1 in Jerusalem, including David Yellin and Samuel Raffaeli; and together with them, members of the New Yishuv who arrived after academic studies in Europe, such as Abraham Jacob Brawer. The Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (JPES) was established in 1913 and was the first learned, scholarly, scientific Jewish society. Its bylaws state that one of its goals was to promote professional archaeological interest through the dissemination of archaeological knowledge and through the initiation of scientific excavations. However, in practice, the Society at first focused on learning about the land and becoming acquainted with it (Goren 2013). During the First World War, its activities were stopped, and only in 1920, after the end of the war, did they resume. Since then, the Society has focused on archaeological research (Shavit 1987: 50; Ben-Arieh 2001: 314–317; Goren 2013). In the period between 1920 and 1948, Jewish Palestinian researchers were active in the field of archaeology, but this was not a large-scale enterprise. Individual workers joined the Antiquities Department of the Mandate Government, including Michael Avi-Yonah, Immanuel Ben-Dor, Jacob Ory, and Milka Cassuto-Salzmann (Ben-Arieh 1999a: 158–159), and a small number of scholars and students were active during this period in the framework of the Hebrew University’s Department of Archaeology (Katz 2011: 37–40). An examination of the activities of Jewish Palestinian archaeologists prior to 1948 reveals two main trends. It seems that their main interest was in the archaeology of the late Second Temple period (late Hellenistic and early Roman periods) and the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud (late Roman and Byzantine periods) DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-2

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  11 while archaeology of the biblical period (Bronze and Iron Ages) was almost never reflected in their work. The first excavation carried out under the auspices of the JPES was conducted by Slouschz in Hamat Tiberias in 1921. As part of this excavation, a synagogue dating to the 4th century CE was exposed (Dothan 1993: 573– 577). During the 1920s, Mayer and Sukenik conducted another excavation on behalf of the JPES and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which exposed parts of the “Third Wall” that surrounded the city in the late Second Temple period (Sukenik and Mayer 1930). Another project which represents this attitude was the “Redemption of Synagogues” project that took place between 1926 and 1928. It was one of the first projects of the Hebrew University and included the synagogues of Korazim, Arbel, Naburiya, Gush Halav, and Baram. The purpose of the project was to purchase the land on which the synagogues were built in order to excavate and restore them (Fein 2008). Sukenik and Mayer, who until the 1940s were the only faculty members in the field of archaeology at the Hebrew University, focused in their research on later periods: Mayer dealt with the art of the Islamic period (Hirschberg 1964), while Sukenik’s research was mainly in the field of “Jewish archaeology,” i.e., the study of ancient synagogues and of remains of burials and graves from the Second Temple period (Avigad 1967). Another significant excavation conducted in the second half of the 1930s was Benjamin Mazar’s dig at Beit She’arim, in which a number of catacombs and a synagogue were discovered (Figure 1.1). The finds which were exposed there are dated to the 2nd to 4th centuries CE (Mazar 1973). It seems that the reason for this is mainly technical. Most of these sites had been excavated and studied since they were easy to approach. The remains were directly

Figure 1.1  Mazar’s dig at Beit She’arim (Photo: Shmuel Yosef Schweig, courtesy of Benjamin Mazar Archive)

12  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society under the surface, and thus, the excavators did not need organizational ability, which did not yet exist, in order to conduct their research. The number of excavations initiated at biblical sites during the period prior to 1948 in which Jewish Palestinian archaeologists were involved is very small, and none of them were conducted at the initiative of a Jewish archaeological institution. The first biblical excavation was the United Samaria Expedition conducted by John Crowfoot, in which Sukenik participated as a representative of the Hebrew University (Crowfoot et al. 1942). The second one was the site of et-Tell (biblical Ai), conducted by an independent archaeologist, Judith Krause-Marquet (Marquet-Krause 1949, see in detail in Chapter 5). The use of archaeological research for the construction of national identity is another trend that characterizes this period. Many have written about the connection between archaeology and national identity (e.g., Silberman 1989: 87–136; Geva 1992; Zerubavel 1995: 31–33; Silberman and Small 1997; Elon 1997; Abu El-Haj 2001; Kletter 2006; Feige and Shiloni 2008; Greenberg and Hamilakis 2022), but it seems that so far, no distinction has been made between the way in which archaeology was utilized before 1948 and what happened afterwards. The development of archaeology in Palestine occurred during the time in which Zionist nationalism took shape, and similarly to the way archaeology was implemented as a tool for entrenching national rights in various other parts of the world (Trigger 1984, 1995; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Ndoro 1997; Scott 1996; Kohl 1998; Díaz-Andreu 2007; Hamilakis 2007; Chirikure 2021), here, too, archaeological findings were used to justify the Jews’ right to return and settle in Palestine. An example of this view can be found in an article published by the historian Joseph Klausner in 1933: By means of the excavations and explorations it was proved, almost with certainty, that the Jews settled throughout the country from end to end. In Judea and Samaria, in the Galilee and in Transjordan, at the end of the Negev and near Mount Hermon. And it has also been proven that the Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel was dense, to a degree that is difficult to imagine today: there is not a single kilometer in the land that does not have some tell, which indicates a more or less ancient Jewish settlement … that is the issue, as I mentioned at the beginning of this article: the exploration of Palestine does not have just a purely scientific value. It also has vital value and national importance [my emphasis, HK]. In addition to clarifying our culture and our history in the land of our ancestors, it also strengthens our historical right to the land and increases the hope that the deserted and desolate land will be revived with a majority of its people as before.2 It seems that most writings before the establishment of the State of Israel were largely directed outwards—aiming to provide legitimacy for Zionist activity among the nations of the world. As early as 1925, Shmuel Klein wrote in the introduction to his book on Jewish Transjordan: The first impetus for writing this article was given to me by a political reason—when “Transjordan” was separated from Western Palestine, and only the latter was designated as a “national home” for the people of Israel. …

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  13 Admittedly I discussed there the history of the communities of Transjordan only “by the way,” and I did not intend to collect all the reports in our literature about the Jewish settlement in Transjordan, but due to the abovementioned reason, I thought it necessary to complete my work and show in a detailed investigation that we have multiple historical reports about an important Jewish community in the eastern part of our country from the beginning of the Second Temple period almost to the end of the Middle Ages. Thus we can also prove that we never relinquished our acknowledgement that the land of the “two tribes and a half tribe” was also included in the Land of Israel [my emphasis, HK]. (Klein 1925: III–V) After 1948 the use of archaeology as an ideological tool was largely inward-looking, an expression of the “national religion,” which was intended to instill collective Zionist values in the citizens of the newly established state (see below). Trends in Israeli archaeological research, 1948–1967

A turning point in the attitude to archaeology occurred in 1948, with the establishment of the state of Israel. From then on, for the next 20 years, the “golden age” of Israeli archaeology transpired (Geva 1992; Feige 2001; Shapira 2004: 27–28; Kletter 2006, 2008; Feige and Shiloni 2008; Greenberg and Hamilakis 2022). As a link in the chain connecting the past to the present, archaeology became a central element in the secular “national religion,” which was in fact an expression of the dominant political and cultural hegemony in the first 30 years after the establishment of the state. The purpose of this civil secular “religion” was to unite the newly formed Israeli society around an ideological system with one common identity, and archaeology was a central tool through which this vision was realized (Liebman and Don-Yehiya 1983; Zerubavel 1995; Almog 1996; Shapira 1998).3 The use of archaeology in the national context was now directed mainly inwards, towards Israeli society, which is composed of various communities and groups, in order to provide a common set of values for the realization of the Zionist idea. A practical expression of archaeology’s role in the framework of the “national religion” can be found in the activities of groups that were part of this hegemony. Between 1948 and the 1970s, employees of the Israeli Department of Antiquities (IDAM), the Israel Exploration Society (IES), and the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University acted not only at the professional-academic level but also as cultural agents whose goal was to connect the public with archaeology.4 Expression of this intention can be found in many actions taken during this period by the IDAM. In July 1948, a few months after the establishment of the state, the IDAM was established. Its first director was Shmuel Yeivin, who had to construct the new department’s administrative framework. Most of the staff had been Jewish employees of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities, who moved seamlessly to the Israeli department. The Israeli Department of Antiquities was thus a direct continuation of the Mandatory one; the officials remained the same,

14  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society and the archaeological tasks they faced were no different from those of the prestate era. The work mainly included supervising antiquities discovered during the construction of infrastructure and carrying out salvage excavations to the extent necessary. However, in the first decades of its existence, the IDAM was largely tasked with making archaeological finds accessible to the general public, believing that its role was not only to preserve the country’s antiquities but also to educate youth and adults to love the country and strengthen their ties to it by exposing past finds. This perception was reflected in a pamphlet published by the IDAM in 1950, which described a visit by Ruth Amiran, the supervisor of the Northern District, to the settlement of ‘Alma in the Upper Galilee, where the remains of a synagogue from the 3rd century CE had been found (Figure 1.2). The structure of the synagogue itself was not preserved, but several architectural items survived, including a fragment of a lintel with the inscription: “Peace be upon this place and on all places of His people Israel,” as well as several other inscriptions. This is how the visit was described: ‘Alma village is located far from the network of convenient roads, in the heart of the mountain range limited by the northern road. My second visit to the village occurred two days before the New Year of 5710 (22.9.49), a few weeks after the settlement of the new immigrants, before the houses were ready to be lived in and “the first bread was baked” in the new homeland. During that visit, my companions and I had one of the most beautiful experiences in terms of our accepted Zionist ideology. This report is devoted mainly to the psychological Jewish-Zionist aspect of the important discovery described herein. One of the young immigrants, Mr. Shmuel Pinchas, guided us through the antiquities of ‘Alma. The antiquities of ‘Alma include the remains, most of which were discovered by our guide and his friends, in the village. With the thrill of the sacred, Mr. Shmuel Pinchas and his comrades

Figure 1.2  Part of a stone jamb from the central entrance of the ancient synagogue in ‘Alma (courtesy of Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi)

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  15 read the inscriptions and preserved them as the foundation for the covenant made between them and their new homeland. (Bulletin 1950: 25) The IDAM conducted educational activities whose purpose was producing an affinity for the nation’s roots and past in a number of ways. Its activities were aimed at soldiers, as was reflected both in the distribution of written material and in assistance at tours of archaeological sites. For example, in a pamphlet from 1949 intended for IDF soldiers, we read: The movement of our national revival from its inception greatly emphasizes the unbreakable connection of the generations to the roots of the nation planted in its homeland. And any further exposure of a hidden root or sucker and any discovery of a hitherto unknown link strengthens our consciousness as a nation whose foundations are based on solid ground. (ISA-education-education-0007c7s, May 1949) However, the two main activities that served the IDAM for shaping the national identity were supporting local enthusiasts through the establishment of an array of local museums and the establishment of the “Friends of Antiquities.” The local museums exhibited the findings from each region close to the sites where they were found and thus allowed access to archaeological finds in all parts of the country. The construction work done in the kibbutzim, as well as the cultivation of the agricultural lands around them, often led to the exposure of finds. Every kibbutz usually had at least one member interested in archaeology, and when a site or a grave with goods was unearthed, that member would take the findings and store them in boxes under the bed. The officials of the Department of Antiquities viewed their main role as taking these findings “out of the boxes” and exhibiting them in a way that would connect the locals to the various finds, while at the same time allowing archaeologists access. These museums largely served as a way to connect kibbutz members to their past and to create a line directly connecting them and the past buried in their land (Katz 2011: 80–88; Kletter 2017). It seems that the main method by which the IDAM’s officials engaged the general public in meaningful archaeological activity was in the establishment of the “Friends of Antiquities” (Kletter 2008). This group included local trustees who were interested in archaeology and Yediath Ha’Aretz and who served as unofficial assistants to the IDAM staff.5 In the Bulletin of the Department of Antiquities, published for the benefit of the “Friends of Antiquities,” the move is described as follows: From the day of its establishment, the Department of Antiquities in the State of Israel has set itself the goal of cultivating close ties with the general public in the country and taking advantage of the great interest in the remnants of the past, which potentially exists in wide circles of the Yishuv, in order to promote the knowledge of ancient remains and the science of archaeology. To this end, it was decided to establish the “Friends of Antiquities,” which

16  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society will have one trustee in each Jewish settlement in the country (and in populous settlements up to 5-4 trustees), who will be appointed from among those particularly interested in knowledge of the land, its past and the remains of its antiquities … such an association of unofficial assistants, whose network will be spread all over the country and who work out of love for the profession and interest in it for its own sake, is of invaluable benefit and help, not only in gathering information and objects that may be lost and destroyed without its help, but also instilling awareness of their value and importance among all levels of the public. (Bulletin 1949: 3) Over time, some of the “Friends” who had begun as amateur archaeologists became full-fledged researchers, including Jacob Kaplan, Claire Epstein, Shmuel Avitsur, Moshe Dothan, Zecharia Kalai, and Joseph Braslavsky (Bulletin 1949, 1950, 1951). The staff of the IDAM understood the importance of shaping an awareness of public responsibility that would recognize the value of archaeological finds. There are many similarities between this worldview and the similar actions taken shortly afterwards regarding the preservation of protected flowers. In a letter replying to Yariv Shapira from Tel Adashim, who offered to conduct an “Operation Past” in which he would provide the general public concisely, and through all forms of advertising, including radio, an explanation of the value of the existing and newly-discovered remains, how to preserve them and respect them, and pay particular attention to the harmful practice of adding new “inscriptions” to every ancient relic. (Bulletin 1950: 2) It was also said that the attitude to the past is not something that can be instilled through a quick operation but only by slow, constant, and prolonged treatment and cultivation. After all, it is a cultural and educational matter. In the same way one would not hold an “Operation Politeness” or “Operation Manners” or “Operation Opinion,” etc., etc., so we must mobilize our patience and endurance and hope that over the years, five or ten, we will see the changes that our prolonged and slow efforts will produce from the soil of the entire public. In my opinion, efficient work by inspectors, the establishment of a group of advocates and one of guards—all this on the one hand, and on the other hand—introducing the study of the past into the curriculum of schools and youth movements, these are the ways to the desired goal. (Ibid.) The activities of the “Friends of Antiquities,” whose purpose was educational no less than scientific, continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s (Kletter 2008). This

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  17 group continued to exist until the 1980s (the last meeting was held in Jerusalem in December 1987), but already during the 1970s its activity gradually waned until it ceased completely. The reasons for this were mainly changes that occurred in archaeological activity from the 1980s, including an increase in the number of holders of academic degrees and the establishment of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). These changes led to the professionalization of the field and made the role of amateur volunteers unnecessary (see below). Another body that used archaeology during the 1950s and 1960s for the purpose of shaping national identity among the general public was the Israel Exploration Society (IES). The annual conferences organized by the IES were first and foremost a major meeting place for Israeli archaeologists themselves (Figure 1.3). They served as an arena for internal discussions and for debating issues in research and as a result played an important role in the development of archaeological research during these years. However, these conferences cannot be considered only from a professional point of view, as they were important also in the public context. They were attended by hundreds of listeners, a wide public of interested residents of cities in the center of the country and members of cooperative agricultural settlements (“the working settlement,” referring to kibbutzim and moshavim). It can be assumed that most of the participants were not always able to understand the lectures in depth, since the lectures were professional and usually included detailed technical discussions. Nevertheless, they returned each year since for them the overall framework of the conferences, attended by state leaders—president, prime

Figure 1.3  Israel Exploration Society meeting at Shivta, 1953 (courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society)

18  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society minister, and ministers—was an expression of the unmediated connection between the past and the present. Moreover, the importance attributed to archaeology as part of the construction of the Zionist collective identity is reflected in these conferences on another level. Many of the conferences held in the 1950s and 1960s took place in development towns in Israel’s periphery. Although these settlements were apparently chosen due to their proximity to key archaeological sites, the very fact of the conferences being held in the development towns and not in the kibbutzim, which were also close to the sites, indicates a purpose that went beyond purely technical considerations, as well. They were intended to provide the new immigrants who were settled in the periphery with a past that was related to the space in which they lived and the land on which they settled, yet at the same time—a past that was connected to the entire nation. The arrival of state leaders in the places where the conferences were held, as well as the arrival of all the participants—most of them veteran Israelis who belonged to the social and cultural elite—defined their place of residence as actually part of the nation for the new immigrants. This was another way to create and design Israeli space for them (Feige 2001). Nevertheless, analysis of these various activities indicates that the vast majority of participants were members of the hegemonic secular public, residents of the major cities or the “working settlement,” and not the “mass” of local, low-status residents. This secular public was the one who volunteered in archaeological digs all over the country. The excavations in Masada are noteworthy in this context, since Yadin enhanced this phenomenon and recruited dozens of volunteers in order to assist in his excavation. The second change that characterizes the post-1948 period is related to the increase in the importance of biblical archaeology. It appears that this can be linked to the change that took place in Israeli society in general, and in BenGurion’s thought in particular, in relation to biblical realia following the War of Independence and the establishment of the state of Israel. Until the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion dealt very little with the past and his main focus was on the present and the future. When the debate over the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine began, for the first time Ben-Gurion used the Bible as a basis for legitimizing the present-day renewed national settlement, but even at this stage there was still no significant change in his consciousness. Only after the establishment of Israel did Ben-Gurion formulate his familiar conception of the Bible. It seems that the War of Independence was a watershed in Ben-Gurion’s attitude towards the Bible, as the process of war and battles evoked in him associations of the mythological past of Joshua’s conquest of the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From 1950 onwards, the Bible occupied a central place in Ben-Gurion’s thoughts, including connections to the historical and geographical realities of the Bible (Shapira 1997). For example, here is what he said in a speech before the Journalists Union in 1960: The establishment of Israel and the War of Independence illuminated the Bible for me in a new light, and after studying it in the light of the reality of the War of Independence and the Israeli settlement of our time, questions

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  19 arose in my mind, to which Jewish Bible exegetists in every [previous] generation did not pay enough attention, because for them, concepts like nation, tribes, conquest, war, geography, the Land of Israel, settlement, the language of the people, were almost only abstract ones. (Ben-Gurion 1969: 243–244) Over the course of the 1950s and 1960s, Ben-Gurion’s ties with biblical scholars and archaeologists became closer and he had a direct connection with them. He played a personal role in cultivating activities such as Bible study classes that were held once every two weeks at his home, and he also determined the topics to be discussed. He evinced great interest in the book of Joshua, which he saw as the embodiment of the ultimate connection between past and present. An expression of this perception can be found in the excavations that took place in the second half of the 1950s at Hazor. The excavation in Hazor was conducted by Yigael Yadin between 1955 and 1958. The significance of this excavation stems not only from the fact that it is a key site for the study of the Bronze and Iron Ages but also because the excavation served as the field school for most of the next generation of Israeli archaeology. They participated in this excavation as students and were trained in archaeological fieldwork there.6 The exposure of the Canaanite-period city, covering about 800 dunams, and its various finds, including cultic ones, and the layer of burning that led to its destruction, were used by Yadin to strengthen the theory of “uniform occupation” which explained and described the process of the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, the destruction of the Canaanite cities, and the establishment of an Israelite kingdom. The excavation in Hazor and the discovery of remains that could be attributed to the conquest of Canaan and the period of settlement enabled an immediate link between the wars of the Israelites in the past and the Israeli wars in the present. The experience of “conquering the land” during the War of Independence created a modern analogy to the story of the conquest of the land that appears in the book of Joshua and the fact that the IDF’s second chief of staff, Yigael Yadin, headed the dig emphasized the line drawn from the past to the present, aiming to confirm the Jewish people’s right to the land. It can be assumed that this change, this diversion of interest from Second Temple archaeology and the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud to biblical archaeology, is related to the change in consciousness that occurred among scholars who also underwent the experience of establishing the state directly, while Ben-Gurion had both direct and indirect influence on the study of the Bible in general and on biblical archaeology in particular (Figure 1.4).7 The choice to locate the Hazor Museum of Antiquities, where the finds from Yadin’s excavations were displayed, in Kibbutz Ayelet Hashahar and not in the development town of Hatzor Haglilit is an additional expression of the connection that existed between Israeli archaeology and the hegemonic political, social, and academic establishment during this period. The museum was built in the first half of the 1960s as part of the kibbutz and largely reflected the kibbutz members’ involvement and identification with the historical meaning of the excavation. Although

20  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society

Figure 1.4  Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion during his visit to Hazor (Photo: Moshe Pridan, courtesy of the Government Press Office)

residents of Hatzor Haglilit worked as laborers in the excavation, the connection between them and the project, as well as the museum, was loose. The museum at Ayelet Hashahar, on the other hand, expressed the affinity between the kibbutz ethos, the historical narrative represented by the secular “national religion,” and scientific archaeological research (Shahar and Nitzan-Shiftan 2014: 115). The central place of archaeology in secular Zionist existence must be understood not only due to its use as a tool for strengthening the connection to the physical land and the renewed state and for justifying Zionist activity in all spheres of action. The centrality of archaeology to Israeli society in the period in question can also be seen as an expression of a deeper story that originated in the ideological world of pioneering Zionism. The religion of the soil and the religion of archaeology The attitude to the land was a central axis in the pioneering ethos. The pioneers’ attitude to the physical land was one of ecstatic desire, and contact with the land

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  21 was a defining moment in this desire (Neumann 2011). This view, which stems from the Romantic naturalism that developed in Europe from the end of the 18th century and which called for the sensual union of man with nature, is also reflected in the teachings of Aaron David Gordon, who was the spiritual leader of the pioneers of the Second Aliyah.8 Farming was linked to the pioneers’ consciousness of abandoning the way of life of Jews in the Diaspora. Purchasing land was contrasted with life in the Diaspora, where the Jews were forbidden to buy agricultural land, and working the soil symbolized the transition from an economy based on trade and speculation to an economy in which one earned a living by the sweat of one’s brow. These symbolic layers gave agriculture the value of worshiping God (Almog 1997: 254–256). Apart from this symbolism, agriculture had another important meaning—the natural and immediate connection to the land was also a significant factor in creating a sense of indigenousness among the children of the pioneers, the first generation to be born in Palestine (Gurevitch and Aran 1994: 200–201). The pioneers saw themselves as merging, assimilating, and being absorbed into the earth. It seems that in a sense their attitude to the land was erotic—the pioneers loved the land, were in love with it, and for them, the soil of the Land of Israel was like a bride whose virginity they sought to take (Neumann 2011: 50–54). The establishment of the state of Israel did not change this ideological conception fundamentally, and even if the political status of the pioneering ideology was weakened, and the influence of political factors advocating this ideology became less, in terms of Israeli discourse the pioneering ethos remained a central and prominent element in shaping the society’s identity. The youth continued to be educated in the light of these values in the years following the establishment of the state (Shapiro 1984: 83–89; Dahan-Kalev 1996: 182). Given the centrality of the ethos of the land in the Zionist vision, it can be suggested that the importance attached to archaeology by the hegemonic Zionist society also stemmed from the perception of archaeological activity as an additional expression of the “religion of the soil.” Admittedly, the goals of the farmer are different from those of the archaeologist—the farmer cultivates the soil and prepares it for the growth of crops, while the archaeologist focuses on exposing the findings hidden deep in the soil. Yet in both cases the experience is the same, due to the tangible physical contact with the earth. The connection between archaeology and the pioneering cult of the soil was also expressed in the perception of archaeology as an expression of indigenousness. Intensive interest in archaeology was associated with a return to the landscape and nature of Palestine. The exposure of archaeological finds, hidden in the depths of the earth and anchored in the ancient landscape, created a sense of belonging to the place and identification with it and was another tier in constructing a sense of indigenousness and affinity to the territory and geographical space (Shapira 2003). Changes in Israeli society’s attitude to archaeology Since the 1970s, Israeli society has been characterized by a process that is essentially a transition from a society in which emphasis is placed on collective values around which the entire population unites, into communities with distinct identities

22  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society that have established themselves within Israeli society (Almog 2001). As a result, archaeology, which served as a central tool in the Israeli “national religion” for the purpose of building a national identity, lost its importance and was no longer perceived as having the role of “contemporizing our past and realizing our historical continuity in the country” but became a more professional field than before.9 Apart from this change, which is ideological in nature, we must take into account the changes that took place in Israeli archaeological activity from the early 1990s onwards. These changes are related mainly to the establishment of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) which replaced the IDAM. It should be noted that the establishment of the IAA also stemmed from general changes that took place in economic policies in the state of Israel during the mid-1980s and the transition from a centralized government economy to the neo-liberal era (Ben Bassat 2001). As a result of these changes, some of the activities of the government ministries were transferred from the direct responsibility of the government (the IDAM as part of the Ministry of Education) to external government companies (the IAA as a government authority). The new body was independent in budgetary matters, recruiting of personnel, and even in fundraising by donors. For many years, the number of professional workers in this field had been relatively low. Personnel in the IDAM was limited (in its last days it had less than 60 employees), and some of the supervision works were carried out by volunteers who were not professional workers (Kletter 2008). With the establishment of the IAA in 1990, there was a change in the approach to site supervision and salvage excavations. For example, in the first 20 years of the IAA’s existence, about 4,300 salvage excavations were carried out under its auspices, compared with about 900 salvage excavations conducted by the IDAM in the 20 years prior to its establishment (Avni 2010). The proliferation of salvage excavations from the early 1990s onwards can be linked to the large wave of immigration from the countries of the former Soviet Union, which led to an outburst of construction, as according to the law, all development construction must have archaeological accompaniment. The second process was connected to the rise in the number of holders of degrees in archaeology in general and of advanced degrees in particular. The sharp increase in the number of excavations led to a demand for professional archaeologists to manage them, a demand that could be realized as a result of the parallel increase in holders of degrees in archaeology but at the same time also fed the need for additional graduates with academic qualifications. On the face of it, the growth of archaeology departments at various universities is in contradiction to the decline in the public role of archaeology. However, this process reflects the transition that Israeli archaeology has made from a “national hobby” to a specialized field that is studied at university and practiced as a profession by those who work in it. One of the clearest manifestations of this change is the attitude towards private collections. One of the characteristics of the “golden age” of Israeli archaeology was the existence of private collections, ranging from small collections of individual vessels to collections of dozens of objects. The IDAM only asked that the objects be listed in its existing catalog, and as long as the finds were kept intact in an enclosed place, not only was there no opposition to

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  23 the existence of these collections, they were even encouraged. For example, this is how the private collection of Jacob Kaplan, who “crossed the lines” and from an engineer and amateur archaeologist became the IDAM’s Tel Aviv district archaeologist, was described: “a small collection, yet worthy of special attention due to the fine exhibits, including Paleolithic flint tools, a group of Early Bronze Age vessels from Mughar near Gedera, tools and objects from the Hellenistic-Byzantine period and more” (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-000aup2, December 1, 1948). The positive attitude towards private collections owned by archaeology enthusiasts is also reflected in the establishment of museums based on such collections, from the establishment of the Haaretz Museum, which was established in Tel Aviv in the 1950s on the basis of the Walter Moses collection, to the Hecht Museum (Reuben Hecht collection) and the Bible Lands Museum (Elie and Batya Borowski collection) established during the 1980s. In recent years, there has been a change in the Israel Museum’s policy towards private collections. Unlike in the past, the Israel Museum now refrains from displaying objects of unknown provenance and does not purchase antiquities except in very rare cases and in collaboration with the IAA. Most of the new exhibits in the museum today come only from official excavations.10 As a result of these processes, Israeli archaeology has transformed from a field based on a nucleus of professional manpower assisted in its work by a broad volunteer community to one that requires expertise, similar to any profession, and therefore is no longer an arena for interested autodidacts. These changes led to a significant decline in the Israeli public’s interest in archaeology. Although archaeological finds are still prominently published in the media, Israeli society is no longer a mobilized society, and therefore, the finds do not represent “secular nationalism.” Community archaeology The changes that occurred in Israeli society, described above, further influenced archaeological activity. From the 1990s onwards, community archaeology has affected national archaeology. Community archaeology engages the general public in archaeological activity from the perspective of the importance of local heritage, linking excavated sites to the community living nearby, and from the understanding that archaeological sites are a cultural resource owned by the community. Moreover, connecting the residents to the area of the excavated site and to the activities carried out there would hopefully later preserve the newly revealed findings from looting and damage. It should be noted that the flourishing of community archaeology is characteristic of public archaeological activity not only in Israel (Carman 2002; Marshall 2002; Moser et al. 2002; Simpson and Williams 2008; Moshenska 2017). The emergence of community archaeology in various places around the world since the 1970s has been linked to post-colonial processes and has served as a means of collaborating with indigenous communities in the past study of sites connected to them (see Tully 2007: 157–159, and further bibliography there). National and community archaeology have several elements in common, such as being an educational tool and not just a scientific one, as well as the

24  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society purpose of connecting the public to the past. However, not only does community archaeology emphasize the values associated with local community identity, but it also views participation in digs as a means of individual personal development through dealing with any difficulties met and through deepening the social ties among the diggers. The emphasis is on learning about the past while learning about oneself.11 In this case, too, archaeology is an expression of indigenousness, but in contrast to national archaeology, which viewed uncovering the past as part of an ideology aimed at connecting the nation and the land, and thus proving the Jews’ right to the Land of Israel, community archaeology represents a preference for the needs of the local community and the formation of a local identity. It seems that the first buds of community archaeology can be found in Ruth Amiran’s excavation in Tel Arad. During 18 seasons of excavation, between 1962 and 1981, the city (dated to the Early Bronze Age) and its residential quarters, public buildings, temples, and fortifications were exposed (Amiran et al. 1997). At the beginning of 1989, a group of residents of the modern city of Arad was formed with the aim of strengthening the connection between the residents of the city and its surroundings with their past through activities related to the tel. Amiran, who worked in the IDAM from the day it was founded, had a significant impact on the deliberate actions which were taken to educate the public to love the country by means of archaeological finds, both through the “Friends of Antiquities” and through the local museums. At this time, Amiran joined the task force in meetings, explanations, lectures, and tutorials. On February 18, 1989, on the 27th anniversary of the arrival of the archaeological expedition at Tel Arad, the members of the association gathered and officially decided to establish the “Friends of Tel Arad,” which would work to strengthen the connection between Arad inhabitants and the history of their place of residence. The association developed various plans related to the excavations; established a lobby that met with the mayor of Arad and with official government organizations in order to promote the inclusion of the area of the tel within Arad’s city limits; and offered a professional plan for the restoration of the ancient site and its preparation for visitors. In order to bring the residents of Arad and the entire area closer together, the members of the association organized various activities at the tel.12 The peak of the “Friends of Tel Arad” activities occurred on Saturday, September 16, 1989. On that day, a “Shabbat of Experiences” was held at the tel, with the aim of developing a connection between the residents of Arad and Tel Arad, in which more than a thousand visitors participated. The day’s program included experience in archaeological restoration work, creation of pottery in the style of the tools found at the site, exposure to the work of conservators, and more.13 Amiran was involved in the association’s activities, both those connected the restoration of the site and the educational activities. She helped organize a series of lectures in Arad that dealt with the archaeology of the Negev and invited members of the association to tour the Israel Museum. The obvious comparison to Amiran’s activities with the “Friends of Tel Arad” is to the “Friends of Antiquities.” Both organizations were characterized by activities aimed at preserving and cultivating the archaeological finds discovered in the “Friends” area of residence. But there is a fundamental difference between the

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  25 two organizations: while the activities of the “Friends of Antiquities” referred to a national value system whose goal was to establish an old-new national identity with the help of archaeology, the Arad residents’ association represented a different system centered on the local community, and this organization’s primary object of identity was the local social and cultural framework of Arad residents. Did Amiran also see things that way? It seems that as far as Amiran was concerned, the values of love for the land that she wanted to instill in the early days of the state remained the same, but later in life she did so with different tools, adapted for other times. The similarity that continued to exist between the two organizations is also reflected in the fact that the activities of the “Friends of Tel Arad” were aimed only at the residents of the city of Arad and not at the Bedouin population living in the vicinity of the tel. Of all the many community excavations, it is worth discussing two of the first community excavations conducted in Israel, the excavation in the Ir Ganim neighborhood of Jerusalem and a Jewish-Arab excavation that took place in Lod. Both excavations represent a similar concept, of excavation as a way of empowering the participating communities. In both cases, the initial desire was to do something for the community and the way to do that was through an excavation that produced community and personal values. The excavation at Rogem Ganim, which took place between 1998 and 2006, focused on a tumulus attributed to the end of the Iron Age, one of a group of tumuli discovered in southwest Jerusalem (Albright 1923; Amiran 1958; Barkay 1985: 284–297). The Ir Ganim–Kiryat HaYovel neighborhood, established in the 1950s, is characterized by a low socio-economic background. The neighborhood was inhabited from the beginning by new immigrants, and from the beginning of the 1990s, a new generation of immigrants from the CIS and Ethiopia also settled there.14 The tumulus, prominently visible from various places in the neighborhood due to its height, served for many years as a dump, and the initiative to excavate and rehabilitate it was the result of local community activity as part of an educational-environmental project. The locals recruited professionals for the project, including an archaeologist living in the neighborhood, and the excavation began by removing hundreds of tons of garbage from the site. In the second phase, an archaeological dig with the participation of local volunteers began. The operations were coordinated by the tumulus committee set up by the local administration, which included the residents of the area, and the restoration of the site made the place of great significance to them (Cinamon 2008). Another community dig, unique in that both Jewish and Arab students participated, was the Khan el-Hilu sustainability project in 2008–2013. The Khan was built mainly during the 19th century, but the excavation also uncovered earlier remains from the Byzantine (pottery without architectural finds), the Mamluk (part of an industrial structure), and the early Ottoman periods (only fills were exposed from this stage) (Da’adli 2017). The community excavation in Lod began in 2008 with a desire to combine two interrelated goals. First, participation in the excavation was intended to empower children living in the city, since a high percentage of the residents of Lod come from low socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, the joint excavation was intended to create an unmediated encounter between Jewish

26  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society and Arab pupils living in Lod, by cooperating in an excavation where they would work side by side. The excavation was conducted by Yuval Gadot and Tawfiq Da’adli (the latter being born and raised in Lod), and from the beginning explanations were given in both Arabic and Hebrew, with the aim of demonstrating mutual cooperation and equal status for both languages to the children (Bonn-Muller 2010). The starting point for the excavation was therefore the desire to create local cooperation, and the Khan al-Hilu site was chosen for this purpose as it was an area suitable for many years of excavation. The community excavation lasted five years and was funded through a donation. Over the years, community excavations have become part of the archaeological landscape in Israel, but it is noteworthy that not all of them have identical values. While some excavations try to harness archaeology for national values, others view the joint activity of the residents among themselves and within the environment in which they live as a central value. Today, many excavations define themselves as community excavations that are open to the general public, not only to those who live close to the site. Moreover, in contrast to the excavations described above, today most community excavations are not bottom-up initiatives, i.e., digs that work for the community through archaeology, but rather are excavations that primarily aim to answer archaeological research questions while involving the public in the actual work on the site (Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5  The community excavation at Korazim (Photo: Achia Kohn-Tavor)

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  27 The IAA Cultural Heritage Project Community excavations, which began as a voluntary activity of archaeological expeditions related to academic institutions, have since 2015 become part of an institutional system, when the former director-general of the IAA, Israel Hasson, established the Cultural Heritage Project. In recent years, educational activity has become one of the main missions of the IAA, in which framework groups of pupils, from elementary schools to pre-military preparatory schools, take part in excavations. Groups over the age of 16 work for a salary that is used by the whole group for educational activities while younger students participate in this activity voluntarily. Since most of the salvage excavations currently underway in the country are carried out by the IAA, its entry into this area was significant. The IAA was established as a professional body whose purpose is to be responsible for the country’s antiquities. In the past, its educational activities were limited and focused on teaching classes within schools by archaeology instructors. The education units, in a sense, are turning back the wheel, as the IAA’s role is now perceived not only as a body which “will preserve, conserve and study the archaeological heritage of the country at the highest scientific level” (from the IAA’s vision and mission, on its website) but also as playing a significant role in educating the public: “to arouse the students’ love of the land, its landscapes, and its historical and cultural heritage through the direct and experiential acquaintance that takes place during archaeological excavation at the site.”15 Contrary to the IDAM in its early years, which clearly understood the meaning of education to be the construction of national values, the concept of the Cultural Heritage Project was more complex. Although the large enterprises carried out in this framework have a Jewish affiliation (see below) and hence also to imparting values related to strengthening the connection to the state and the land, at the same time there is an emphasis on additional values, including manual labor, cooperation, and solidarity. Moreover, similarly to the community excavations, the Cultural Heritage Project also wishes to connect the various communities to their local heritage through activities based on the proximity of archaeological sites to the local population living nearby. Thus, for example, activities at Huquq in the Upper Galilee are also aimed at nearby Maghar, and the Sanhedrin Trail project (see below) also includes activities for the children of Kafr Kana, near whose homes the trail passes, with an emphasis on ancient roads.16 The Sanhedrin Trail is currently the Cultural Heritage Project’s flagship project. It began in 2017, and the idea behind it was to create a hiking trail crossing the Galilee from Beit She’arim to Tiberias, passing between the sites of the Sanhedrin’s wanderings in the Galilee.17 It seems that the project reflects the adoption of a national religious worldview by the IAA, as manifested in its collaboration with the Ministry of Education’s Religious Education Administration. The project’s starting point thus refers to values associated with Jewish identity, and indeed, the main excavation conducted along the trail is taking place in Usha, which was the seat of the Sanhedrin. The trail’s publicity video states that its purpose is “to deepen the affinity of the entire population to the soil of the land, to the antiquities of the land and to the words of our sages revealed between the folds of its earth.”18 It

28  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society

Figure 1.6  A landmark of the Sanhedrin Trail in Tiberias with a verse from the Mishnah (Photo: Einat Ambar-Armon)

seems that the Sanhedrin Trail can also be seen as an expression of the changes that have taken place since the 1980s onwards in the attitude of religious society to archaeology. As described above, in the secular “religion of the nation” that was a significant factor in Israeli society in the first 20 years after the establishment of the state, biblical archaeology constituted a central component. The Sanhedrin Trail, on the other hand, represents the Jewish sages of the period after the destruction of the Second Temple, a period that was significant in shaping Jewish religious law. It can be assumed that the choice of the Sanhedrin Trail as the flagship project of the Cultural Heritage Project, which represents the “words of our sages revealed between the folds of the earth,” can only occur in a reality in which religious society—and all its values—takes an active part in Israeli archaeology. We will now turn, in Chapter 2, to Jewish religious society and its approach to archaeology.​ Notes 1 The Old Yishuv refers to the Orthodox Jewish community living in Palestine before the 1880s, in contrast to the New Yishuv (or simply, “the Yishuv”), the non-traditional, often socialist, Jews who immigrated to Palestine from the late 19th century to the 1940s due to Zionism. 2 Ha-’Olam, January 11, 1934 [in Hebrew]. 3 In this civil secular “religion,” there were other elements whose purpose was the same, but which are beyond the scope of this study. For example: the appropriation of the Bible

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  29 for national needs, and the development of the field of Yediath Ha’Aretz (Knowledge of the Land), which included hikes and journeys to become acquainted with the country. See Almog (2000: 160–184); Shapira (2004); and Note 5. 4 When the Israeli Department of Antiquities was established, it was a unit affiliated with the Public Works Department in the Ministry of Labor. In 1955 the Department of Antiquities was transferred to the Ministry of Education and Culture and became the Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM). For the sake of convenience, I will use the term IDAM also in relation to the period before 1955. 5 The term Yediath Ha’Aretz or “Knowledge of the Land” refers to the general study (usually non-academic) of the history, geography, etc., of the Land of Israel. 6 This excavation is considered to be the one in which the “Israeli method” of excavation was formulated in practice (Aharoni 1973). For a contrary opinion, see Kletter (2015). 7 The excavation in Masada during the first half of the 1960s was exceptional in this sense, but from 1942 onwards Masada became a national symbol, where a direct connection was established between the defenders of Masada who stood against the Roman armies and the state of Israel fighting for its life against the armies seeking its destruction in the present (Zerubavel 1995: 60–76; Brog 1996; Kletter 2006: 216–218). 8 The Second Aliyah was a wave of immigration of groups of Jewish youth, mostly from Eastern Europe, who came to Palestine between 1904 and 1914. This wave largely shaped the initial character of Israeli society, with an influence that has lasted over the years. 9 The quotation is taken from Ben-Gurion’s speech at the sixth annual meeting of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 15, 1950, p. 125 [Hebrew]). 10 The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, report on the state of archaeology in Israel, 2015. 11 For an extensive discussion of the educational values that can be derived from participation in archaeological activities, see Malone, Stone, and Baxter (2000); Smardz and Smith (2000); Corbishley (2014); Henson (2017); and Bender and Messenger (2019). 12 Arad municipal archives. 13 The Association’s periodical report, Ruth Amiran archives, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. 14 According to data from the Jerusalem municipality’s website: https://www​.jerusalem​ .muni​.il​/he​/residents​/community​-in​-jerusalem​/neighborhoods​/nei​ghbo​rhoo​dirg​anim​ kiry​atme​nahe​mnei​ghborhood; accessed December 20, 2022. 15 From the contract between the IAA and the schools participating in the education units’ projects. 16 I am grateful to Einat Ambar-Armon for this information. 17 The “Sanhedrin” (from the Greek word for “council”) was the highest religious court in Judea during the Second Temple period. It also constituted a national leadership and had the powers of both legislation and jurisdiction. The head of the Sanhedrin was called the nasī or nasī yisrael. Until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, the Sanhedrin’s discussions were held in the Temple. After that, the seat of the Sanhedrin migrated for security reasons or according to the residence of its head, thus during the 2nd and 3rd centuries the Sanhedrin moved to the Lower Galilee and sat in various places, including Usha, Shfar‘am, Zippori, Beit She‘arim, and Tiberias. 18 https://www​.youtube​.com​/watch​?v​=a8fl​-S7Bqec; accessed December 20, 2022.

References Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial SelfFashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Aharoni, Y. 1973. “Remarks on the ‘Israeli’ Method of Excavation.” Eretz-Israel 11: 48–53 (Hebrew).

30  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society Albright, W.F. 1923. “Interesting Finds in Tumuli Near Jerusalem.” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 10: 1–3. Almog, O. 1996. “Secular religion in Israel.” Megamot 37: 314–339. (Hebrew) Almog, O. 1997. The Sabra: A Profile. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew) Almog, O. 2000. The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew. Translated by H. Watzman. Berkeley: University of California Press. Almog, O. 2001. “Shifting the Centre from Nation to Individual and Universe: The New ‘Democratic Faith’ of Israel.” Israel Affairs 8: 31–42. Amiran, R. 1958. “The Tumuli West of Jerusalem: Survey and Excavations, 1953.” Israel Exploration Journal 8: 205–227. Amiran, R., O. Ilan, and M. Sebanne. 1997. Ancient Arad - An Early Bronze Age on the Desert Fringe. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Avigad, N. 1967. “E. L. Sukenik—The Man and his Work.” Eretz-Israel 8: IX–XI. (Hebrew) Avni, G. 2010. “Twenty Years Later: Excavations and Archaeological Research at the Israel Antiquities Authority.” Past Matter (Dvar E-Avar) 15: 13–14. (Hebrew) Barkay, G. 1985. “Northern and Western Jerusalem in the End of the Iron Age.” Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 1999a. “Non-Jewish Institutions and the Research of Palestine during the British Mandate Period: Part One.” Cathedra 92: 135–172. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 1999b. “Non-Jewish Institutions and the Research of Palestine during the British Mandate Period: Part Two.” Cathedra 93: 111–142. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 2001. “Developments in the Study of Yediat Ha’aretz in Modern Times, up to the Establishment of the State of Israel.” Cathedra 100: 305–338. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 2008. “Jewish or General Archaeology: The Study of the Land of Israel before 1948.” In Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel, edited by M. Feige and Z. Shiloni, 19–41. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Ben Bassat, A., ed. 2001. The Israeli Economy 1985–1998: From Government Intervention to Market Economics. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew) Ben-Gurion, D. 1969. Biblical Reflections. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew) Bender, S.J. and P.M. Messenger, eds. 2019. Pedagogy and Practice in Heritage Studies. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. Bonn-Muller, E. 2010. “Common Ground: Muslim and Jewish Communities Uncover Their Hometown’s Heritage.” Archaeology 63(2): 25–27. Brog, M. 1996. “From Masada to the Heart of the Ghetto: Myth as History.” In Myth and Memory: Transfigurations of Israeli Consciousness, edited by D. Ohana and R. Wistrich, 203–227. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Bulletin. 1949. Bulletin of the Antiquities Department of the State of Israel 1. (Hebrew) Bulletin. 1950. Bulletin of the Antiquities Department of the State of Israel 2. (Hebrew) Bulletin. 1951. Bulletin of the Antiquities Department of the State of Israel 3. (Hebrew) Carman, J. 2002. Archaeology and Heritage: An Introduction. London: Continuum. Chirikure, S. 2021. Great Zimbabwe: Reclaiming a ‘Confiscated’ Past. London and New York: Routledge. Cinamon, G. 2008. “The Archaeological Site as Constructing Local Identity: The Test Case of the Yir Ganim and Qiryat Menachem Communities in Jerusalem.” In Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel, edited by M. Feige and Z. Shiloni, 187–206. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Corbishley, M. 2014. Pinning Down the Past: Archaeology, Heritage, and Education Today. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  31 Crowfoot, J.W., K.M. Kenyon, and E.L. Sukenik. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Da’adli, T. 2017. “Khan el-Hilu: Summarizing Results Ahead of the 10th Excavation Season.” Lod “Diospolis—City of God” 3: 141–159. (Hebrew) Dahan-Kalev, H. 1996. “Israeli Identity—Between New Immigrants and ‘Oldtimers’.” In Israel in the Great Wave of Immigration 1948–1953, edited by D. Ofer, 177–190. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Díaz-Andreu, G.M. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dothan, M. 1993. “Hammath Tiberias.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2, 573–577. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Elon, A. 1997. “Politics and Archaeology.” In The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, edited by N.A. Silberman and D. Small, 34–47. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Feige, M. 2001. “Identity, Ritual, and Pilgrimage: The Meetings of the Israeli Exploration Society.” In Divergent Jewish Cultures: Israel and America, edited by D.D. Moore and S.I. Troen, 87–106. New Haven: Yale University Press. Feige, M. and Shiloni, Z. eds. 2008. Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Fein, S. 2008. “American Jews and the Redemption of Synagogues.” In Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel, edited by M. Feige and Z. Shiloni, 55–63. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Geva, S. 1992. “The Israeli Biblical Archeology in Its Beginning.” Zmanim 42: 93–102. (Hebrew) Goren, D. 2013. “‘Go Look over the Land…’: The Establishment of the Israel Exploration Society.” Qadmoniot 145: 2–11. (Hebrew) Greenberg, R. and Y. Hamilakis. 2022. Archaeology, Nation, and Race: Confronting the Past, Decolonizing the Future, in Greece and Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gurevitch, Z. and G. Aran. 1994. “The Land of Israel: Myth and Phenomenon.” Studies in Contemporary Jewry 10: 195–210. Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Henson, D. 2017. “Archaeology and Education.” In Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, edited by G. Moshenska, 43–59. London: UCL Press. Hirschberg, A.S. 1977. In Oriental Lands, photocopy of the Vilna edition, 1910. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Hirschberg, H.Z. 1964. “Leo Aryeh Mayer.” Eretz-Israel 7: XI–XVI. (Hebrew) Katz, H. 2011. Ruth Amiran: A Biography. Haifa: Pardes. (Hebrew) Klein, S. 1925. Jewish Transjordan: From the Time of the Second Temple until the Last Century of the Middle Ages. Vienna: Menorah. (Hebrew) Kletter, R. 2006. Just Past?: The Making of Israeli Archaeology, London: Equinox. Kletter, R. 2008. “The Friends of Antiquities: The Story of an Israeli Volunteer Group and Comparative Remarks.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8. https://doi​.org​/10​.5508​/jhs​ .2008​.v8​.a2. Kletter, R. 2015. “In Search of the ‘Israeli’ Method of Excavation.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147: 146–159. Kletter, R. 2017. “Regional and Local Museums for Archaeology in the First Years of the State of Israel.” In LE-MA’AN ZIONY: Essays in Honor of Ziony Zevit, edited by F.E. Greenspahn and G.A. Rendsburg, 77–109. Eugene: Cascade Books.

32  The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society Kohl, P.L. 1998. “Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote Past.” Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223–246. Kohl, P.L. and C. Fawcett, eds. 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liebman, C.S. and E. Don-Yehiya. 1983. Civil Religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism and Political Culture in the Jewish State. Berkeley: University of California Press. Malone, C., P. Stone, and M. Baxter. 2000. “Education in Archaeology.” Antiquity 74: 122–126. Marquet-Krause, J. 1949. Les Fouilles de ‘Ay (et-Tell) 1933–1935: Entreprises par le Baron Edmond de Rothschild, la Résurrection d’une Grande Cité Biblique. Paris: P. Geuthner. Marshall, Y. 2002. “What Is Community Archaeology?” World Archaeology 34: 211–219. Mazar, B. 1973. Beth She’arim: Report on the Excavations during 1936–1940. Jerusalem: Massada Press. (Hebrew) Moser, S., D. Glazier, J. Phillips, L.N. El Nemr, M.S. Mousa, R.N. Aiesh, S. Richardson, A. Conner, and M. Seymour. 2002. “Transforming Archaeology Through Practice: Strategies for Collaborative Archaeology and the Community Archaeology Project at Quseir, Egypt.” World Archaeology 34: 220–248. Moshenska, G. ed. 2017. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press. Ndoro, W. 1997. “Great Zimbabwe.” Scientific American 277: 94–99. Neumann, B. 2011. Land and Desire in Early Zionism. Translated by H. Watzman. Waltham: Brandeis University Press. Scott, B.G. 1996. “Archaeology and National Identity: The Norwegian Example.” Scandinavian Studies 68: 321–342. Shahar, O. and A. Nitzan-Shiftan. 2014. “Between Tel Hazor and the Tomb of Honi HaMe’agel.” Identities 5: 99–130. (Hebrew) Shapira, A. 1997. “Ben-Gurion and the Bible: The Forging of an Historical Narrative?” Middle Eastern Studies 33: 645–674. Shapira, A. 1998. “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement.” In Zionism and Religion, edited by S. Almog, J. Reinharz, and A. Shapira, 251–272. Hanover: University Press of New England. Shapira, A. 2003. “Where Did the Negation of the Diaspora Go?” Alpayim 25: 9–54. (Hebrew) Shapira, A. 2004. “The Bible and Israeli Identity.” AJS Review 28: 11–41. Shapiro, Y. 1984. An Elite Without Successors: Generations of Political Leaders in Israel. Tel Aviv: Sifriat Poalim. (Hebrew) Shavit, Y. 1987. “‘Truth Shall Spring out of the Earth’: The Development of Jewish Popular Interest in Archaeology in Eretz-Israel.” Cathedra 44: 27–54. (Hebrew) Silberman, N.A. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: H. Holt. Silberman, N.A. and D. Small. 1997. The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Simpson, F. and H. Williams, 2008. “Evaluating Community Archaeology in the UK.” Public Archaeology 7: 69–90. Smardz, F.K. and S.J. Smith, eds. 2000. The Archaeology Education Handbook: Sharing the Past with Kids. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press. Spencer-Wood, S.M. and J.M.C. Trunzo. 2022. “Introduction to Archaeologies Special Issue on Intersectionality, Theory, and Research in Historical Archaeology.” Archaeologies 18: 1–44. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11759​-022​-09442​-5.

The place of archaeology in Israeli secular society  33 Sukenik, E.L. and L.A. Mayer. 1930. The Third Wall of Jerusalem: An Account of Excavations. Jerusalem and London: University Press and Oxford University Press. Trigger, B.G. 1995. “Romanticism, Nationalism, and Archaeology.” In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology, edited by P.L. Kohl and C. Fawcett, 263–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trigger, B.G. 1984. “Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist.” Man 19: 355–370 (Reprinted in Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by R.W. Preucel and I. Hodder. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996, 615–631). Tully, G. 2007. “Community Archaeology: General Methods and Standards of Practice.” Public Archaeology 6: 155–187. Zerubavel, Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

2

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology

The term “observant Jews” in this book refers to Orthodox Jews who are committed, in one degree or another, to the observance of the 613 commandments as traditionally interpreted. The choice of this definition stems from the fact that this study deals with archaeology in the state of Israel, where the majority of observant Jews are bound to the halakhah in its Orthodox interpretation.1 The discussion in the next two chapters refers, therefore, to Orthodox Jewish society in general. However, when necessary, I will distinguish between three different sub-groups: • Religious Zionists: Since its beginning, religious Zionism has participated in the Jewish national movement. Like other Orthodox groups, religious Zionism is committed to the halakhah and observance of commandments. Nevertheless, from its outset, the leaders of religious Zionism have supported collaboration with secular Zionist groups that are not observant. • Haredim: This group is not an ally of the Zionist movement. They are characterized by a greater adherence than other Orthodox groups to the observance of the commandments, as well as extreme conservatism in their lifestyles. • Ultra-Orthodox: This is a small minority within Haredi society. They are characterized by a radically negative approach to Zionism and the state of Israel. The members of the ultra-Orthodox community lead a strict Haredi lifestyle with a desire for isolation from Zionist society, both secular and religious (for a summary of research on the development of Orthodox society, see Samet 2005; Schwartz 2009; Sorotzkin 2011). Religious Christians participated in the geographical-historical study of Palestine from its onset during the 19th century (Silberman 1982; Goren 2020). The development of the archaeology of Palestine during the first half of the 20th century was also connected to scholars who came from this background (Dever 1980, 1985; Davis 2004; and see below). One might assume that like these researchers, there would have also been observant Jewish archaeologists working in this field. However, in contrast to religious Christians, who were part and parcel of the archaeological study of the Holy Land until the 1980s, the observant Jewish public had reservations about engaging in this area. The observant Jewish community’s avoidance of archaeology in general, and of biblical archaeology in particular, is DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-3

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  35 specifically salient in light of the significance given to this topic in the Israeli public sphere in the first 20 years of the existence of the state of Israel, as described in Chapter 1. In order to understand the reasons for this variance, we will start with a brief overview of the processes and changes that transpired in Christian biblical archaeology from the 1930s to the present. The flourishing and decline of Christian biblical archaeology2 Among the founding fathers of the archaeology of historical Palestine, an important place is held by archaeologists who were part of the Christian religious establishment or who had a religious worldview. For example, the French Biblical and Archaeological School (École biblique et archéologique française), established in Jerusalem in 1890 by Dominican monks and whose heads were members of the clergy, is still housed in the grounds of the monastery of Saint-Etienne. Among the important scholars affiliated with it was Louis Hugues Vincent, one of the greatest scholars of the archaeology of Palestine, who lived and worked at the school for 70 years, from 1891 to 1960. Another archaeologist to be mentioned in this context is Father Roland de Vaux, who ran the École biblique from 1945 to 1965 (Albright 1961; Puech 1993). Biblical archaeology has its roots in the first half of the 19th century, when German research began to establish a connection between archaeological sites in Palestine and the descriptions that appear in the Bible. This concept, dubbed by them hebräische Archaeologie, focused mainly on reconstructing biblical reality in the light of archaeological remains (Benzinger 1894). Societies for biblical archaeology were founded during the second half of the 19th century in both London and New York. Their main purpose was to communicate the efforts made during this period in the study of the ancient Near East. It should be noted that these associations did not see their role as verification of the Bible but as the study of the written sources included in “Semitic archaeology”; however, these findings, such as the epic of Gilgamesh, were considered evidence of the historical credibility of the biblical narrative (Davis 2004: 16–19). Preoccupation with the archaeology of Palestine became significant after the British conquest of the country in the First World War. Following the establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine, the restrictions that had existed under Ottoman rule were removed, and the British supported and even encouraged archaeological research. Due to the British government’s attitude towards antiquities and archaeological research, from the early 1930s biblical archaeology became the main branch of research in the archaeology of Palestine, especially among American Protestant scholars.3 The dominance of Protestant scholars in this field is primarily related to the fundamental principles of the Protestant worldview. Faith based on “by Scripture alone” (sola scriptura), which means personal reading and interpretation of the Scriptures by the believers, created a familiarity with the stories of the Bible, and the sites mentioned there, from a young age. It was mainly scholars of this stream of Christianity who were concerned with proving the historical reality of both the Old and the New Testaments, as they more than others were challenged by the undermining of the historical veracity of Scripture. In this context, the role of archaeology was

36  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology to serve primarily as an auxiliary science, whose purpose was to illuminate and validate biblical stories and to deal with critical theories dealing with the historical questions of early Israel (Davis 2004: 21–27). Furthermore, the significance of the Scriptures also affected Protestants’ attitude towards the country. The “Holy Land” fulfilled the theological function of strengthening the authority of the Bible. The encounter with the land and its sites led to a creation of a textual sacred landscape and was interpreted as an experience that brings about the deepening of one’s faith (Ron and Feldman 2009). The two major scholars who charted the path of biblical archaeology were William Foxwell Albright and George Ernest Wright. Albright, who was one of the pioneer archaeologists to work in Palestine in the first third of the 20th century, was born into a religious family. His parents were members of the Methodist Church and shortly before he was born, they set out for Chile as missionaries (Running and Freedman 1975: 5). Albright came to Palestine with deep religious convictions (Sherrard 2016). However, his point of view was more complex. Despite his theological conceptions, he also adopted critical approaches to the realities of biblical stories in archaeological finds (Davis 2004: 81–86). As a result, he perceived archaeology as a way to better understand the Bible and to shed light on the lifestyle of ancient Israel (Albright 1971: 230), and his research questions stemmed from an archaeological rather than a religious point of departure (Davis 2004: 89). Albright’s student, George Ernest Wright, represents an approach that places a greater emphasis on the religious aspect of archaeological research: To me, at least, biblical archaeology is a special “armchair” variety of general archaeology, which studies the discoveries of the excavators and gleans from them every fact that throws a direct, indirect, or even diffused light upon the Bible. It must be intelligently concerned with stratigraphy and typology, upon which the method of modern archaeology rests; but its chief concern is not with strata or pots or methodology. Its central and absorbing interest is the understanding and exposition of the Scriptures. (Wright 1947: 74) Wright created a complete identification between the archaeology of Palestine and biblical archaeology, since in his view there was an absolute identity between the two concepts (Davis 2004: 103). The “golden age” of biblical archaeology occurred between the 1930s and 1970s. Many of the American scholars who were affiliated with the American School in Jerusalem came from within the religious establishment. A significant percentage of the excavators in the American expeditions acquired their education in theological seminaries, and the archaeological research they conducted was directly influenced by their religious perceptions. It seems that until the 1960s, religious Christian scholars played a central role in the study of the archaeology of Palestine. Some of these scholars, who had a deep affection for the biblical stories, saw archaeology merely as a tool for reconstructing the reality that appears in the biblical narrative, while the goal of others was not only to present the cultural

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  37 background of the biblical narrative but also to verify the Bible through archaeology (Davis 2004).4 Examination of the excavations conducted during this period by American scholars with a religious affiliation shows the emphasis given to biblical sites. These sites include Tel el-Ful—associated with Givat Shaul (Albright 1924), Tell Dothan (excavated by Joseph P. Free [Master et al. 2005]), Shechem (Wright 1965), Beit Tzur (excavated by Ovid R. Sellers and Albright in 1931, and Sellers in 1957 [Sellers et al. 1968]), and Beit El (excavated by Albright and Kelso [Kelso 1968]). From the 1970s onwards, a change can be seen in American archaeologists’ approach to the study of the archaeology of Palestine. One of the most significant scholars to influence this process was William G. Dever, who argued against the religious Christian bias of archaeological research. Dever, who was active in the school of process archaeology (or the “new archaeology,” as it was formerly known) that developed during the 1960s and 1970s in the United States and England, called for the secularization of “biblical archaeology” by creating an alternative, which he defined as Syro-Palestinian archaeology. His main argument was that the archaeology of Palestine should expand its areas of interest to research questions that do not deal with biblical history (Dever 1980, 1985, 2010). There is no doubt that Dever’s call had a great impact, and even if, in practice, excavations are still conducted as they were in the past, in terms of the scholars’ worldview, classical biblical archaeology aimed at “verifying the Bible” has been replaced by excavations aimed at investigating past events, including those for which ancient biblical descriptions form one historical source among others for the reconstruction of the period. Moreover, unlike past scholars, who studied Semitic languages and the Bible as well as archaeology, today the practice of archaeology now requires specialization in specific fields. Thus, archaeologists dealing with the Bronze and Iron Ages are no longer polymaths who make a direct connection between the fields in their own research. The attitude of observant Jewish society to archaeology up to the 1980s During the years in which archaeology occupied a central place among religious Christian scholars, religious Jews were absent from this world. Moreover, even when observant Jews began to enter archaeological research, they were isolated figures, and their research did not include fieldwork. It seems that the first observant Jewish scholar to work in this field was Samuel Raffaeli (Raffaelovitz). Raffaeli belonged to the group of educated men who, while having received their education in the Jerusalem yeshivas (religious schools) of the Old Yishuv, adopted a way of thinking that was more modern and who supported the national idea. At the age of 18, after his marriage, Raffaeli traveled to England, where he sold antiques imported from Palestine (Shai 2006: 125–128). Later, after his return to Jerusalem, he became a money changer and thus obtained ancient coins found by peasants who cultivated their lands around Jerusalem (Tidhar 1947: 100–101). He began to specialize in numismatics and became an expert in this field. With the establishment of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities in 1920, he began working there

38  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology and until his death in 1923 he served as the curator of coins (Ben-Arieh 2001: 318). Raffaeli regularly published articles in Jewish newspapers appearing in Palestine and abroad, as well as writing a book dealing with Palestine during the Bronze Age (Raffaeli 1910). In his articles and in a book called The Land Before the Conquest of Joshua, he mediated to his readers the extra-biblical documents discovered during the second half of the 19th century in Egypt and Mesopotamia, among them the inscriptions recording the journeys of the pharaohs of the XVIIIth Dynasty to Canaan, as well as some of the Amarna letters. These translations were the first Hebrew versions of these inscriptions and preceded by decades the later translations made by Na’aman (1975), Aharoni (1987), and Cochavi-Rainey (2005). Another example of this duality, of research in fields related to archaeology but not conducting actual fieldwork that includes excavations, can also be found in the work of Shmuel Klein (Figure 2.1). Klein was born in 1886. His father was the rabbi of the Szilas Balhas community in western Hungary. He studied at the government gymnasium, first in Budapest and then in a town near Szilas. In 1906 he began studying at the rabbinical seminary in Berlin and, simultaneously, at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Berlin. His teachers in the rabbinical seminary were David Zvi Hoffmann and Zvi Hildesheimer, who greatly influenced him. With their encouragement, he began to specialize in geographical-historical research on Palestine. He completed his studies in 1909, receiving his PhD from the University of Heidelberg. Some two years later, Klein won a prize from the Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin—500 marks, intended for a research trip to Palestine. He toured all over the country, and especially in the Galilee, which was the subject of his main research.

Figure 2.1  Shmuel Klein (courtesy of Shmuel Klein’s family)

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  39 From 1910 he served as rabbi, first in Bosnia and then in the Hungarian town of Nové Zámky. In 1924, he was invited to join the Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to serve as a professor of geography of Palestine (yedi’at Eretz-Israel), and he became one of the first three permanent professors at the Institute. In addition, Klein served as the chairman of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (JPES) and was therefore involved in the society’s archaeological activities. Yet, despite his close proximity to archaeological research, he himself focused on geographical-historical studies (Hershkowitz 1940).5 In 1946 Yehoshua Brand submitted his dissertation, which dealt with pottery in Talmudic literature, to the Hebrew University (Brand 1946). Although he specialized in archaeology as part of his studies, and one of his supervisors was Eliezer Sukenik who was a faculty member in the Department of Archaeology, the doctoral dissertation was written as part of the Department of Talmud. Like Raffaeli before him, Brand engaged in archaeology as well but he was not involved in field archaeology and his starting point was the written sources—in his case, the Talmud. In his research, he identified the vessels that appear in the Talmudic literature based on archaeological finds. Brand continued to deal with this subject after 1948, but he did not become part of the hegemonic archaeological establishment. The absence of observant scholars was even more pronounced after 1948, in view of the central place that archaeology occupied in Israeli society. An examination of the number of religious workers who joined the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) during the years 1948–1967 shows that there were only a few such employees and, moreover, that they joined it at a junior level and were not required to study archaeology. Milka Cassuto-Saltzmann served as a librarian already in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities and she continued to fill this position in the IDAM, likewise Michael Feist as a surveyor. Among the junior ranks of the archaeological team was one observant inspector, Nathaniel Tefilinski, from Moshav Meron, who served as an inspector in the northern region, and Shlomo Goldschmidt, who was an observant archaeologist and a teacher at the Sde Eliyahu school, who worked part-time during the summer holidays in the IDAM. Within this framework, he excavated a number of sites in the Beit Shean valley. Thus, they did not make any actual impact on archaeological research during this period. The absence of observant faculty members in the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University is particularly noticeable in comparison with those who taught during these years in the Department of Biblical Studies.6 In 1966 Baruch Kanael, who was observant, completed his PhD. His doctoral dissertation on coins from the Hasmonean period is representative of his research, which was characterized by utilizing Mishnaic and Talmudic sources for the study of ancient coins (Kanael 1966). Thus, while Kanael indeed studied in the Department of Archaeology, his main occupation was in reconstructing the ancient economy through coins as well as Jewish written sources, rather than archaeological activity. During the 1970s another observant archaeologist wrote a research paper dealing with coins. This was Donald T. Ariel, whose MA thesis dealt with “The Currency of Jerusalem in the Classical Period in the Light of the Coins Found There” (Ariel 1979).

40  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology From the 1980s onwards, a change is apparent, evident in the involvement of observant students in archaeological research, yet most of them turned to the study of remains from post-biblical periods and dealt mainly with the Roman and Byzantine periods. This is the case with David Adan-Bayewitz, whose research paper was on “Manufacture and Local Trade in the Galilee of Roman-Byzantine Palestine” (Adan-Bayewitz 1985); Zeev Weiss, who wrote about the culture of entertainment and buildings for entertainment in Roman Palestine and their reflection in the Talmudic sources (Weiss 1994); and Hanan Eshel—although his doctoral dissertation discussed the Samaritans during the Persian and Hellenistic periods (Eshel 1994), most of his research dealt with the Bar Kochba period (the Roman period). The observant public was absent not only from archaeological activities in a professional and academic setting but also from activities within the framework of amateurs and interested parties from the general public. Of the hundreds of participants in the annual conferences of the Israel Exploration Society, only a few were from the observant public.7 Examining the non-participation of the observant community in archaeological activity during those years, it seems that it is impossible to pinpoint a single reason for this phenomenon. Why observant Jews refrained from engaging in archaeology in general, and in biblical archaeology in particular, must be interpreted as due to a combination of several factors, some more significant and some less, but together shaping a reality in which the religious public was reluctant to take an active part in archaeological excavations and research. Archaeology as a symbol of secularism Until the 1970s, Israeli archaeology was a key tool in the construction of the national identity. For Zionist society, finds unearthed at archaeological sites were proof that the present state of Israel is a continuation of the Land of Israel in the past. Thus, archaeology served as a thread connecting the past in which the people of Israel lived in their land to the present of the renewed state of Israel (see in detail above, Chapter 1). Contrary to this view, religious society’s belief in the sanctity of the biblical text was absolute. The divine promise of the land to the nation’s forefathers and to their seed forever was a basic foundation of its worldview, one that did not require any strengthening or justification (Schwartz 1997: 13–14). According to this view, the right of the people of Israel to return and settle in the land is enshrined in the unshakeable divine promise. The legitimacy of settlement in Israel was based in the first place on their religious beliefs, and therefore observant Jews did not need another factor, archaeology, to confirm the connection between the people and their land and between the past and the present. The ideological use of archaeology in Israeli society after the establishment of the state made it a central component of the “national religion” that was in fact an expression of the dominant Israeli culture at that time. This was a secular culture that negated life in the Diaspora and religious observance, which it viewed as retrograde, and that sanctified the connection to the soil, including archaeology (Shapira 1998). The connection to the land that occupied a

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  41 central place in the world of pioneering Zionist ideas held only a secondary place in religious society. One of the salient features of the Exile was the lack of physical connection to the land. Reality, in which the Jewish people were left without a territory, led to an increase in the importance of texts in general and of the sacred texts in particular. The Jews often left their homes—forcibly or voluntarily—and moved to new places where they could settle, and in this way of life the text was the important thing, since books, unlike real estate, could be taken by Jews from place to place. In traditional religious society, therefore, “working on the land” was secondary to “working on the text,” and the importance of the soil of Palestine stemmed not from a viewpoint that attributed independent value to working the land, but from the sanctity conferred on it by the text. It was not only the Orthodoxy that opposed immigration and settlement in Palestine that advocated this worldview but also the forerunners of Zionism, such as Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer. Kalischer called for immigration to Israel and settlement there, but he did not see the establishment of agricultural settlements whose inhabitants would earn a living from farming as an end in itself but rather as a tool for observing the commandments that depended on the land (Salmon 1998: 444).8 This view was in contrast to the attitude towards the land that occupied such a central place in the worldview of pioneering Zionism. The widespread public interest in the findings of excavations conducted throughout the country was to a large extent a passive participation of the entirety of Israeli society in its longing for the primitive Israelite soil. It seems, therefore, that not only did observant society not have a need for archaeology, in many cases the central place of archaeology in the “national religion” and its identification with the secular Zionist ethos deterred religious people from engaging in the field, whether in public frameworks or academic and professional settings. “Archaeology of above” and “archaeology of below” The differences described above had a practical impact on the way each group expressed its interest in antiquities. While secular Israeli society created its connection to the past mainly through professional and public engagement in archaeology, in religious Zionist society a physical connection to the past was reflected in visits and pilgrimages to holy places. For hundreds of years, Jews have visited ancient sites in the Galilee and in Jerusalem and its environs. The pilgrims’ purpose was to prostrate themselves on holy tombs, to pray and ask for intercession. This phenomenon should not be seen as an expression of archaeological activity but as traditional pilgrimages to holy places. Sites such as Rachel’s Tomb and the tomb of R. Shimon Bar Yochai9 in Meron were removed from archaeological supervision in the Antiquities Ordinance enacted in 1929. Despite being defined as antiquities sites, as they were built before 1700, the religious activities conducted there caused responsibility for these sites to be taken from the archaeologists and given to the providers of religious services. However, already in the first days of the state, with the establishment of the Ministry of Religions, the director-general of the ministry Shmuel Zanwill Kahana and his staff began the process of turning ancient sites that

42  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology had not previously been used as holy places into active sites of worship (Bar 2018). This activity was to a large extent an “archaeology of above,” since the creation of a sacred space often involved the physical development of the archaeological sites and, in some cases, even required an actual excavation (ibid.). This activity served as the background for constant friction between Kahana and his staff, on the one hand, and the IDAM, on the other. In May 1952, the director of the IDAM, Shmuel Yeivin, wrote a letter to BenZion Dinur, the Minister of Education, who was in charge of the IDAM, complaining that they could only with difficulty prevent unscientific excavations by the Ministry of Religions (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-000aup8, May 25, 1952). In a letter dated September 26, 1954, to Teddy Kollek, director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office, Yeivin complained regarding the actions taken by Kahana, which can be seen as “archaeology of above”: On the way between Safed and Meron, Dr. Kahana found it appropriate to give instructions to excavate and clean some ancient tombs, repair them and place above them noticeboards declaring them burial places of the sages of Israel named in the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud. It is inconceivable that a government institution does things contrary to an explicit law prohibiting any excavation of ancient remains without the permission of the Department of Antiquities. In very recent days, the Ministry of Religions has begun the same matter, of cleaning ancient tombs near Sheikh al-Gharib on the main road to Tel Aviv opposite the abandoned village of Aslin. Only after several days did Dr. Kahana approach me and ask me to visit the place with him, and then I realized that in the meantime he had already started cleaning several graves … It seems to me, therefore, that there is need for a clear and explicit decision by the government as to whether institutions, which have no bearing on archaeological scientific research, may intervene at all in the affairs of the Department of Antiquities and grant excavation licenses and demand consultation with them on these matters. (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-000aup8, September 26, 1954) The interpretation that Kahana gave to the antiquities of the Land of Israel concerned not the land itself but the sacred remains that stand upon it. He was interested in the land’s past, but his interest focused on religious affiliation and thus found expression in the practice not of archaeology for its own sake but of an “archaeology of above,” which created a mythical landscape of ancient holiness.10 Bible study in observant Jewish society The lack of interest in biblical archaeology is also related to the attitude that has existed in observant Jewish society regarding the study of the Bible. Throughout the years of Exile, the study of the Gemarah (also called the Talmud) was the central axis around which religious activity was concentrated.11 Since Judaism

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  43 focuses mainly on keeping the commandments and observing the halakhah (all the laws and commandments according to which Jews must live), the Gemarah was of practical importance because by studying it, it was possible to know the existing halakhah and continue to create new rulings for future generations (Breuer 2003: 83–97). It is not possible to learn the interpretations of the commandments and their implementation from the Bible alone. Moreover, while the study of halakhah and its further development enabled practical progress and provided intellectual challenge for learners, similar achievements cannot be reached in the study of the Bible, in the way it is done in the yeshivas. Exceptions to this attitude were the medieval Sages of Northern France and Germany (Ashkenaz). They often engaged with the Bible, and it occupied an important place in their discussions with their students. Over time, however, even in these yeshivas, dealing with this subject became the private study of individuals and did not characterize all yeshiva students. In general, it can be said that the Bible lessons given in the yeshivas were mainly the “Portion of the Week” sermons delivered every Friday night, which discussed the portion of the Torah read the following morning in the synagogue. Even this lesson did not usually deal with the study of the biblical text itself but viewed it through the lens of the Sages’ commentary (Stampfer 1995: 48; Breuer 2003: 118–123). An expression of this phenomenon can also be found in the words of the 15th-century Spanish scholar R. Isaac Abarbanel, in his commentary on the tractate Ethics of the Fathers (Pirqei Avot; a section of the Mishnah that deals with ethics, morals, and education). Regarding saying 5: 21 “Five years old to the Bible,” he criticizes Ashkenazi Jews: “For here it does not say that up to five years he should deal with the Bible and no more, as the Ashkenazim do today. Rather, when he is five years old, he should start studying the Bible” (Abarbanel, Nahalat Avot commentary on Pirqei Avot). A second reason motivating the unenthusiastic attitude towards the Bible in the religious world that led to the avoidance of Bible study is related to problems arising from literal interpretation in the study of the Bible. The concern was that studying the Bible without filtering its content through the interpretation of the Sages may give rise to critical and potentially heretical questions. With the rise of the Enlightenment movement (Haskalah),12 another factor was added to religious Jewish society’s reluctance to study the Bible. The Haskalah opposed the study of the Gemarah and the halakhah and, hence, shifted the focus from the Gemarah to the literal study of the Bible. This approach led to real opposition in the yeshivas to Bible study in general and to its literal study in particular. Thus, from the end of the 19th century, the study of the Bible in Eastern European yeshivas became not only undesirable but forbidden, and those who engaged in Bible study were immediately suspected of abandoning Jewish tradition (Breuer 2003: 128–129). In contrast to the Protestant Christian intellectual world, in which the Bible was given a central place and therefore biblical criticism was perceived as a threat to the foundations of faith, within religious Jewish society, the study of the Gemarah was given prime importance and therefore biblical criticism was perceived as an attack on Judaism, yet was not viewed as posing a real danger undermining religious life itself. Thus, it seems no coincidence that when observant Jews began to

44  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology engage in archaeology, they evinced less interest in finding tangible remains of the historical significance of the “Land of the Bible,” and most turned to later remains from the period of the Mishnah and the Talmud (1st–5th centuries CE). This period was closer to their interests, and a direct line connected the theoretical study of the Mishnah and the Gemarah, in which these archaeologists engaged during their study in yeshiva settings, and the study of the material culture of these periods. A fundamental change in the study of the Bible in religious Jewish society occurred mainly from the 1980s onwards. This change has also affected the interest in biblical archaeology (see below). Between theology and rabbinics Observant Jewish archaeologists’ avoidance of the realm of biblical archaeology, in comparison to the eager participation of scholars who held a Christian religious worldview, requires us to address another significant factor. That is the tension existing in observant Jewish society between religious studies and academic studies in the humanities, including archaeology. In Jewish society there is a clear distinction between sacred and secular studies. Sacred studies take place in a yeshiva—a separate institution that is not connected to the academic world. Thus, the observant young man studying in the yeshiva delves only into sacred studies and is not exposed to other fields of knowledge. The European universities were anchored from the beginning in a religious worldview, and from their inception during the Middle Ages, the study of theology took place alongside studies in other fields of knowledge. The first universities comprised four faculties: the seven liberal arts, theology, law, and medicine, of which theology was considered the most important. The students who sought to study theology were required first to acquire knowledge in additional sciences, as they were perceived as a stage that prepared them for the acquisition of religious knowledge. The study of theology that had previously taken place as part of the studies for the priesthood in monasteries had mainly included commentaries on the Bible and Christian dogma, but with the rise of the universities and the transition of this field of study to theology departments, there was a change in the method of teaching. This change was related to the study of Aristotelian philosophy, which was included within the liberal arts. The connection between the two fields studied at the same time, Aristotelian philosophy and theology, led to the use of logic and philosophy for the study of theology from the 12th century onwards. Introducing the possibility of asking questions about traditional biblical interpretation enabled the expansion of the discussion and the introduction of allegorical, moral, and tropological issues. The lecturers posed questions and used the text as a starting point for a dialectical theological discussion. The Bible was still the written authority, but new teaching methods were adopted by the lecturers. While Aristotle’s works in Latin translation did challenge Christian theology and even led to conflicts with the church and the popes, at the same time they continued to serve lecturers who taught theology at various universities and largely formed the basis of academic theology (Asztalos 1992: 409–412, 420). As a result, there was a fundamental

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  45 change in the way theology was studied in universities and, later, even in Christian seminaries, since the humanities were not perceived as a threat to religious studies. In the religious Jewish world, on the other hand, leaving the yeshiva—where one studies sacred texts—for the outside world, and especially for the world of academia, is not a natural process. The students in the yeshivas see themselves as protected within “the tent of the Torah” and any egress to the academic world opens one up to the dangers involved in exposure to opinions and worldviews that are contrary to the religious world. When studying the sacred texts in the yeshiva, they are given to the learner as a pre-determined truth. This conception of religious Jewish education underlies the ethos of yeshiva study, in contrast to the starting point of academia in general and the field of humanities in particular, which sees educating the student in critical independent thinking as its supreme value. This approach, which casts doubt on accepted truths, poses a threat to the basic concepts of yeshiva studies, creates tension between the two worlds, and may lead to the religious person’s sacred values becoming destabilized. Moreover, apart from having to deal with the critical approach, academic studies, especially in archaeology, include theories that deny the values and beliefs of the pious and require them to become acquainted with approaches contrary to their faith. The establishment of the Department of Land of Israel Studies at the religious Bar-Ilan University in 1973 (Safrai 2006) offered, for the first time, the possibility for students to begin to specialize in this field without fear of losing their faith (see below). The attitude to archaeology in religious Zionist society from the 1980s and onwards From the end of the 1970s onwards, there was a change in the place of archaeology in general, and biblical archaeology in particular, both in Israeli society and among Christian scholars (see above). In contrast to the central place that archaeology had previously occupied in the Israeli public space, it now lost its importance. Christian scholars continued to engage in the archaeology of Palestine, but in most cases the starting point was no longer biblical archaeology, whose main purpose was to illustrate biblical stories, but rather research dealing with the past history of Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. On the other hand, in religious Zionist society in particular, the reverse occurred, and for the first time, observant scholars began to enter the arena. It seems that just as in the previous stage, where more than one factor could be found that influenced the avoidance of archaeology, so too now it was a combination of different factors that brought about this change. Moreover, it seems that most of the factors that caused this change are related directly to those that previously brought about precisely the opposite attitude. The Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University The establishment of Bar-Ilan University in 1955 allowed observant students to conduct academic studies within a religious academic setting for the first time.

46  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology The university was established with the intention of creating an academic institution in which secular sciences would be combined with the study of the Torah and the observance of the commandments (Klein 1998: 16). The primary goal of the university’s founders was not to train religious scholars but to give observant high school graduates practical and scientific training that would prepare them for respectable and remunerative work in an observant atmosphere. In order not to deal with content that is contrary to the accepted Orthodox faith, it was initially decided that studies at Bar-Ilan would not include the fields of humanities and Jewish studies as critical disciplines, nor would graduate degrees be offered (Schwartz 2013: 23–24). The starting point was that all lecturers should be religiously observant, and in areas where there was content that is contrary to the Orthodox belief accepted by the lecturers—to teach in accordance with the accepted views in religious institutions. Thus, for example, passages from the New Testament were forbidden for study or research. In accordance with this view, it was decided not to develop departments that lacked observant lecturers, since the university leadership was not interested in appointing non-observant professors (Klein 1998: 106–109, 119). The development of the Department of Land of Israel Studies must be viewed against this background. The department was founded in 1973 and was one of the last departments to be established at Bar-Ilan. Its foundation was accompanied by concern about the introduction of the study of archaeology into a religious university (Moshe Garsiel, oral communication), and indeed, one of the main problems that had to be dealt with in the early years was the lack of observant archaeologists who could serve as faculty members. In fact, most of the areas of study falling under the umbrella of Land of Israel Studies were already taught in other departments of the university (mainly geography and history). The initial curriculum was designed so that the study of these topics was not within the new department; rather, the students would study them in the mother departments where the courses were already being taught. As such, there was no problem with finding observant faculty members for these areas of knowledge. However, in the only field in which the department innovated—archaeology—there were no observant faculty members who could teach this. Given the university’s policy regarding the employment of observant faculty members only, the establishment of the department met with opposition in the Senate as the contention was that an archaeological department could not be established without an observant archaeologist. It was decided to accept non-observant faculty members as well, thus making it possible to open the department (Safrai 2006: 259–260). Among the first faculty members was Israel Finkelstein, who later moved to Tel Aviv University. Moreover, in the first years of its existence, the department was characterized by a high percentage of students who had graduated from secular schools. However, the shift in the attitude to archaeology in religious Zionist society is also revealed in the make-up of the students, which has changed in recent years. A survey conducted between 2000 and 2005 revealed that close to 80% of the students in the department are graduates of state religious schools, while in the entire faculty of humanities this number stands at only about 60% (ibid.: 276). Study at the Department of Land of Israel Studies in Bar-Ilan has allowed observant students, for the first time, to participate

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  47 in field schools without dealing with barriers that existed at the other universities. Among these are the absence of kosher food on digs as well as a late arrival at the expedition camp after the weekend. The observant students who complete their studies every year in the department at Bar-Ilan, which has meanwhile become the Department of Archaeology and Land of Israel Studies, are now integrated into practical archaeological work at the Israel Antiquities Authority and other research institutions. It seems that in some regions, such as the Jerusalem region, graduates of the Department of Archaeology and Land of Israel Studies constitute a significant percentage of the staff. Thus, similarly to the Christian world where theology is studied in seminars and academic institutions alongside archaeology, the establishment of the department at Bar-Ilan has created a similar opportunity for observant students interested in archaeology. The influence of the Six Day War The Six Day War sparked a revolution that affected and still affects religious Zionist society.13 In this study I will refer only to those aspects in which the results of the war affected religious Zionist society in relation to archaeology. Gush Emunim’s14 vision of “the whole Land of Israel,” which overemphasized the element of the Land of Israel in religious Zionism’s ideological triangle of the People of Israel, the Torah of Israel, and the Land of Israel, made the physical dimension of the land the central factor in religious Zionist existence for the first time. The soil became a central component in the identity of various groups in religious Zionist society, and the sanctity of the soil has replaced the sanctity of the text (Sagi 2003; Ohana 2014: 335–336). Not only has “the land” become the most important value, but the nature of this change relates first and foremost to the physical aspects of the country, to the extent that elements of “Canaanism”15 can be found in the ideology of Gush Emunim (Ohana 2014).16 It can be said, therefore, that similarly to the ideological and tangible closeness to the land that existed in pioneering Zionist society in the first years after the establishment of the state, from the 1970s onwards, this ethos can also be seen to be expressed in religious Zionist society. However, it appears that the most significant impact of the Six Day War on religious Zionist society’s attitude towards archaeology is related to the fact that it was now, for the first time, possible to become physically acquainted with those areas where, according to biblical sources, the ancestors of the Jewish people had lived and worked. Following the transfer of control of the region of biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) to the state of Israel, it was possible to travel with the Bible in the field and thus, for the first time, to get to know the geography of the areas that served as a background to Bible stories. The Har Etzion Yeshiva, which was established about a year after the Six Day War, adopted this approach from the beginning, and its students went on hikes every Friday, in which they identified places and recreated events mentioned in the books of Samuel and Kings.17 A similar activity was carried out within the field schools of the Society for the Protection of Nature established in Kfar Etzion (in 1968) and Ofra (in 1975). This possibility created a new reality, in which the Bible was studied literally, and biblical realia

48  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology became a central component of this study. These processes increased the interest of many young people in archaeology, and as a result, some turned to academic studies in the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan or the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University, eventually becoming archaeologists active in this field (such as Hanan Eshel and David Amit). Another issue is related to the use made of archaeology by the settlers in the West Bank and City of David in Jerusalem for the purpose of “the action of Judaization and Israelification of the Judea and Samaria region” (Feige 2009: 193). Feige, who studied the settlers in the West Bank in this context, emphasized the great similarity between their conception of archaeology and the secular Zionist conception in 1948–1977. Just as archaeology had served Israeli society then as a tool for building nationalism and justifying the Zionist vision, in this case, too, archaeology assists and in fact provides legitimacy for the act of settlement (ibid.). However, as stated, due to the fact that this study deals with internal developments within Israeli society, the broader politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beyond the scope of this book. Finally, beyond all the reasons listed above, the entry of observant students into the field (both in the sense of the profession of archaeology and in the sense of fieldwork) must also be examined in the light of the processes that religious Zionist society in general has undergone in recent decades. The increase in the number of archaeology students is yet another expression of the entry and integration of observant people in senior positions in the public arena as a whole (the economy, politics, academia, and the army). The attitude of the Haredi public to archaeology Haredi society developed during the 19th century against the background of the processes of modernization and education that led to changes in the structure of traditional Jewish society. This society is characterized by greater strictness than other Orthodox groups regarding the observance of the commandments, as well as extreme conservatism in its lifestyles. The conceptual basis for this group is based on the ideas of the Ḥatam Sofer (1762–1839),18 who stated that “the new is forbidden from the Torah.” Although the original saying (Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin 38b) refers to the ban on eating new grain after Passover, the Ḥatam Sofer made it the ideological basis of Haredi society. Anything “new” in the sense of “modern” is forbidden a priori and therefore conservatism must be sanctified and any change in accepted customs must be resisted (Samet 2005; Sorotzkin 2011). In light of this perception, it is therefore clear that all the factors mentioned in the previous subchapter in relation to religious Zionist society’s avoidance of engaging in archaeology are also valid for Haredi society. An examination of the Haredi community’s attitude towards archaeology shows a duality that is expressed in active opposition on the one hand (in contrast to religious Zionist society, which was characterized rather by non-participation in archaeological activity, than by its negation) but also interest in areas in which there is an affinity to the Bible and the halakhah. The discussion of the Haredi struggle against excavating graves will be described in the

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  49 following chapter, while in this one I will address the characteristics of the Haredi interest in archaeology. As stated above, the establishment of the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University was a turning point in religious Zionist society’s attitude towards archaeology and the integration of religious scholars in this field; however, the processes of academicization that the Haredi community in Israel is experiencing at present are mostly directed to acquiring a profession and not to academic studies in the humanities (Kalagy and Braun-Lewensohn 2017: 30–31), so that archaeology students from the Haredi sector are almost non-existent. Moreover, most of the members of the Haredi public who are interested in archaeology are “educated Haredis.” They have not given up studying in a yeshiva in order to go to work. On the contrary, their study stems mainly from intellectual curiosity and aims to help achieve a better understanding of halakhic issues.19 It seems that two main characteristics can be seen in Haredi society’s attitude towards archaeology: 1. Those who study the topic do so as autodidacts. Due to the reluctance to study this field of knowledge in academic settings, including religious ones, knowledge of archaeological issues is mainly acquired from websites. The growing interest in the subject among the sections of the Haredi public must therefore be linked to the Internet revolution, which opened up more accessible study options and led to a broader acquaintance with archaeology. 2. The Haredi public’s interest in archaeology is mainly related to the use made of archaeological finds for the purpose of halakhic rulings. For example, before Purim, one can find discussions about the question of which cities were walled in the days of Joshua (i.e., the discussion of this halakhic issue is directly related to questions about the nature of the settlement in Canaan in the late Bronze and early Iron Ages), since the answer to this question has a direct implication for the date of observance of the holiday’s commandments in these cities. Other archaeological issues that regularly arise are related to the definition of the borders of the Land of Israel in ancient times, in the context of the application of the laws related to qedushat shevi’it20 (Adler 2004). Of particular importance is the attempt to determine ancient measures of eating foods. Measures such as “about an olive,” “an egg,” and “a quarter” are principles of halakhah and have a direct impact on the life of the observant Jew. The questions relating to these measures determine, among other things, the amount of wine one must drink at Kiddush on Friday night, the amount of matzah that must be eaten on Seder night, as well as the amount one is allowed to drink and eat on Yom Kippur. Sages linked the measures to crops from the animal and plant worlds: an olive, an egg, a chicken’s neck. However, what was the size of olives and eggs in the time of the Sages when these laws were established? Due to the fact that the laws related to measures cover all areas of life, this issue is of great importance, and the question of the relationship between the size of the egg or the olive in the past compared to their size today is a central issue in Haredi interest in archaeology. It should be noted that even the late Rabbi Shmuel Wosner (1913–2015)—considered one of the

50  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology most important jurisprudents in the Haredi community in general, and among the Hassidim in particular—agreed that archaeological findings can be used to resolve halakhic questions, although he made no move to do so in practice.21 Haredi society’s attitude towards archaeology is reflected in the Treasures of the Land (Heb.: Matmoney Eretz) Association (Figure 2.2). This is a Haredi association whose goal is “to expand the fields of Torah-based (Heb.: torani) knowledge among Torah-based scholars, with an emphasis on history and archaeology, which contain many tools with which to illuminate Torah study in a new light.”22 The association’s starting point is that Jewish sources such as the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrash are based on the lifestyles of their times, which have changed over the years and are not known to us today. Due to this, in many cases the gap between the reality reflected in ancient sources and the reality that exists today constitutes an obstacle to understanding the words of the Sages and makes it difficult to study halakhah. The purpose of the association is therefore to bridge this gap with the help of “Torah-based archaeology,” i.e., the study of archaeological findings relating to halakhic issues. Most of the association’s activities focus on seminars that are aimed at the Haredi public. Lectures given at these seminars discuss issues related to the application of halakhic rulings based on the findings (e.g., whether Tel Yarmut was surrounded by a wall in the days of Joshua and what this means for the residents of nearby Ramat Beit Shemesh) along with topics aimed at illuminating reality in ancient times (e.g., the findings at David’s City which are dated to the eras of the First and Second Temples).

Figure 2.2  Matmoney Eretz meeting in the Western Wall Tunnel (Photo: Ali Cohen)

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  51 Are changes similar to those that have taken place in religious Zionist society, which since the 1980s has become more open to the active practice of archaeology, also to be seen in Haredi society? The answer seems to be no. The main change in religious Zionist society’s attitude toward archaeology is related to the establishment of the Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University and the possibility of studying this field of knowledge within the framework of a religious university. Since Haredi society still sees studies in the humanities negatively and any openness to academic education has an emphasis on professional education such as studying law, it is likely that the current directions of interests are those that will also reflect Haredi society’s attitude to archaeology in the future. Notes 1 Halakhah refers to all the laws according to which the Jew is commanded to behave. The halakhah is based on the interpretation of the commandments and prohibitions appearing in the Torah (“the Written Law”) and the Oral Law (Mishnah and Gemarah). 2 In this study, the term “biblical” refers only to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as is accepted in the Jewish world. This is in comparison to Christianity which also includes the New Testament as part of the Bible. 3 On the history and methodology of biblical archaeology, see Dever 1980 1985, 2010. 4 Nelson Glueck, who was also one of Albright’s students, is the exception here. However, although Glueck was a rabbi, he belonged to Reform Judaism, not Orthodox. 5 It is worth noting that both Raffaeli and Klein focused on the study of post-biblical periods, Raffaeli (1913) on coins from the Second Temple period (late Hellenistic and early Roman periods) and Klein on the process of Jewish settlement from the beginning of the Second Temple period until the Arab conquest (1939, 1945). However, this seems to be related to the fact that before 1948, Jewish Palestinian research as a whole focused mainly on the period of the Second Temple and not on the biblical period (see above, Chapter 1). 6 During the period in question, Prof. Moshe David Cassuto, Prof. Isaac Leo Seligmann, Prof. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein, and Prof. Meir Weisz were among the faculty of the Department of Biblical Studies. 7 In this context it should be noted that while some of the conferences were held on the intermediate days of Sukkot (but not on Shabbat Hol HaMoed) in hotels that had a kosher certificate so that the religious public was able to take part, in other cases the conferences were not adapted to this public. I would like to thank Mr. Joseph Aviram for this information. 8 That is, commandments relating to the use of the lands and agricultural produce of the Land of Israel. The obligation to observe these commandments applies only to crops grown on soil within the borders of the Land of Israel and only when the majority of the Jewish people live there. 9 A sage who lived during the Bar Kochba Revolt (2nd century CE) and participated in it. 10 Of course, the political and budgetary power struggles that also added to the tension between the various government ministries over their degrees of influence and ability to determine the facts on the ground should not be ignored. 11 The Talmud (Gemarah) is an anthology of texts that were written as a commentary on the Mishnah that had preceded it. The Talmud developed in the late Roman and Byzantine periods and, over the years, became the most studied halakhic book in the yeshivas and formed the basis of the rulings that obligate the observant Jew. The term “Gemarah” refers to the description of the study of the Talmud in the yeshiva world.

52  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology 12 The Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) movement occurred in Central and Eastern Europe from the last third of the 18th century and during the 19th century and was part of the general European Enlightenment. This movement, which represented “modern” society, promoted liberal ideas and ideological critique, as well as working for Jewish cultural and spiritual renewal and the revival of the Hebrew language as a vernacular. 13 This topic is beyond the scope of this book; see Sagi and Schwartz (2019). 14 Gush Emunim is a religious-national social movement that has influenced the entire religious Zionist society. The movement was established in the 1970s, after the Yom Kippur War, and has operated since its founding to establish Israeli settlement in the territories of biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). 15 The Canaanite movement was an ideological-cultural movement active mainly in the 1940s and 1950s. The movement advocated a complete separation of the Jews of Palestine from the Jewish people in the Diaspora and claimed the existence of an affinity between the renewed settlement in Palestine and the Canaanite culture that existed in Palestine in the 2nd millennium BCE. 16 See also Haim Be’er, “Gush Emunim—Canaanites wear a Tefillin,” Davar, 15.10.1982 [in Hebrew]. 17 I wish to thank Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun for this information. 18 R. Moses Schreiber, born in Germany and lived in Hungary. He is considered one of the greatest rabbis of the last centuries. He strongly opposed Reform and any change in the Jewish tradition. Supportive of the study of science and general education but only as secondary to sacred studies, he himself had a broad general education. He is considered the father of the Haredi approach in everything related to the secular world. 19 I wish to thank Rabbi Yosef Michael Yoskovitch for this information. 20 Literally, “sanctification of the seventh.” Agricultural produce grown in the year of shemittah (when the land lies fallow, every seventh year according to the Jewish calendar) is considered to have a special sanctity and its use involves strict observance of laws unique to this produce. 21 I wish to thank Rabbi Yosef Michael Yoskowitz for this information. 22 http://www​.matmoney​-eretz​.org

References Adan-Bayewitz, D. 1985. “Manufacture and Local Trade in the Galilee of Roman-Byzantine Palestine: A Case Study.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Adler, Y. 2004. “Halachic Rulings Based on Archaeological Finds.” Tchumin 24: 495–504. (Hebrew) Albright, W.F. 1924. Excavations and Results at Tell el-Ful (Gibeah of Saul) (AASOR 4). New Haven: Yale University Press. Albright, W.F. 1961. “In Memory of Louis Hugues Vincent.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 164: 2–4. Albright, W.F. 1971. The Archaeology of Palestine. Gloucester: Peter Smith. Ariel, D.T. 1979. “The Currency of Jerusalem in The Classical Period: In the Light of the Coins Found There.” M.A. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Asztalos, M. 1992. “The Faculty of Theology.” In A History of the University in Europe: Volume 1, Universities in the Middle Ages, edited by H. de Ridder-Symoens, 409–441. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aharoni, Y. 1987. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Bar, D. 2018. “Holy Places or Historical Sites?: Defining Sacred and Archaeological Sites in Israel, 1948–1967.” History of Religions 58: 1–23.

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  53 Ben-Arieh, Y. 2001. “Developments in the Study of Yediat Ha’aretz in Modern Times, Up to the Establishment of the State of Israel.” Cathedra 100: 305–338. (Hebrew) Benzinger, I. 1894. Hebräische Archaeologie. Freiburg: Mohr. Brand, Y. 1946. “Jar (Hasab), Oil-lamp and Amphora.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Breuer, M. 2003. Oholei Torah: The Yeshiva, Its Structure and History. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center. (Hebrew) Cochavi-Rainey, Z. 2005. To the King my Lord. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. (Hebrew) Davis, T.W. 2004. Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Dever, W.G. 1980. “Biblical Theology and Biblical Archaeology: An Appreciation of G. Ernest Wright.” Harvard Theological Review 73: 1–15. Dever, W.G. 1985. “Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, edited by D.A. Knight and G.M. Tucker, 31–74. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Dever, W.G. 2010. “Does ‘Biblical Archaeology’ Have a Future?” In Historical Biblical Archaeology and the Future: The New Pragmatism, edited by T.E. Levy, 349–360. London: Equinox. Eshel, H. 1994. “The Samaritans in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Feige, M. 2009. “The Imagined Communities of Archaeology: On Nationalism, Otherness and Surfaces.” Democratic Culture 12: 167–205. (Hebrew) Goren, H. 2020. “The Loss of a Minute Is Just So Much Loss of Life”: Edward Robinson and Eli Smith in the Holy Land. Turnhout: Brepols. Hershkowitz, J. 1940. “Biography of Professor S. Klein.” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 7: 110–121. (Hebrew) Kalagy, T. and O. Braun-Lewensohn. 2017. Ultra-Orthodox College and University Graduates in the Israeli Job Market. Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. (Hebrew) Kanael, B. 1966. “An Introduction to Maccabean Coinage.” Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University. (Hebrew) Kelso, J.L. 1968. The Excavation of Bethel (1934–1960) (AASOR 39). Cambridge: The American Schools of Oriental Research. Klein, M. 1998. Bar-Ilan: University between Religion and Politics. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Klein, S. 1939. Judaea: From the Return of the Babylonian Exiles to the Redaction of the Talmud. Tel-Aviv: Devir. (Hebrew) Klein, S. 1945. Land of the Galilee: From the Time of Babylonian Immigration until the Redaction of the Talmud, edited by Y. Hershkowitz. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Master, M.D., J.M. Monson, E.H.E. Lass, and G.A. Pierce. 2005. Dothan I: Remains from the Tell (1953–1964). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Na’aman, N. 1975. “Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According to the Amarna Letters.” Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew) Ohana, D. 2014. “Haim Beer, and the Canaanites were then in the Greater Land of Israel.” In Festschrift in Honor of Haim Beer, edited by H. Soker-Schwager and H. Weiss, 346– 376. Beersheba and Tel Aviv: Heksherim Institute and Am Oved. (Hebrew) Puech, É. 1993. “The École Biblique et Archéologique Française – The First Hundred Years.” In Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the Second International

54  Religious society and its attitude to archaeology Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June–July 1990, edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram, 9–12. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Raffaeli (Raffaelovitz), S. 1910. The Land Before the Conquest of Joshua. Jerusalem: Luncz Press. (Hebrew) Raffaeli (Raffaelovitz), S. 1913. Coins of the Jews: History of Jewish Coinage. Jerusalem: Zuckerman Press. (Hebrew) Ron, A.S. and J. Feldman. 2009. “From Spots to Themed Sites – The Evolution of the Protestant Holy Land.” Journal of Heritage Tourism 4: 201–216. Running, L.G. and D.N. Freedman. 1975. William Foxwell Albright: A Twentieth Century Genius. New York: Two Continents. Safrai, Z. 2006. “Study of the Land of Israel as an Academic Subject: The History of the Department of Land of Israel Studies.” In Bar-Ilan University: From Concept to Enterprise, Vol. I, edited by D. Schwartz, 257–278. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. (Hebrew) Sagi, A. 2003. “From the Land of the Torah to the Land of Israel – From One Broken Dream to Another: Study of the Crisis in Religious Zionism.” In A Hundred Years of Religious Zionism, Vol. 3: Philosophical Aspects, edited by A. Sagi and D. Schwartz, 457–473. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. (Hebrew). Sagi, A. and Schwartz, D. 2019. Religious Zionism and the Six Day War: From Realism to Messianism. Translated by B. Stein. New York: Routledge. Salmon, Y. 1998. “The Land of Israel in Nineteenth-Century Orthodox Jewish Thought.” In The Land of Israel in Modern Jewish Thought, edited by A. Ravitsky, 424–446. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Samet, M.S. 2005. Chapters in the History of Orthodoxy. Jerusalem: Dinur Center. (Hebrew) Schwartz, D. 1997. Land of Israel in Religious Zionist Though. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (Hebrew) Schwartz, D. 2009. Religious Zionism: History and Ideology. Translated by B. Stein. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Schwartz, D. 2013. “Bar-Ilan as a Model of a Jewish University.” In The Role of a Religious University, edited by Y. Iram, Y. Friedlander, and S. Ohayon, 15–52. Ramat Gan: BarIlan University Press. (Hebrew) Sellers, O.R., R.W. Funk, J.L. McKenzie, P. Lapp, and N. Lapp. 1968. The 1957 Excavation at Beth-Zur: Conducted by McCormick Theological Seminary and the American school of Oriental research in Jerusalem (AASOR 38). Cambridge: The American Schools of Oriental Research. Shapira, A. 1998. “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement.” In Zionism and Religion, edited by S. Almog, J. Reinharz, and A. Shapira, 251–272. Hanover: University Press of New England. Shai, O. 2006. “Shmuel Raffaeli (Raffaelovitz): The First Jewish Coin Collector in Jerusalem in the Late Ottoman period.” Sinai 138: 125–128. (Hebrew) Sherrard, B. 2016. “American Biblical Archaeologists and Zionism: How Differing Worldviews on the Interaction of Cultures Affected Scholarly Constructions of the Ancient Past.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 84: 234–259. Silberman, N.A. 1982. Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land, 1799–1917. New York: A.A. Knopf. Sorotzkin, D. 2011. Orthodoxy and Modern Disciplination. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Stampfer, S. 1995. The Lithuanian Yeshiva. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center. (Hebrew)

Religious society and its attitude to archaeology  55 Tidhar, D. 1947. Encyclopedia of the Founders and Builders of Israel. Tel Aviv: n.p. (Hebrew) Weiss, Z. 1994. “Games and Spectacles in Roman Palestine and Their Reflection in Talmudic Literature.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew) Wright, G.E. 1947. “The Present State of Biblical Archaeology.” In The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow, edited by H.R. Willoughby, 74–97. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, G.E. 1965. Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City. New York: McGraw-Hill.

3

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves

In the previous chapter, we discussed the attitude of observant Jewish society, including the Haredi community, to archaeology. However, one issue related to this topic has not been discussed so far and that is the sentiment regarding excavating graves—the most significant point of contention between the Haredi community and archaeologists. The various groups among the Haredi public which take part in this struggle are particularly the ultra-Orthodox elements.1 The excavation of graves contributes greatly to archaeological research since, in comparison to a dig at a site that was inhabited over time, finds originating from graves will usually be better preserved. This phenomenon appears to have three main causes. First, most graves are located outside the settlement area and therefore survived any processes of destruction that took place at the site. Second, graves, unlike ancient cities and villages, were never subject to intentional destruction by foreign armies, as their occupants were already dead. In addition, in some periods the dead were buried in caves, and this also protected their contents. Furthermore, mortuary archaeology has great significance since the study of human remains (bio-archaeology) is a significant tool in the study of lifestyles in the past. The study of human bones can shed light on various issues including health problems and nutrition. Bio-archaeological research also focuses on the analysis of ancient DNA. These studies enable the uncovering of data on genetic changes and marriage relationships as well as population movements between different regions (Martin et al. 2013). Over the years, many conflicts have arisen following Haredi claims of damage to graves (Zilbershats 2017). In the context of this chapter, I do not intend to list all the clashes but will focus on the main factors that led to the opposition to excavating graves and review the key points that influenced the struggle as a whole. Opposition to the excavation of graves and moving the bones of the dead is typical of minority groups in many societies and in itself is not unique to the ultraOrthodox community. This issue has broad ethical aspects pertaining to human rights after death in general (e.g., posthumous surgeries in the biomedical field), since it must be decided what the rights of the dead are (for example, the right to privacy) and to what extent we are obligated to give weight to these rights, in comparison to the interests of the living who can benefit from this research (Bahn 1984; Wilkinson 2002). For the last few decades, indigenous groups, mostly Native Americans in the United States and Aborigines in Australia, have been working to prevent the DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-4

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  57 destruction of graves and sacred land belonging to them, as well as to return to them human remains and archaeological finds now held in museums and laboratories. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which aims to regulate the return of remains to the descendants of various tribes, was enacted in the United States in 1990 and is a cornerstone in addressing these issues today. Under this law, bones previously removed from graves are brought to the tribes for re-burial, and excavations at burial sites are conducted only with consent (Ferguson 1996; Kerber 2006). Although there are apparent similarities in the opposition of the various groups to the excavation of ancient graves, there is a fundamental difference between them. The claim of the indigenous groups represents the “other” in relation to the hegemonic society in their area of residence, and the opposition of these groups to excavating graves and moving bones refers only to the bones of their ancestors. The Haredi community, on the other hand, is a minority group within the Jewish majority and is not the indigenous “other.” Hence, their opposition is to the excavation of all bones of all Jews, that is, the bones of the majority, also. It should be noted that the fact that bones cannot be identified and related to ethnic or religious affiliation (only by their archaeological context, which is missing at times) causes the ultra-Orthodox to oppose any excavation of graves whatsoever. This is due to the possibility that these are Jewish bones. The halakhic prohibition of moving graves Jewish law (halakhah) takes the issues of the treatment of the dead and their burial seriously, and removing the dead from their graves for no good reason is forbidden (Rosen 1998: 255). The Talmud views the opening of graves as a severe punishment for the living and the dead, and in its own words: “Then shall the hand of the Lord be against you and against your fathers” (I Samuel 12: 15). Rabba bar Shmuel said: This is exhuming the dead, as the Master said: to the iniquity of the living, the dead are exhumed. (Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 63b)2 In the Jerusalem Talmud (Moed Katan, 2: 4) we read: One evacuates the dead or bones. neither from an honored grave to an honored one, nor from a contemptible to a contemptible one, nor from a contemptible to an honored one. But if it is his own property, even from an honored to a contemptible; it is sweet for a person to rest with his forefathers. That is, a dead person should not be removed from his grave, as rummaging through the graves damages the dignity of the dead who may be seen in a state of decay or as a skeleton. Also, in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin, 47b), it is written: There are three [kinds of] graves, a found grave, a known grave, a grave that causes damage to the public. A found grave, one is permitted to remove,

58  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves [once] removed, the place is ritually pure, and it is permitted to benefit. A known grave, prohibited to remove, [once] removed, the place is ritually impure, and it is prohibited to derive benefit. A grave that causes damage to the public, one is permitted to remove, [once] removed, the place is ritually pure, but it is prohibited to derive benefit. The medieval French rabbi and Talmud commentator Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1040–1105) interpreted the “found grave” mentioned here as a grave discovered in a private field, where the dead man was buried without the permission of the landowner. The burial of this dead person is a form of robbery, and therefore, it is permitted to vacate it; a “known grave” is one made with the landowner’s permission, and therefore, it is forbidden to evacuate it, even when the landowners change; and a “grave that causes damage to the public” is a grave near a public road, and passers-by there may be defiled by the impurity of death (tum’at met)3 due to the presence of the grave. Such a grave is allowed to be evacuated, in order to prevent harm to the public. This is also the halakhah according to the Shulḥan Aruch, Yoreh De‘ah, 364, §2 and §5. The halakhah’s assumption is that the ancient graves being excavated are in the nature of a “well-known grave,” since in the past they were buried in this place with the permission of the owners, and therefore, it is forbidden to move them. Between religious Zionist and Haredi society The opposition to digging up graves is therefore based first and foremost on the halakhic prohibition. In light of this, it might have been expected that the demand not to excavate graves would be common to all religious streams equally. Feige, who studied the conflict that took place in the excavations of the City of David in the early 1980s, suggested that the struggle over the prohibition of the excavation of graves was based on existing attitudes in religiously observant society regarding the essence of memory. In modern society, time is perceived as a linear axis that advances forward and leaves the past behind. This conception makes the past a mere object of study, as the archaeologist digs up the lieux de mémoire. The bones no longer belong to the present and therefore they go back to being “material,” that is, the subject of investigation. Religion, on the other hand, perceives death differently. The idea of bodily resurrection, which is an important element in Judaism, creates a circular timeline. In this case, the present is related to both the past and the future, and therefore, the bones cannot be left alone; rather, there is an obligation to preserve them (Feige 2003: 71). Since the idea of resurrection is a central axis in the Jewish faith, even if we accept this explanation for opposing the excavation of graves, it then could still be assumed that the entire observant public would be involved equally in the struggle against archaeologists, not just the Haredim. Apparently, the difference in their attitude to the excavation of graves stems from the different degrees of adherence to the halakhah in the two groups. Haredi society is characterized by stricter adherence to the observance of the commandments than other Orthodox groups and therefore also pays more attention to the halakhic

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  59 prohibition of the removal of graves and is at the forefront of the struggle on this issue. However, even within religious Zionist society, there are groups that adhere to the commandments no less than the ultra-Orthodox, and yet they are not partners in the struggle on this issue. Therefore, the explanation should be sought in the philosophical dimension. The value system of religious Zionism is different from that of Haredi society. The religious Zionist community raised the banner of unity as a central value and saw itself from the beginning as taking responsibility for Klal Israel (the entirety of the Jewish people) in the present through a partnership in the projects, institutions, and lifestyles of Israeli society, regardless of individuals’ observance (Schwartz 2002: 140–141, 2009: 89–90). Republicanism and respect for state institutions underlie the worldview of the religious Zionist community.4 In this sense, the professional decisions of the archaeologists—even in relation to the excavation of graves—represent the republic, and therefore, even if they do not receive operative support, it is certainly not possible to conceive of an active struggle against them. In contrast, the ideological infrastructure underlying the Haredi conception is different. Haredi society perceives itself as the direct and authentic successor of traditional Judaism as it has existed for generations (even if in practice this is not the case; and see Samet 2005). Due to this approach, the ultra-Orthodox who are part of the Haredi community see their historical role as being responsible for all the Jewish dead who lived in the past and, therefore, they have a duty to preserve the sanctity of their bones. A clear expression of this perception can be found in an article published in 1957, concerning the takeover of the holy places by religious Zionism (to which party the Minister of Religions belonged). Following the Ministry of Religions’ plan to develop the Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai grave complex at Meron, an ultra-Orthodox newspaper declared: The holy places and the graves of the righteous are not the property of the free [secular Zionists, H.K.] nor of the religious [religious Zionists, H.K.]. They belong to us and our sons, the continuers of the Jewish tradition [my emphasis, H.K.].5 The first struggles The first conflict over this issue occurred in the middle of the 19th century, when Louis Félicien de Saulcy excavated at a site in Jerusalem known as the Tombs of the Kings, which was used in the early Roman period as a family grave. This excavation was the first ever to be carried out in Jerusalem. The identification of the grave as a Jewish one was based on an Aramaic inscription that was found on one of the sarcophagi. Over the generations, various legends and traditions have been associated with the place. According to Jewish tradition, this is the tomb of Kalba Savu‘a, the son-in-law of Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest 2nd-century rabbis and a leader of the Bar Kochba rebellion. Kalba Savu‘a was one of the wealthiest men of Jerusalem who lived in the days of its destruction by the Romans. Due to its Arabic name qubūr al-mulūk or qubūr al-sulṭān, pilgrims identified it with the Tombs of

60  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves

Figure 3.1  The Tombs of the Kings (Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division [LC-DIG-matpc-07505])

the Kings of the House of David and it appears in this context in the travel literature (Goren 2015: 43) (Figure 3.1). In 1863, de Saulcy received an excavation permit in accordance with the Ottoman Antiquities Law and also reached an arrangement with the landowners and began his excavation. During the excavation of the site, the Jews of Jerusalem began to protest against it, after they learned that the diggers had removed bones and sarcophagi from the place. A description of de Saulcy’s excavation appears in the newspapers of the period, including Ha-Levanon, which served as a platform for Orthodox Judaism in Jerusalem: In this month came a French man from the nobles of Paris, de Saulcy by name, and brought with him a permit from the court of the capital of His Excellency the Sultan, that the man was given permission to tour this land and dig wherever he wished and whatever ancient relics he found, he could take and no one would oppose him. … And he began digging outside the city in the courtyard of the cemetery which the Jews called (not in true transmission) the tomb of Kalba Savu‘a, one of the rich men of Jerusalem. And the locals called it the Tombs of the Kings. … and he found the steps descending to the cave, and they are six, all of one marble stone. And then he dug inside the cave and found human bones buried there and took them out and scattered them under the sky. … At the news of this, the Jews became anxious and came to see and by means of the gift (called bakshish) which they gave

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  61 to the watchman who sat there on behalf of the Frenchman, they were able to enter the cave while the Frenchman was not there, but due to the anxiety of their hearts and the sorrow of their spirits for the bones thrown like lots on the ground, they could not look at the coffins and the cave as it is now.6 The Jews appealed to the Pasha to warn off de Saulcy, and he did send his men to the cave to request that the Jews be allowed to bury the bones, but de Saulcy ignored this. After he failed to comply with their demand, the Jews turned to Baron de Rothschild, so that he might act in France to stop the excavation and permit the burial of the bones. Eventually, de Saulcy left for Jaffa and managed to transfer the finds from the cave to a ship. The residents of Jerusalem who arrived at the site collected the bones abandoned by de Saulcy and reburied them in the cave niches. Upon the completion of the work, the rabbis of the Ashkenazi community (originating from Central and Eastern Europe) declared a day of fasting and eulogy (Goren 2015: 44). Over the following years, a number of further confrontations took place. One of them occurred in 1924 when Slouschz was excavating and cleaning at Absalom’s Tomb and also opened the blocked entrance to the nearby Cave of Jehoshaphat (Slouschz 1925: 5–42). Slouschz actually excavated in the area of the ancient cemetery that was located nearby (see below, the struggle over the City of David), and therefore, the excavation was conducted with the consent of the Va‘ad he-‘Edah ha-Sefaradit (the committee managing the affairs of the Sephardi community)7 that owned the land. At first, the excavation was conducted without resistance from the ultra-Orthodox, but following the collapse of an old stone wall that separated the Cave of Jehoshaphat from Absalom’s Tomb, bones and dirt were swept away until they filled the Absalom’s Tomb compound. At this point, the Ashkenazi community (in distinction from the Sephardim) regarded these works as desecrating the cemetery, upon which they interfered with the excavation and tried to prevent it. Eventually, the excavation continued in collaboration between Slouschz and the Va‘ad he-‘Edah ha-Sefaradit until the site was restored (ibid.: 5–12). The turning point in this issue seems to be related to the establishment of the state of Israel. First, the number of excavations conducted from 1948 onwards increased compared to the previous period and therefore the number of excavations in which graves were discovered also rose. To this must also be added the political aspect: since the excavation permits were issued on behalf of the state of Israel, therefore the conflict also became political in nature. Two significant struggles that took place during the 1950s make it possible to examine the changing power relations that existed at that time between archaeologists, the ultra-Orthodox, and the government. One is related to the Beit She’arim excavation, while the other is related to the development of Maimonides’ tomb in Tiberias. The excavations of the burial caves that were discovered in Beit She’arim began already in the 1930s, under the direction of Benjamin Mazar (1973). During these excavations, traditions regarding the burial of Rabbi Judah the Prince, the head of the Sanhedrin,8 still referred to Zippori as his place of residence at the end of his life. Due to this, not much attention was paid at this stage to the excavations

62  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves at the site (Bar 2007: 176). It can be assumed that the location of the site, away from the centers of settlement of the religious Zionist and Haredi populations, was also a factor in the lack of interest in the excavation and its findings. This situation changed fundamentally with the resumption of excavations in the 1950s under the direction of Nahman Avigad (1976). During the first season in 1953 it became clear that there were more burial caves and that the location had scientific value far beyond what had been commonly assumed up to then. At this point a confrontation between the observant public and the archaeological establishment began. The Deputy Minister of Religions and member of the National Religious Party (the Mafdal; NRP), Zerach Warhaftig, sent a scathing letter to the director of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) in which he protested that the dead bones discovered during the excavation were not treated with due respect and that according to the halakhah, it is not permitted to excavate the site. On the other hand, the director of the IDAM and the director of the excavation replied that there had been no damage to the bones and that all the bones uncovered during the excavation were collected and reburied in special graves inside the caves. During the second excavation season, as the excavations progressed, additional burial caves were uncovered, including the magnificent burial complex attributed to Rabbi Judah the Prince and his family. At this point many people began to visit the site, including the president of Israel, the prime minister, and senior ministers. In light of the increase in the site’s value, from an archaeological site similar to many others to the place where Rabbi Judah the Prince was buried, a confrontation began regarding the continuation of the excavation at the site, as the Ministry of Religions wanted to make it a holy place. At the same time, protests due to the excavation of the graves and the treatment of the bones found during the excavation resumed, and religious circles demanded that rabbis be added to the excavation team to supervise the transfer of the bones. It should be noted that the main struggle in this case was not about the excavation itself but about defining the site as a holy place under the auspices of the Ministry of Religions. Eventually, the potential for tourism development led to the intervention of officials from the Prime Minister’s Office, and Beit She’arim was declared a national park and not a holy place (Bar 2007: 178–179). In contrast to the excavation at Beit She’arim, in the struggle over the development of Maimonides’ tomb during December 1955–January 1956, the ultraOrthodox who opposed the excavation had the upper hand. The cemetery where Maimonides is buried was in use from the end of the 2nd century CE until the destruction of the city by the Mamluks (1260–1517 CE). The cemetery contained hundreds of graves, but over the years most of them were destroyed or blocked. In 1927, restoration work was carried out on the Maimonides tomb complex, but by the early 1950s the site was again dilapidated, and therefore, it was decided to restore it. The development of the tomb was an initiative of the Ministry of Religions, and it should be linked to the activity of the director-general, Shmuel Zanwill Kahana, who invested a great deal of effort in identifying and developing holy places in the first decade after the establishment of the state (see in detail above, Chapter 2). Already at the beginning of the renovation work, a number of

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  63 graves from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods were found around the site, including sarcophagi and bones. On the second day of the excavation, when the bones were found, the two rabbis of the city came to the site and took them away for burial. Because they did not know at such an early stage of the excavation whether these were Jewish or Christian graves, they were buried in the Jewish cemetery near the fence.9 Following the publication of the excavation’s existence in the national press, groups of ultra-Orthodox men and youth from Jerusalem and Bnei Brak (cities with a high percentage of Haredi population) arrived at the scene and tried forcibly to stop the work there. The demonstrations and confrontations led the local rabbis to appeal to the chief rabbis, who in turn determined that the excavation at the site should be stopped. Only at a later stage was it decided to continue the works; however, this was to be done by raising the intended structure and avoiding excavation near the tomb.10 It should be noted that in this struggle, even if the demonstrations were held against the archaeologists and in the excavation area, most of the anger of the Haredim was directed against the Ministry of Religions and politicians belonging to religious Zionism due to the ultra-Orthodox fear of the latter taking over centers of power associated with holy places, as in fact occurred (Zilbershats 2017: 155–156). The struggle at Maimonides’ tomb took place only a few months after the first agreement to regulate the issue of excavations of graves was signed. The arrangement, known as a “memorandum of understanding,” was signed in September 1955 between the Minister of Education, Ben-Zion Dinur, and the Deputy Minister of Religions, Zerach Warhaftig. In this document it was agreed that A. Care must be taken to ensure that the treatment of Jewish cemeteries and graves, the bones of the dead, their collection, and evacuation, which are discovered during archaeological excavations, must be in accordance with the halakhah, according to the directives of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. B. To this end, a committee will be set up consisting of representatives of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the Ministry of Education and Culture (IDAM), the Ministry of Religions, and the Israel Exploration Society. However, after only a few days, the wording of the agreement changed. Mention of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel was omitted from section A, and a general statement was made according to which “the treatment of Jewish cemeteries and graves, the bones of the dead, their collection and evacuation, which are discovered during archaeological excavations, must be in accordance with the halakhah.” In addition, the representative of the Chief Rabbinate in the inter-ministerial committee was replaced by a representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The wording of the document, which states that “care must be taken” that the treatment of the bones of the dead is carried out in accordance with the halakhah but does not require it, might indicate that legally the establishment of the inter-ministerial committee was nothing more than lip service, and in practice, there was no regular supervision by religious bodies of the many excavations taking place throughout the country at that time (Hacohen 2005: 231).

64  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves The “memorandum of understanding” came up for renewed discussion only about 15 years later. In 1970, Warhaftig, now the Minister of Religions, initiated a new discussion of the issue in the government plenum. At the end of the discussion, it was decided that the Minister of Religions and the Minister of Education would jointly examine the appropriate treatment of human bones discovered in archaeological excavations in order to reach an agreed procedure on the matter. A few months later, they decided to implement the memorandum of understanding signed in 1955, with certain changes. The Foreign Ministry representative on the committee, who announced “that he has no interest in the matter,” was replaced by a representative of the Ministry of Justice, and the committee was headed by the director of the IDAM. The ministers’ decision promised that the inter-ministerial committee would balance the need to ensure the interest of advancing scientific research with the need to adhere to “respect for the tradition of bringing Jewish bones to Jewish burial.” In practice, the agreement stipulated that “at the conclusion of the scientific research, Jewish bones will be brought to the Ministry of Religions for burial, at a place to be determined by the statutory committee.” In other words, authority in the field remained in the hands of the archaeologists, and the arrangement was intended to ensure only that “at the conclusion of the study,” after all the tests were completed, would the bones be brought to Jewish burial. In practice, the archaeologists’ control over the committee (it was headed by the director of the IDAM), and the reluctance of the Minister of Religions to enter into unnecessary confrontations with them, led to this inter-ministerial committee hardly ever convening. Significant change in the excavation of tombs began only in the late 1970s, with the increased political power of the religious and Haredi parties in Menachem Begin’s government after the elections of 1977 and the strengthening of the Atra Kadisha Association (pronounced Asra Kadisha in Ashkenazi Hebrew), which began to act at that time “to prevent the desecration of ancient graves” (Hacohen 2005: 231–232). An expression of the abovementioned processes can be seen in the changes that have been made since the mid-1970s in the Antiquities Law and particularly, in its interpretation. In 1978, a new (and still current) Antiquities Law was introduced, deleting from the definition of “antiquity” the words “human and animal remains,” which had appeared in the Mandatory Antiquities Ordinance of 1929. The new law does not refer specifically to human bones but only to “zoological remains.” In 1994 this law was interpreted by the then-attorney general Michael Ben Yair as stating that ancient human bones are not “antiquities,” and hence, they are not the responsibility of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). This decision impaired the scientific research on bones, since it means that bones must be handed over immediately for re-burial. One of the main factors increasing the Haredim’s protest actions against the excavation of tombs is the change in the Atra Kadisha Association’s patterns of action. The Association for the Holy Places in Eretz Israel (Atra Kadisha) was established in 1959. According to a Mandatory-era regulation that remained in force, an individual cannot file a legal complaint in a matter that does not directly concern him or her. Only a legal entity authorized to act for a particular purpose

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  65 has the right to act in that area. The establishment of the association and its registration as such enabled the filing of lawsuits regarding the desecration of graves. In the first years of its establishment, Atra Kadisha did not leave any mark on the Haredi public beyond the legal side (Zilbershats 2017: 172–174). Until the end of the 1970s, most of the ultra-Orthodox protests against the excavations of graves occurred in response to random news that usually reached them following press releases (similar to the renovation of Maimonides’ tomb). A turning point in the Haredi struggle against excavating graves took place during the 1970s. This change can be linked to the new leadership of the organization under Rabbi David Shmidel, the initiator and leader of the protests. Atra Kadisha members began systematically to monitor the actions of archaeologists nationwide. At the same time, they methodically scanned the various scientific publications of the IDAM and other researchers and located those who published findings regarding the discovery of skulls and bones in the various excavations conducted in the country. The members of the organization were also able to obtain a great deal of information about skeletons held in medical schools and scientific research institutes for study and research purposes and began a well-publicized and well-planned protest campaign against excavations at sites that they claimed to have been Jewish cemeteries. In these struggles, they provoked Haredi public opinion to protest against excavations at these sites (Hacohen 2005: 233). The clash between Atra Kadisha and archaeologists came to a head in the 1990s, during Amir Drori’s tenure as director-general of the IAA. Later, during Yehoshua Dorfman’s time as director-general of the IAA (2000-2014), he created a modus vivendi with Atra Kadish, but these understandings broke down following the struggle over the construction of the subterranean emergency room of the Ashkelon Hospital (Dorfman 2015: 106–102; Sasson and Taub 2021). The drawing up of an agreement mechanism between the two parties was not just a technical matter since it meant the recognition of the Haredim as legitimate agents by the head of the archaeological establishment. Today, in salvage excavations where graves are discovered, the archaeologists document the graves and remove the findings (mainly pottery), but the bones are not collected for research. In some cases, there is informal cooperation with the supervisors of Atra Kadisha. In other cases, in order to avoid conflict, the excavators dig the graves covertly, after working hours. It should be noted that the universities have almost ceased to excavate graves as well. Over the years there have been many clashes between groups from within Haredi society, led by Atra Kadisha, and archaeologists, due to the former’s opposition to excavating graves. In the framework of this study, I would like to focus on just one struggle, which took place during 1981 in Area G in the City of David, Jerusalem. This confrontation was unusual in many ways. First, in most clashes the remains of the bones originate in the excavation layers. In this case, the struggle was not related to bones or graves that are part of the ancient finds. Rather, from the outset the problem was the question of the boundaries of a cemetery that had existed in the area from the Middle Ages to the early modern period. Second, the political and legal involvement reached Israel’s Supreme Court, thus raising significant issues

66  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves regarding the relationship between religion and the state, the most important of which is the limit of rabbinic jurisdiction in government-level decision-making. The sociological significance of the struggle has led to all the studies written so far on the subject placing an emphasis on these aspects (see, for example, Weingrod 1995, 2008; Hallote and Joffe 2002; Feige 2003). However, thus far, the events that occurred in the City of David in the summer of 1981 have not been examined in light of all the available data. The Area G excavations The archaeological finds discovered in the City of David over the years indicate that permanent settlement in the area began as early as the Early Bronze Age and continued without a break until the Crusader conquest (Figure 3.2). Due to the importance of the area, which served as the ancient nucleus of settlement in Jerusalem, more than 25 excavation expeditions have worked in the City of David, from Charles Warren in

Figure 3.2  City of David, Area G looking south (Photo: Zev Radovan, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  67 1867 to the excavation expeditions active today.11 In this discussion, we will refer to the excavations that were conducted in the area later called “Area G” in Yigal Shiloh’s dig. The first archaeologists in this area were Robert A.S. Macalister and J. Garrow Duncan. During their excavation, a fortification system that included two towers and a wall line was uncovered at the top of the hill, as well as the upper part of a stepped stone structure. Macalister and Duncan called the stepped stone structure “the Jebusite ramp,” while the southern tower was attributed to the days of David and Solomon. They dated the small tower, located in the northern part of the wall, to a later, “post-exilic” stage (Macalister and Duncan 1926). During the 1960s, Kathleen Kenyon excavated the site. Kenyon found that the southern tower was built on top of ruins of buildings from the end of the Iron Age and therefore dated it to the Second Temple period, as part of the fortification system of the “First Wall,” dating to the Hellenistic period. Since she considered the stepped stone structure part of the same fortification system, she also dated it according to the tower—to the Hellenistic period (Kenyon 1962: 76–81). With the resumption of excavations in the City of David in 1978 by the City of David Excavation Expedition led by Yigal Shiloh, digging in this area was also renewed with the intention of completing and exposing the buildings partially excavated by previous expeditions (Shiloh 1984: 15–16). The cemetery on the Ophel slope The cemetery in the Kidron River originated during the Iron Age. The ancient burial caves in this area were hewn on the eastern slope of the stream, on the rocky cliffs of the village of Silwān (Figure 3.3). These caves, which represent the burial of the highest strata of society in the Kingdom of Judah, are individual or double

Figure 3.3  An aerial photo of the Ophel slope (Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division [LC-DIG-matpc-05871])

68  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves burial caves. These caves include a magnificent hewn cave known as “the tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter,” as well as a cave with an inscription indicating that this is the burial place of the “Minister over the Royal House” (Avigad 1954: 193; Ussishkin 1986)—the minister whose area of responsibility was the king’s palace and the entire royal household (Katz 2008: 145). Burial in the Kidron Valley also occurred during the Second Temple period, but during this time it was concentrated in the Kidron riverbed, between the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives. Monumental structures were hewn in this area, including Absalom’s Tomb, the Tomb of the Sons of Hezir, the Cave of Jehoshaphat, and Zechariah’s Tomb (which probably served as a nefesh—a memorial structure next to the tomb) (Avigad 1954: 139–141). Burial along the Kidron River was resumed in the Middle Ages, but now the cemetery began to “ascend” upwards, in the first stage to the western slope of the Kidron and then, from the end of the 16th century, towards the Mount of Olives to the east. The earliest evidence for the existence of this cemetery is attributed to Rabbi Jacob, the emissary of R. Yechiel of Paris who visited Palestine in the first half of the 13th century. In his book Eleh Masa’ot (“Travels”), he describes the Jewish cemetery under the Temple Mount: And some walk through the valley that is the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and there is the Jewish cemetery below the Temple Mount ... and the Valley of Jehoshaphat surrounds all of the Temple Mount to the east and all its south, and in the south is the cemetery we mentioned, and many are buried there. (Eisenstein 1969: 67) The description of the cemetery continues to appear in the travel literature from the 13th century to the 16th (see in detail, Herzog 2011: 28–30). An analysis of the various texts shows that the name “Valley of Jehoshaphat” refers primarily to the area of the Kidron River that stretches between the Mount of Olives to the east and the Temple Mount to the west, but some descriptions also include more southerly parts of the Kidron towards the Pool of Siloam (such as the evidence of R. Jacob cited above, Eisenstein 1969: 67). During the 16th century, the Jewish population in Jerusalem increased as a result of the arrival of Jews expelled from Spain to the city.12 The increase in the number of residents also necessitated the expansion of the cemetery, as can be seen from the growing number of discussions on the subject in the registers of the Muslim lawcourt (Cohen 1984: 86). Thus, for example, in a document from 1558, the description of the ancient boundaries of the cemetery can be found, and for our purpose, the southwestern boundary is important. To the south—the wide space [i.e.] the women’s space of the eastern [spring] of ‘Ayn Silwān east located in the mentioned plaza, the bottom of the wadi channel and the end [of the southern border is in the plot] of land mentioned, [where the border] meets the western slopes and extends to the stones placed to the south—below the channel of the water of the spring—and until the north, these stones are the tip of the southern border [...] and to the west—the

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  69 road that passes to the noble city of Jerusalem in the direction of the [spring] of ‘Ayn Silwān south. (Cohen and Simon-Pikali 1993: 96) The identification of the eastern ‘Ayn Silwān with the Gihon spring (“the water of the spring” referring to the place where the spring originates [ibid.: 96, note 6]) makes it possible to assume that the cemetery area included the northern part of the eastern slope of the City of David, extending to the Gihon (in the lower part of the slope). The inability to reconstruct the boundaries of the ancient cemetery accurately stems primarily from the lack of physical evidence for its existence. As early as 1634, when the cemetery was still in use, the Kabbalist R. Moshe Vital mentioned this. In his book Praises of the Ari, Vital compared the cemeteries in Jerusalem and Safed. When referring to the cemetery in Jerusalem, he wrote that the tombstones there were made of thin stones and therefore they did not engrave the names of the deceased on the tombstones; furthermore, many tombstones were taken by the Arab residents of the area for secondary use in construction.13 After the Six Day War, planning of the Old City area and its environs began, including the area of the City of David. When the planning work began, a committee was appointed by the Chief Rabbinate (called the Halakhah Committee) whose purpose was to identify and determine the location of the cemeteries in the vicinity of the Old City. The committee concluded that the ancient cemetery fell partly within the City of David and that its western boundary ran along a dirt trail that passed, inter alia, within Area G. The area east of the trail was identified as part of the cemetery while the area west of it (most of Area G) was outside it.14 The question of the location of the cemetery also arose during the discussions of the District Planning and Construction Committee, since based on the conclusions of the Halakhah Committee, objections to the development of the area were raised in the Planning Committee. However, the Planning and Building Committee rejected these objections (without deciding whether or not there was a cemetery in this area) and approved the master plan for the development of the Old City and its environs, which stipulated that Area G in particular, and the southern Temple Mount in general, would be used as “open public space reserved for archaeological excavations” (ISA-Privatecollections-NA-0013xd8, clause 32, opinion of the Attorney General, September 20, 1981). Following this, an expedition led by Yigal Shiloh on behalf of the Institute of Archeology at the Hebrew University and the Israel Exploration Society began work in the City of David in 1977. The City of David excavations: 1981 During the third excavation season at the site in 1980, a tractor worked in the eastern part of Area G in order to prepare an access path from the Ophel Road to the Gihon spring. The area where the tractor worked was outside the actual excavation area but was still within Area G as defined in the excavation license. At the end of the season, Haredi sources claimed that the tractor had harmed the graves and the bones which had been found there, and therefore, a letter was sent to Yigal Shiloh

70  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves

Figure 3.4  Yigal Shiloh opposite Rabbi Uri Bloy, the leader of the ultra-Orthodox community (Photo: Eliahu Hershkovitz—Zoom 77)

by Zelig Braverman, who was in charge of the burial department at the Ministry of Religions, warning that harming a cemetery was a criminal offense (ISA-​Relig​ iousA​ffair​s-Rel​igiou​sAffa​irs-0​00icx​f, August 14, 1980) (Figure 3.4). At the beginning of the next excavation season, in July 1981, officials from the Ministry of Religions visited the site and agreed with Shiloh that the excavations to be conducted in Area G would not extend northward or eastward beyond the areas that had already been excavated. At the same time, however, a group of Haredim arrived at the site and forcibly tried to prevent work in Area G. The confrontation with the ultra-Orthodox protesters intensified and in fact continued until the beginning of September. The ultra-Orthodox staged demonstrations on a daily basis, both in the City of David and in Haredi concentrations in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak, claiming that Area G was part of the medieval Jewish cemetery, and therefore the dig in this area should be stopped.15 Various scholars have seen this as an expression of a change in the balance of power in Israeli society, symbolizing the decline of the status of religious Zionism and the rise of the Haredim as a major factor in national politics (Weingrod 1995, 2008; Feige 2003). Beyond that, however, it seems that there are a number of other reasons that affected the intensity of the conflict. First, in contrast to finding graves in excavations conducted in other parts of the country, in this case the disputed area was inside Jerusalem and near Haredi neighborhoods. No significant effort was required from the ultra-Orthodox who came to demonstrate in the City of David, and they were able to do so within a short walk from their homes. Second, and no less important, most of the conflict in the

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  71 City of David took place in the second half of August, which in that year, according to the Hebrew calendar, corresponded to the second half of the month of Av. During this period (between 9 Av and 1 Elul), no studies are held in the yeshivas, and therefore, it was possible for thousands of Haredi youth to go to demonstrations without worrying about neglecting their studies. Moreover, in addition to the reasons listed above, another reason can be proposed—internal Haredi/ultra-Orthodox politics. Most of the participants in the demonstrations belonged to the ‘Edah Haredit, an extremist anti-Zionist faction that at the time vehemently opposed the entry of Agudat Israel (the political party representing the ultra-Orthodox, whose relationship with Zionism and the state of Israel is complex) into the government. There is no doubt that the purpose of the activism against the excavations in Area G was also largely to embarrass Agudat Israel, which joined the coalition. Aspects of the relationship between the ultra-Orthodox community and archaeologists have been discussed in several studies. In this case, however, it is particularly interesting to examine the position of officials who belonged to religious Zionism in relation to the conflict. The most important of them was Zebulun Hammer who was an observant Jew and served as Minister of Education and Culture on behalf of the Mafdal (NRP) (Figure 3.5). As the Minister of Education and Culture he was responsible for the IDAM. In the early stages of the clash, he supported the archaeologists, who determined that there was no Jewish cemetery in the City of David area. On July 16, Zevulun Orlev, the director of Hammer’s bureau, wrote to the director of the IDAM:

Figure 3.5  Zebulun Hammer, the Minister of Education and Culture (Photo: Ya‘acov Sa‘ar, courtesy of the Government Press Office)

72  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves I forwarded all the material to the director-general of the Ministry of Religious Affairs for his information and perusal, while requesting that we expect the Ministry of Religious Affairs’ backing to continue the excavations since it was found that there is no cemetery in the area. I recommended adding an observer from the Ministry of Religions to the excavation. I also noted that we see great importance (national and religious) in the continuation of the excavation [my emphasis, HK], for which there is no obstacle on religious grounds. (ISA-education-education-000h8zm, July 16, 1981) It seems, therefore, that from the outset Hammer unequivocally supported the continuation of the excavation, while adopting the secular Zionist narrative expressed in the archaeologists’ position and preferring it to the Haredi viewpoint. Since the question at the center of the debate about the existence of a cemetery at the site was perceived as halakhic, Gedaliah Schreiber, the director-general of the Ministry of Religions (which was also controlled by the NRP), suggested contacting Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Israel’s chief rabbi at the time. The appeal to Rabbi Goren should be seen against the background of religious Zionism’s attitude towards the institution of the Chief Rabbinate in general and to Rabbi Goren in particular. Religious Zionism, which saw the state of Israel as an expression of the beginning of the process of redemption, “sanctified” the Chief Rabbinate, since this institution represents not only the secular institutions of the state but the essence of the state as Jewish. Moreover, Rabbi Goren, who was perceived as combining the world of Torah with the world of the state, was a revered figure among religious Zionists, not only because as chief rabbi he represented the realization of the idea of statehood, but also because of his previous role as chief military rabbi. He was also a well-known figure to the secular public from his iconic picture blowing the shofar at the Western Wall, immediately after its capture in 1967. It can be assumed that Hammer was unaware of Goren’s views regarding issues related to the excavation of graves. As early as 1976, about five years earlier, Rabbi Goren had written to Prof. Hillel Natan, director of the Department of Anthropology and Anatomy at Tel Aviv University, in response to Natan’s request to help prevent legislation that would prohibit the use of bones and skeletons found in archaeological excavations. In his reply, Rabbi Goren wrote that he could not help since according to the halakhah, it is forbidden to remove bones from graves, and therefore, this is also forbidden in archaeological excavations (Goren 2011: 188–189). Moreover, in contrast to Hammer, Rabbi Goren did not consider the excavation in the City of David to be of national importance. For him, the right of the Jews to Jerusalem derived from the divine promise to David as it appears in the Bible and therefore no archaeological finds are needed to confirm this right.16 Rabbi Goren therefore accepted the Haredi position and, in the ruling he issued on August 6, stated that the entire slope of the Temple Mount is a Jewish cemetery: “Therefore, I declare the above area a Jewish cemetery, and no kinds of excavations or alterations may be made there for any purpose, other than to protect

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  73 and preserve the integrity of the graves and the cemetery” (Goren 1996, 2011: 184–185). In Silverstein’s view (Silverstein 2021: 209), Goren’s strict ruling in this regard stemmed from his desire to gain legitimacy from Haredi society after his previous rulings were viewed as lenient; however, in light of his previous rulings regarding excavating graves cited above, this seems to have been his opinion in the first place. At this point, Hammer was caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he believed in the importance of the excavations in the City of David as part of the Zionist narrative; but on the other hand, he could not ignore Rabbi Goren’s halakhic ruling. As a result of the tangle in which he was involved, Hammer tried to reach a compromise: “I will look for an appropriate way so that science will not be harmed and the halakhah will also be preserved.”17 In order to allow the excavation in Area G to continue, Hammer suggested digging in the presence of inspectors from the Ministry of Religions and the Chief Rabbinate. In the case of finding bones or graves, experts would come and determine whether these were human bones in order to bury them. If an entire grave were to be found, it would not be excavated, and the Ministry of Religions would take care of its preservation.18 In addition, as part of his attempt to obtain Rabbi Goren’s consent to the compromise agreement and in order to create an atmosphere of reconciliation, Hammer ordered that the 60 parts of skeletons of Bar Kochba’s warriors, discovered in 1961–1960 during excavations in Nahal Hever and sent for anthropological research, be gathered together. Hammer undertook to reunite the bones scattered in museums and research institutes and to ensure that they would be reburied.19 As part of the archaeologists’ counter-struggle, on August 25, 17 researchers, senior archaeologists, and historians engaged in the study of Jerusalem, issued a statement declaring that no Jewish cemetery existed in the excavation area in the City of David. According to them, the interpretation of the sources by those who claim that the cemetery also stretched to the area of the City of David was incorrect, and it was “a form of deception of the public and leading of the many astray.” Among the signatories were Benjamin Mazar, Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, and Meir Ben Dov. At the same time, Hammer’s attempts at compromise failed and, on August 26, the Rabbinical Council demanded that the Israeli government declare the area a Jewish cemetery and that Hammer revoke the excavation license.20 While Hammer believed in the importance of continuing the excavations, due to Goren’s pressure he decided to assume the authority given to the director of the IDAM and suspended the excavation license for two weeks, during which excavations would not take place. During this period, the Attorney General was supposed to give his opinion on the issue.21 As part of the pressure exerted on Hammer, Rabbi Goren threatened to issue a “refusal letter” against him, in which he would be declared to be refusing to comply with a ruling of the Rabbinical Court. Rabbi Goren regarded this as a means of compelling Hammer and threatened that if this did not help, the rabbis would take further steps of boycott and excommunication.22 Following the suspension of the license, the three parties who signed the excavation license—the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University, the Israel Exploration Society, and the director of the excavation, Yigal Shiloh—all appealed to the Supreme

74  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves Court. Their argument was technical in nature and focused on the fact that the minister had usurped the authority of the director of the IDAM for the purpose of obtaining the license, without properly consulting the Archaeological Council and conducting a hearing (as required by the Antiquities Act) when suspending the excavation license. Moreover, their argument was that Minister Hammer changed his position on the matter without having new data at his disposal, but solely and wholly following Rabbi Goren’s ruling. The Supreme Court ruling of September 11 accepted the claims of the petitioning archaeologists and permitted the work in Area G to continue. Beyond agreement that by not consulting the Archaeological Council before suspending the license, the Minister of Education did not act properly in the matter, the judges addressed two points of principle. First, that the minister was not allowed to succumb to the pressure of demonstrations and violence on the part of Haredi circles, who sought in this way to impose their will on the authorities of the state, an entity which they do not recognize. In addition, they stressed that the chief rabbis or the Chief Rabbinical Council did not have the authority to order the minister to stop the excavations in Area G, since the minister is not subject in the execution of his office to the halakhic rulings of the rabbis. A minority opinion was presented by Judge Yitzhak Kahan, who was a member of the panel of judges. In his opinion, In this sensitive matter, the considerations of archaeologists and other scientists are not always decisive, and it is often necessary to consider what scientists consider to be a myth or a legend. … Consideration of the feelings of some of the public, even if this part is a minority and the majority’s opinion differs, is not a surrender to violence … It can be said, by analogy with a well-known saying, that the matter of excavations is too serious to be left to archaeologists alone. This is a very sensitive issue, especially in our country, and the authorities are not only allowed but obliged in these matters to use their discretion according to the law, taking into account the faith of some of the public, as long as it is a sincere belief, not used for foreign purposes, even if this faith is rejected by scientists.23 It can be assumed that the words of Justice Cohen, who calls for consideration and understanding of the motives of the observant public, also stem from the fact that he was an observant Orthodox Jew and conducted his own private life in that spirit (Agranat 1989: 3). Although he never made religion a tool for advancement (ibid.), yet precisely in relation to issues of law and religion he said that “it is well known that the interpretation of laws at all times and in all places cannot be detached from the worldview of judges” (Kahan 1989: 194). The shovel test east of Area G At the end of the opinion issued by the Attorney General, he wrote that “the material presented justifies a professional examination of the disputed facts” (ISAPrivatecollections-NA-0013xd8, clause 42c, opinion of the Attorney General,

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  75 September 20, 1981) and therefore recommended a survey in the region east of the area excavated in Area G, similar to the survey conducted in Benjamin Mazar’s excavations south of the Temple Mount in 1972 (ISA-educationeducation-000h8zm, protocol, December 30, 1971). The survey of the tombs took place a year later. Leading this project required someone neutral but with experience in identifying graves. Therefore, David Even, who was the head of the branch for the identification and burial of military casualties in the Army Rabbinate at the time, was appointed to this position. Even asked that representatives of both parties participate in the survey, so that any results obtained would be respected by all. As stated, the question of trust between the parties was critical, and therefore, it was also important that Even was accepted by Atra Kadisha not only due to his professional experience but also because he was a resident of Bnei Brak and known to them personally. The archaeologists’ representative was Jerusalem District Archaeologist Dan Bahat. Bahat knew David Even well, because at the time he was a reserve soldier in the IDF unit for locating soldiers missing in action from the Yom Kippur War; as such, he was in contact with personnel from the identification and burial of military casualties branch. Like Even, Bahat was also trusted by the Atra Kadisha people, since he was in contact with them within the framework of his work as district archaeologist, and they knew that he came from a family of rabbis. The representative of Atra Kadisha was Rabbi Shimon Anshin, who was the organization’s supervisor in the Temple Mount area. Even, Bahat and Anshin supervised the excavation carried out by laborers. The shovel test was conducted east of Area G, without the surveyors entering Area G. A total of six strips, each about half a meter wide and 12 meters long, were excavated. The examination took place in the range from 40 meters northeast of Area G up to the fence that delimits the area. A total of seven graves were discovered in the excavations, the closest being 20 meters from the edge of the actual excavation. In addition, the remains of human bones were seen next to the eastern edge of Area G. As no shovel test was carried out within Area G, the survey was ultimately unable to conclude where the southwestern border of the cemetery passed, but this seemed to support the view that the trail that passed until 1980 through the eastern part of Area G did indeed form the boundary of the cemetery.24 During this time, before the excavation season began, it was decided that the original crossing path that had run from north to south along the eastern slope of the City of David, on the northeastern edge of Area G, would be marked with pegs by official surveyors who would determine its exact route based on aerial photographs. The path was established in practice as the edge of the cemetery, and although included in the areas of the excavation license of Area G, Yigal Shiloh agreed not to dig east of it and that excavation in this area would take place only west of the path.25 Following the marking of the path, the boundary of the excavation in this area was established in practice, and the Shiloh expedition continued to dig only in the area on the western side of the path. In addition to the agreements reached regarding the excavation areas, the cessation of demonstrations should also be tied to the outbreak of the Lebanon War in June 1982.

76  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves Aftermath Struggles over grave excavations have taken place in the past and continue to one extent or another to this day. However, the clash in Area G was unique for a number of reasons: First, the confrontation included many demonstrations that also involved the use of violence by ultra-Orthodox elements. However, the significant moves were those that were affected by the relationship between the political leadership of the religious Zionist public and its religious one. This involvement led to escalation. In this context, it is interesting to see the “prophecy” of Avi Eitan, the director of the IDAM at the time, who wrote already at an early stage in the struggle to Zebulon Orlev, the director of Hammer’s bureau: “If the Chief Rabbis’ opinion is nevertheless against continuing the excavations in G, I am afraid that this may cause problems instead of solving [them]” (ISA-education-education-000h8zm, July 22, 1981). Goren’s ruling and the declaration of the Chief Rabbinate Council exacerbated the situation, as they extended the boundaries of the cemetery to the entire area of the City of David and Area G, not just to the part west of the path. The relationship between Hammer and Rabbi Goren is what eventually led to the suspension of the license and referral to the Supreme Court. The change in Hammer’s decision following Rabbi Goren’s ruling reflects the changes that occurred in the religious Zionist public from the early 1980s. Historically, the NRP had been a party in which the halakhic rulings of rabbis did not influence political conduct. In this case, the balance of power was skewed towards the rabbis who rule on halakhah, a phenomenon that within a few years would become widespread within the framework of religious Zionism. Second, did Area G extend in part over the cemetery area? Did the excavation really uncover human bones originating in the medieval Jewish cemetery? An analysis of the 16th-century document describing the boundaries of the cemetery, as well as the survey conducted by the Army Rabbinate, shows that it is probable that the eastern part of Area G as defined in the excavation license, but not actually excavated, was indeed within the medieval Jewish cemetery. Feige, who addressed this issue (Feige 2003: 59, n. 7), claimed that archaeologists later admitted that they did find bones and skeletons but lied in real time, because they wanted to continue excavating. It seems that the archaeologists’ sweeping denial of the existence of a cemetery also at the eastern edge of Area G, as expressed in the open letter they issued, stemmed from their perception of the struggle. The rise of Haredi power in the political system was viewed as a threat to the value system of hegemonic Zionism, of which they were a part. An expression of this can be seen in Prof. Auerbach’s remarks at the meeting of the Archaeological Council held on September 1: “This is a surrender to people who want to dismantle the state. Their whole purpose is to repeal the [evil] decree that established the state in 1948.” It can be assumed that due to this feeling, that they were fighting the war of the Children of Light against the Children of Darkness, they too took an extreme approach. Finally, the Haredi struggle against Yigal Shiloh did not only include demonstrations and protests. In addition, a pulsa de-nura ceremony (a ceremony of

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  77 damnation, during which one prays that the accursed one will die soon, naturally or otherwise) naming him was held. A very few years later, he developed cancer and died in 1987 at the age of only 50. In the ultra-Orthodox worldview, his death from an illness at a young age was perceived as a success for the cursing ceremony and a divine punishment for excavating the cemetery. Notes 1 The Haredi struggle against the excavation of graves is discussed at length in Ronit Zilbershats’ doctoral dissertation (Zilbershats 2017). As part of her work, Zilbershats reviewed all the clashes over this issue that occurred in the period between 1863 and 1979. Her point of departure is a consideration of the extent to which this struggle was part of broader ideological conflicts within ultra-Orthodox society. 2 The translation of the Talmudic sources is based on the Sefaria website. 3 Judaism separates death from anything related to holiness, thus anything in which lack of life appears is considered unclean, and a human corpse is considered to have the most severe impurity. Anyone who touches a corpse has to go through a complicated purification process that is currently impossible to perform. 4 Underlying this perception is the idea that the institutions of government of the people of Israel in the Land of Israel are a fundamental part of the full manifestation of the Godhead and complete redemption. For this reason, special care must be taken not to harm the state and its institutions. 5 Mishmeret ḥomateinu, 15 Shevat 5457/17 January 1957, p. 2 [in Hebrew]. 6 Ha-Levanon, vol. 1, issue 19, 19 November 1863 [in Hebrew]. 7 Va’ad he-Edah ha-Sefaradit was established during the Ottoman period following the growth of the community of Spanish descent (and communities that follow Sephardi customs) in Jerusalem. This committee received official recognition from the authorities. Its role was to run communal life, and one of its duties was to manage properties and land dedicated to the benefit of the Jewish public in Jerusalem. 8 For an explanation of the Sanhedrin, see above, Chapter 1, note 17. R. Judah the Prince (c. 135–217 CE) was one of the most prominent of the heads of the Sanhedrin and a member of the dynasty of its heads. He is traditionally regarded as the chief editor and redactor of the Mishnah that until then had been transmitted orally from master to pupil. 9 This solution was accepted by the city’s rabbis for years, because following the struggle at Maimonides’ tomb it became apparent that the rabbis of Tiberias used to instruct residents who built their homes in the area of the ancient cemetery to evacuate the bones they uncovered and to have them reburied in the municipal cemetery (Zilbershats 2017: 151). 10 IAA archives, scientific files, file G/2, Tiberias; “The storm over Maimonides’ tomb,” Haaretz, 23 January 1956 [in Hebrew]. 11 For a summary of the findings in the City of David, see Reich 2011. 12 Following the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Jews who lived there were expelled in 1492. These Jews were scattered among various Jewish communities or established new ones. Some immigrated to Palestine and settled in Jerusalem, Safed, Tiberias, and Hebron. 13 This description appears in the collection HaMaamer, part III, edited by Avraham Moshe Luntz (Luntz 1920: 302). An identical description, apparently copied from Vital’s book, appears 14 years later in Emek Halakhah by Naftali Herz Bachrach, a German-born rabbi who, like Vital, was a Kabbalist (Bachrach 1648: 16a). As opposed to the ancient tombstones on the western slope of the Kidron that have not been preserved, in drawings and photos from the beginning of the 20th century one can still see tombstones in the channel near Absalom’s Tomb.

78  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves 14 It should be noted that skeletons were discovered during the work of the two expeditions that excavated the area prior to 1967, but none of them could be associated with the medieval Jewish cemetery. The Macalister and Duncan excavation revealed an entire skeleton, lying 8 m from the northern corner of the northern tower. The skeleton was discovered at a depth of 3.60 m from the surface. It was placed on top of a layer of stones and covered by an identical layer of stones. Duncan dated it to the Hellenistic period on the basis of the pottery found at the same level, but he did not rule out that this was a later burial that was dug deeply (Duncan 1925: 24). A number of skeletons were discovered in a cave dug in the middle of the slope during Kenyon’s excavation. The cave was filled with debris, above which a number of skeletons that were not related to the finds near them were discovered, but Kenyon did not address the question of their origin (Kenyon 1963: 11). 15 A description of the demonstrations on a daily basis can be found in the book On the Slopes of the Temple Mount, published by the ‘Edah Haredit to describe the sequence of events, and see Meshi-Zahav and Meshi-Zahav (1985). 16 “Rabbi Goren: I will fight against any science that contravenes the Torah,” Yediot Aharonot, 28 August 1981 [in Hebrew]. 17 “The excavators at the City of David will make do with maintenance work for the meantime,” Haaretz, 21 August 1981 [in Hebrew]. 18 “Hammer and the archaeologists attempt to prevent a clash between religion and state,” Yediot Aharonot, 23 August 1981 [in Hebrew]. A no less interesting proposal in this regard came from Shiloh, who spoke to one of the area supervisors, Donald T. Ariel, who was observant, suggesting that he be responsible for the subject of bones and graves in Area G. Ariel was not interested in that, and ultimately it did not pan out, since Shiloh himself lost interest in the idea. 19 “Hammer orders the bones of Bar Kochba’s warriors reburied,” Yediot Aharonot, 24 August 1981 [in Hebrew]. 20 “All the southern slopes of the Temple Mount—an ancient Jewish cemetery,” Yediot Aharonot, 27 August 1981 [in Hebrew]. 21 Letter from the Minister of Education to Yigal Shiloh, the director of excavations, 1 September 1981. Hebrew University Archives, Institute of Archaeology file. 22 “Hammer signs a decree stopping the City of David excavations for two weeks,” Haaretz, 2 September 1981 [in Hebrew]. 23 Supreme Court Case 512/81, the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University and others, vs the Minister of Education and Culture (11 September 1981). 24 “Philip Habib of the City of David and Area G wars,” Kol Ha’Ir Jerusalem, 29 July 1983. Oral interviews with Rabbi David Even and Dan Bahat. 25 IAA Archives, administrative files, file Jerusalem/M/2/8, City of David.

References Agranat, S. 1989. “Introduction.” In Yitzhak Kahan Book, edited by M. Alon, M. Ben-Zeev, A. Barak, N. Lipschits, and M. Landau, 1–8. Tel Aviv: Papyrus. (Hebrew) Avigad, N. 1954. Ancient Monuments in the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute. (Hebrew) Avigad, N. 1976. Beth She’arim: Report on the Excavations 1953–1958. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Bachrach, N.H. 1648. Emek Halakhah. Amsterdam: Emmanuel Benvenisti. (Hebrew) Bahn, P. 1984. “Do Not Disturb? Archaeology and the Rights of the Dead.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 1: 213–225. Bar, D. 2007. Sanctifying a Land: The Jewish Holy Places in the State of Israel: 1948–1968. Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion Institute in the Negev and Yad Ben Zvi. (Hebrew)

Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves  79 Cohen, A. 1984. Jewish Life under Islam: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cohen, A. and Simon-Pikali, E. 1993. Jews in the Moslem Religious Court. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Dorfman, S. 2015. Under the Surface. Or Yehuda: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir. (Hebrew) Duncan, J.G. 1925. “Fifth Quarterly Report on the Excavation of the Eastern Hill of Jerusalem.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 57: 8–24. Eisenstein, J.D. 1969. Ozar Massaoth: A Collection of Itineraries by Jewish Travelers to Palestine, Syria, Egypt and Other Countries. Tel Aviv: n.p. (Hebrew) Feige, M. 2003. “Vision of the Broken Bones: Ultra-Orthodox vs. Archaeologists in the City of David.” In Israeli Haredim: Integration without Assimilation?, edited by K. Caplan and E. Sivan, 56–81. Jerusalem: The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. (Hebrew) Ferguson, T.J. 1996. “Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 63–79. Goren, D. 2015. “The Questionable Ownership of the Tombs of the Kings in Jerusalem.” In French Jewry: Between Particularism and Universalism in Modern and Contemporary History, edited by E. Cohen, 43–53. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press. (Hebrew) Goren, S. 1996. The Law of the Polity. Jerusalem: Idra Rabbah. (Hebrew) Goren, S. 2011. Terumot Ha-Goren: Responsa, Part Two. Jerusalem: Idra Rabbah. (Hebrew) Hacohen, A. 2005. “‘Can These Bones Live?’: Freedom of Information, Religious Liberty and Human Dignity.” Netanya Law Review 4: 219–260. (Hebrew) Hallote, R.S. and A.H. Joffe. 2002. “The Politics of Israeli Archaeology: Between ‘Nationalism’ and ‘Science’ in the Age of the Second Republic.” Israel Studies 7: 84–116. Herzog, D. 2011. Sambusky: The Story of the Jewish Cemetery on Mount Zion. Jerusalem: Megalim. (Hebrew) Kahan, Y. 1989. “Rabbinical Judging and Secular Judging.” In Yitzhak Kahan Book, edited by M. Alon, M. Ben-Zeev, A. Barak, N. Lipschits, and M. Landau, 191–197. Tel Aviv: Papyrus. (Hebrew) Katz, H. 2008. A Land of Corn and Wine … a Land of Olive-Trees and of Honey: The Economy of Judah Kingdom in the First Temple Period. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Kenyon, K.M. 1962. “Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 94: 72–89. Kenyon, K.M. 1963. “Excavations in Jerusalem, 1962.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 95: 7–21. Kerber, J.E., ed. 2006. Cross-Cultural Collaboration: Native Peoples and Archaeology in the Northeastern United States. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Luntz, A.M. 1920. HaMaamer, Vol. III. Jerusalem: Luntz Press. (Hebrew) Macalister, R.A.S. and J.G. Duncan. 1926. Excavations on the Hill of Ophel, Jerusalem, 1923–1925. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Martin, D.L., R.P. Harrod, and V.R. Pérez. 2013. Bioarchaeology: An Integrated Approach to Working with Human Remains. New York: Springer. Mazar, B. 1973. Beth She’arim: Report on the Excavations during 1936–1940. Jerusalem: Massada Press. (Hebrew) Meshi-Zahav, Z. and Meshi-Zahav, Y. 1985. On the Slopes of the Temple Mount: The Diary of the Battle. Jerusalem: n.p. (Hebrew) Reich, R. 2011. Excavating the City of David: Where Jerusalem’s History Began. Translated by M.F. Vamosh. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

80  Religious society and the attitude to excavating graves Rosen, I. 1998. “Tombs’ Removal for Public Needs.” Tchumin 18: 254–274. (Hebrew) Samet, M.S. 2005. Chapters in the History of Orthodoxy. Jerusalem: Dinur Center. (Hebrew) Sasson, A. and E. Taub. 2021. “The Israel Antiquities Authority and Atra Kadisha.” Israel Affairs 27: 609–623. Schwartz, D. 2002. Faith at the Crossroads: A Theological Profile of Religious Zionism. Translated by B. Stein. Leiden: Brill. Schwartz, D. 2009. Religious Zionism: History and Ideology. Translated by B. Stein. Boston: Academic Studies Press. Shiloh, Y. 1984. Excavations at the City of David, 1978–1982 (Qedem 19). Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University. (Hebrew) Silverstein, Y. 2021. The State of Israel and Its Institutions in the Halachic Thought of Rabbi Shlomo Goren. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. (Hebrew) Slouschz, N. 1925. The Excavations in the Vicinity of the Tomb of Absalom (Yad Absalom). Jerusalem: The Jewish Palestine Exploration Society. (Hebrew) Ussishkin, D. 1986. The Village of Silwan: The Necropolis from the Period of the Judean Kingdom. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Weingrod, A. 1995. “Dry Bones: Nationalism and Symbolism in Contemporary Israel.” Anthropology Today 11: 7–12. Weingrod, A. 2008. “The Bone of the Matter: On Archaeology and Anthropology in the Post-modern Age.” In Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel, edited by M. Feige and Z. Shiloni, 207–220. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Wilkinson, T.M. 2002. “Last Rights: The Ethics of Research on the Dead.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 19: 31–41. Zilbershats, R. 2017. “Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Archaeologists, and Tombs Excavations: One Hundred Years of Struggle in the Land of Israel (1863–1979).” Ph.D. dissertation, BarIlan University. (Hebrew)

4

The Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology

Another group in Israeli society whose attitude towards archaeology needs to be examined is the Palestinian citizens of Israel. In general, it can be said that the subject has hardly been discussed in research. The few studies existing in this field can by and large be divided between two main topics. One is studies dealing with the status of Arab workers in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. The second describes the development of archaeology in Israel/Palestine from a political standpoint. This second group of studies views the activities of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities and, later, of Israeli archaeology, as expressing a colonialist worldview that originated in groups that came to Palestine from the middle of the 19th century onwards and applied the ideologies in which they believed to their archaeological activities, too. For example, Albert Glock ostensibly claims the obvious: The fact that much of the archaeological activity in Palestine has been carried out by Western scholars in search of evidence to support and illustrate the Bible has had significant ramifications. … the “archaeological record” has been selectively used to document and sometimes defend the version of the past required by Christian and Jewish Zionists to justify the present occupation of Palestine. (Glock 1994: 71) Another researcher representing this approach is Nadia Abu El-Haj. In her work, she argues that Israeli archaeology serves as a research tool aimed at strengthening the colonialist claims of Zionism and that in so doing it serves Israeli society in the expropriation and occupation of Palestinian territories (Abu El-Haj 2001, 2002). The issue of the attitude of Christian scholars to the archaeology of Israel, as well as the use made of archaeology for the construction of Israeli national identity, has been discussed by many scholars, including Israeli ones, from the fields of archaeology, sociology, and anthropology (Silberman 1982; Silberman and Small 1997; Geva 1992; Zerubavel 1995; Kletter 2006, 2008; Feige and Shiloni 2008, and see the comprehensive discussion in Chapter 1). Therefore, in the context of this chapter, I will not deal with this issue but will focus on the extent to which Palestinian Arabs have been involved in archaeological activity. In the first part, I will discuss the period of the British Mandate, while in the second one I will examine the DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-5

82  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology processes that have occurred among Palestinian citizens of Israel over the years, from 1948 to the present day. The attitude to archaeology during the Mandate period Many studies have recently focused on this period (Glock 1994; Irving 2021; Taha 2019: 23; Sigalas 2021). Glock (1994: 74–75), who was the first to deal with this subject, argued that one of the significant barriers to the integration of Arab archaeologists in the field was the lack of access to education in general and higher education in particular. Some of the Jewish archaeologists came to Palestine from Europe after completing their academic studies there, while others received their professional education at the Hebrew University, founded in Jerusalem in 1925. The Arab archaeologists who lived in Palestine, however, had to travel abroad to study the subject. In his article, Glock analyzes the subject areas of employment and education of the workers of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities: in March 1947, there were 94 employees in the department, of whom 73 were Arabs and nine were Jews. Of the Arab workers, most were emissaries, cleaners, and janitors. Only three served as inspectors: Dimitri Baramki, Naim Makhouly, and Salem K. el-Husseini. In addition, Stephan Hanna Stephan, who worked in the library, should be mentioned. Of the four Arabs, three were Christian (Baramki, Makhouly, and Stephan) (Whitcomb 2013; Irving 2021). It can be assumed that the difference between them and the Muslim workers stemmed first and foremost from the education they acquired while still at high school, since the Christian Arabs lived mostly in cities, belonged to the Palestinian Arab middle class, and their children received a European education at ecclesiastical-missionary institutions (Radai 2016: 490). In addition to this advantage, it seems that, like Christian scholars who came from the West, Christian Arabs who grew up in Palestine were educated in the light of Bible stories, and therefore the practice of archaeology was related, even if indirectly, to their perception of Palestine as the “Holy Land.” As noted above, most Arab employees began working at the Mandatory Department of Antiquities without archaeological training. However, over the years some received instruction and opportunities that enabled them to develop a career in the field (Irving 2021: 167). Of all the Arab workers, only one, Baramki, studied abroad (Glock 1994: 75). Dimitri Baramki was born in Jerusalem in 1909 to an Orthodox Christian family, and before he turned 18, he had already begun working in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities as an assistant inspector. He joined the Department of Antiquities following his brother, Jalil. His brother left after a short time and began studying law, while Dimitri remained in this field all his life and is considered to be the first Palestinian archaeologist, the most productive one, and the only one to pursue a lifelong career in archaeology. In 1929 Baramki was appointed inspector, and five years later, in 1934, he graduated with a BA from the University of London. In 1938 he became the chief inspector of the Department of Antiquities, a position he held until 1948 (Whitcomb 2013; Taha 2019: 23). His main research focused on the vicinity of Jericho. Baramki excavated Hisham’s palace at Khirbat al-Mafjar, dated to the Umayyad period (660–750 CE), as well as the synagogue of Jericho

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  83 where the inscription “Peace be upon Israel” (shalom ‘al yisra’el) was discovered (Baramki 1938; Hamilton 1993). After 1948 Baramki remained in the West Bank. For a short time, he served as curator of the Palestine Archaeological Museum (the Rockefeller Museum), where all the finds discovered in excavations conducted in Palestine during the British Mandate remained. At the same time, he was offered the position of director of the Antiquities Department of the West Bank, which was now part of the Kingdom of Jordan, but declined the offer. Baramki then went on to work at the American School of Oriental Studies in Jerusalem as a consultant and librarian until 1951, when he left for Beirut and became a lecturer at the American University in Beirut, where he also built the archaeological museum that he curated. Before he left for Jordan in 1951, he had continued digging in Jericho as part of the James Kelso archaeological expedition. The excavation focused on the Herodian winter palaces, and within its framework, the southern tel was excavated, where the remains of a magnificent ornamental garden from the time of Herod were discovered. In 1953 he was awarded the PhD from the University of London. His doctoral dissertation dealt with Umayyad architecture and was based on the findings of his excavations at Khirbet al-Mafjar (Whitcomb 2013). It is worth taking a moment here to ignore the chronological sequence of events and discuss Baramki’s subsequent writing. In 1969, he published a book summarizing the archaeology of Palestine from prehistoric times to the beginning of the Ottoman period. The book, titled The Art and Architecture of Ancient Palestine: A Survey of the Archaeology of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the Ottoman Conquest, was published by the Research Institute of the Palestine Liberation Organization. In the introduction, Baramki writes that compared to the many studies of the archaeology of Palestine in which there is a tendency to focus on biblical archaeology, his own purpose is “to put contributions of each period in its true perspective” (Baramki 1969: III–IV). Rereading the book indicates that although the book’s starting point is political, there is a difference between Baramki’s attitude and that expressed by later Palestinian archaeologists. In the book’s epilogue (ibid.: 239–242), Baramki presents the main points of his archaeological-political conception. In an attempt to address the claim of the Jews’ right to return and settle in Israel in light of the archaeological findings that indicate their presence in the country in the past, Baramki made a distinction between Ashkenazi Jews who came from Europe and Sephardim who represented the Jewish community that continued to live in Palestine over the centuries. According to him, the Sephardic Jews should be seen as the descendants of the ancient Israelites. On the other hand, he attributed the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews who came to Palestine from Europe from the end of the 17th century onwards to the Khazar kingdom that lay between the Caspian and the Black Seas. This distinction was significant for Baramki, as the Zionist movement developed in Eastern Europe and Jewish national identity was formulated mainly by Ashkenazi Jews who came from these countries. For Baramki, this means that these Jews have no “right to the land” because they are not the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the land. There seem to be similarities between this conception and the approach of Nadia Abu El-Haj (2001), who sees Zionism

84  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology as a colonialist entity that uses archaeology as a tool for constructing its claims. In contrast to her, however, Baramki attaches great importance to the autochthonous inhabitants of the country or, as he puts it, “the original inhabitants of the country” and emphasizes the local continuity that has existed in Palestine throughout history. According to him, events have led the inhabitants of the country to change their identity and faith over the generations. However, the essence of the original inhabitants of the land remained and can be attributed to all who live there, whether they are Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Although Baramki also challenged the legitimacy of the Jews’ returning to settle in the country, his remarks are more tolerant than those appearing in contemporary studies. Baramki described a sequence of settlement: Canaanites who became Israelites, Jews who became Christians, and Christians who became Muslims, all of them children of the land who left their material remains for future generations. An expression of this view can also be seen in his call for equal rights for the Christian and Muslim populations in the state of Israel with which he ended the book.1 The meager interest that Palestinian Arab society showed in archaeology during the Mandate period is also reflected in the publications dealing with this issue in the press. An examination of the Arabic press during this period shows that interest in the field was limited, certainly relative to that which existed in Jewish society at the same time, and only a few articles discussing the subject were published over the years. One of the major newspapers published during the Mandate was al-Karmil. The newspaper took an anti-Zionist and anti-British line (Kabha 2004: 24) and therefore could be expected to address the issue of archaeology and see it as a tool for constructing Palestinian nationalism, similarly to the approach taken by Jewish society in relation to the Zionist idea. An examination of the published issues shows that while articles dealing with archaeological finds occasionally appeared in the newspaper, this occurred but rarely. For example, in March 1923 an article on the antiquities of Jerusalem was published. Although the title of the article is “Jerusalem Antiquities,” it actually deals with the main Muslim and Christian religious buildings in the city. The article mentions the mosques on the Temple Mount, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, Gethsemane, and the Tomb of David.2 It is noteworthy that in 1922, a museum for Islamic antiquities was established in the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) by the Supreme Muslim Council (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013). The exhibits included Islamic finds which were given to the museum from the collections of the Mandatory Antiquities Department.3 Following the 1927 earthquake, the Muslim Council made renovations in the Temple Mount area. Part of the assemblage that was found during these renovations was added to the collection (Shiller 1989). Examination of the archaeological activity that took place within Arab society during the Mandate shows that during this period, no independent research body that dealt with archaeology was established. Although Baramki was involved in the discovery of Khirbet al-Mafjar, a site dating to the early Muslim period, the excavation was conducted as part of the activities of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. A comparison between the attitude of Arab archaeologists to the field versus that of Jewish archaeologists raises a question of principle. The 1930s were

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  85 the years in which Palestinian nationalism was formed. However, while during this time various frameworks were established in the Jewish community, which promoted archaeological research and thereby used it for the purpose of building a national Zionist identity, Palestinian Arab archaeologists did not act in a similar way. This difference seems to stem not only from the small number of Arab scholars who engaged in archaeological research during the Mandate period but also from their perception of archaeology and its role in shaping the Palestinian national identity. I suggest that a possible reason why Arab society’s involvement in archaeology before 1948 was low compared to Jewish society was due to the different consciousness of the past in the two groups. Whereas the practice of archaeology in Arab society was meager, Arab scholars conducted extensive ethnographic research related to the preservation of Palestinian Arab culture. The most significant researcher in this field was Tawfiq Canaan (1882–1964). Canaan was born in Beit Jalla, studied medicine at the American University in Beirut, and later worked at the German Hospital and Shaare Zedek Hospital, both in Jerusalem, where he served as acting director of the latter. In parallel with his work as a physician, Canaan engaged in ethnographic research (Tamari 2009: 93–112; Taha 2019: 25; Sigalas 2021: 199–202). He published a long series of articles on Muslim saints and shrines in Palestine, articles that were later compiled into a book (Canaan 1927), he dealt with the Palestinian house (Canaan 1933), and also wrote articles on folklore, customs, water problems and the like. Other scholars who studied Palestinian ethnography were Stephan Hanna Stephan (the abovementioned librarian of the Department of Antiquities), Elias Haddad, and Omar Salih al-Barghuti (Irving 2018: 42). Significant research activity related to these fields was carried out within the framework of the Palestine Oriental Society, which was established in 1920 and aimed to study and explore Palestine and the East. Activity in the society was common to Muslims, Jews, and Christians, but it made it possible to emphasize the folklore and ethnography of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. The most prominent of the scholars who worked within the framework of the Palestine Oriental Society was Canaan, who also served as the society’s secretary (Ben-Arieh 1999b: 131–137). It seems that the scant interest in archaeology on the part of Palestinian Arab society during the Mandate period, compared to the emphasis given to ethnographic research, stems first and foremost from the fact that the Palestinian presence in the country has been continuous. The Palestinian national movement saw itself as having a clear and obvious right to the land and did not need evidence from archaeological excavations. The Palestinian material culture that was expressed in work tools, household items, costumes, and family objects existed in the present, but equally represented the past, and was a testament to the presence of Arab society in Palestine over the years. In light of this worldview, we may better understand the emphasis placed on ethnographic research that represents the existing reality and not on archaeology that relates solely to the distant past.4 In contrast, the Jewish community was essentially an immigrant society. There was no continuity of settlement in Palestine for this society. Therefore, the Zionist movement’s effort to inculcate the connection between the past and the present focused on archaeological finds unearthed from the depths of the earth,

86  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology since only these could create a tangible expression of the past. Moreover, the preference for engaging in ethnography over archaeology must also be linked to fear of the processes of modernization that Palestinian Arab society underwent during the Mandate period. The Mandatory Government, which saw Palestine as a place with significant agricultural potential, did much to promote the development and advancement of agriculture (El-Eini 1996). It may be assumed that this activity created a desire to preserve the customs, objects, and crafts typical of traditional Palestinian society so that they would not disappear in the modern world. Between Jews and Arabs at the Palestine Archaeological Museum In 1925, the American Egyptologist James Henry Breasted of the Institute of Oriental Studies in Chicago persuaded John Rockefeller Jr. to donate money for the establishment of a museum and research institute in Jerusalem. Rockefeller complied with the request, donating two million dollars to establish and maintain a museum of archaeology in Jerusalem. The donation was divided into two: half was earmarked for the establishment of the museum, and half was invested in a fund intended to finance the day-to-day operations of the museum and the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. On October 13, 1927, Rockefeller sent a letter to the High Commissioner, Lord Plumer, outlining the terms of the donation. The conditions stipulate that the museum would be established in the Karm al-Sheikh area, located in the northeast corner of Jerusalem’s city wall, the exhibits on display would be archaeological finds, and its actual management would be in the hands of the Mandatory Government. The museum that was established with the donation money is known as the Rockefeller Museum, although its official name was the Palestine Archaeological Museum. The museum was inaugurated in 1938, and from then until 1948 it was used both to gather all the archaeological finds unearthed in excavations at various sites in one place and to house the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. This meant that the Department of Antiquities and the museum were one body, and therefore museum staff were actually employees of the Department of Antiquities. The department’s staff included British, Arab, and Jewish workers who worked side by side until the end of 1947 (Sussmann and Reich 1987). From December 1947, the Jewish staff could not reach the museum because its location in an Arab area far from any Jewish center posed a danger to them. A special arrangement was made in order for them to continue working, and they began to work at the Schocken Library, located in the Jewish area of Jerusalem. Some of the catalogs were brought to the library, and the connection between the Rockefeller Museum, in which work by Arab and British archaeologists continued, and the Schocken Library was maintained through Robert William Hamilton, the director of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities, and John Iliffe, the director of the museum (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-0010rq8, April 27, 1948). On November 16, 1947, a meeting was held with the participation of the senior Jewish archaeologists at the time, including Leo Mayer, Eleazar Sukenik, Shmuel Yeivin, Ruth Kelner (Amiran), and Immanuel Ben-Dor. Since it was clear that with the end of

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  87 the British Mandate there would be a division into two states, they held a discussion about the fate of the finds stored in the museum. All participants thought that the museum should remain united and that it should be used by both Jewish and Arab scholars. As for the Department of Antiquities, opinions were divided. Some believed that the Jewish state must establish its own antiquities department while others thought that the department should be united even after the division of the country into a Jewish and an Arab state. An expression of this approach can be found in the words of Sukenik, who argued that scientific sovereignty should be placed above political sovereignty, and since it is important to study the archaeology of the whole country, the only way to do so is by establishing one department—both Jewish and Arab (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-0010rq8, meeting summary, December 16, 1947 and January 8, 1948). Evidence of an attempt to continue working together can still be found in early May 1948. When it was already clear that Jewish workers would no longer be able to access the Rockefeller Museum, a meeting was held in the no man’s land near the Mamilla cemetery between Iliffe, the museum’s director, and Ben-Dor, who served as a representative of the Jewish staff of the Department of Antiquities. At this meeting, the two reached an agreement according to which the Jewish workers would be allowed to continue their archaeological work even after all ties between the Arab area and the Jewish one had been severed. In order for them to do so, a single copy of the museum’s complete catalog was transferred to the Schocken Library, in addition to which they retained the catalogs and lists that had previously been transferred by Hamilton and Iliffe. At this meeting Iliffe undertook to transfer to the Jewish employees a sum of £P 500 from the Rockefeller Foundation’s funds. The money was earmarked for salaries for the next six months to enable work to continue (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-000x0tf, October 10, 1948). In the end, this plan did not materialize because in mid-May, Israel’s War of Independence broke out and the Mandatory Department of Antiquities and the Museum ceased operations. Already in April 1948, the Mandatory Government issued an ordinance aimed at continuing the management of the museum and its collections after the end of the British Mandate for Palestine. According to the ordinance, a board of trustees must be appointed to replace the High Commissioner who was the trustee of the museum itself and of the Rockefeller Foundation, which funded the museum’s activities. The board of trustees also included an Israeli representative, Sukenik, with the intention of allowing access to the museum to Jews and Arabs alike. However, since the museum remained in the territory of the kingdom of Jordan after the establishment of the state of Israel, Israeli researchers could no longer visit it. In this situation, the question at hand was whether to accept the legality of the order issued by the High Commissioner or to appeal it. It was therefore decided that if the state of Israel recognized the legality of the order, the board of trustees would have to ensure that the Israeli representative could attend management meetings, and the museum would also be required to move to a place to which both parties had access. If it was decided to appeal the legality of the order, the state of Israel would demand that the collection of antiquities and the scientific archives be divided according to a territorial principle: what is within the borders of Israel would be handed over to

88  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology the state of Israel, and what is within the borders of Jordan would be handed over to the kingdom of Jordan. In addition, all the various assets would be divided, both real estate and movable property. One third of the assets would be transferred to the kingdom of Jordan and two thirds to the state of Israel (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral000x0tf, January 28, 1951). After a legal inquiry it became clear that based on the data that existed at the time the ordinance was issued, this move was not only legal but also logical. The summing up of the opinion of the Attorney General, who examined these issues, was “I can well understand the attitude of our scientists and their disappointment that a precious treasure is not at our disposal, but this is not a problem to be solved by lawyers” (ISA-mcs-DirectorGeneral-000x0tf, March 2, 1951). Although the museum remained within the territory of the kingdom of Jordan, over the years the Jordanian Department of Antiquities gave it a secondary priority in relation to the development of archaeological research within Jordan. The museum continued to be run by a board of trustees until 1966, when it was nationalized by the Jordanian government, but even if the intention had been to begin developing it, this was cut short about six months later, in June 1967, when following the Six Day War, it passed to the state of Israel (Kletter 2006: 174–192).5 The attitude to archaeology after 1948 Beginning in 1948, for nearly 40 years the Palestinians in Israel absented themselves completely from engaging in archaeology. Following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, hundreds of Palestinian settlements were emptied of their inhabitants. About 420 villages were destroyed and over 600,000 refugees left their homes, some to Arab countries such as Lebanon and Syria and some became “present absentees”—Palestinian refugees living in the state of Israel. A total of 156,000 Arab residents remained within the state of Israel. The remaining Arab population in Israel was under military government until November 1966, which included, among other things, arrests, establishing traffic arrangements, closing areas, imposing curfews, and enforcing employment restrictions (Morris 1987; Kabha 2013: 144–160). Most of the Palestinian Arab educated class was displaced, and those who remained were mainly members of the lower socio-economic strata who were not able to undertake academic studies (Kabha and Caspi 2011: 3). The few who did so studied mainly professional fields, such as medicine and law. In light of this, it can therefore be said that it was first and foremost objective conditions that were preventing Palestinians in Israel from engaging in archaeology. Even if there were individuals interested in archaeology, the hardships of life and dealing with various difficulties did not allow them to engage in the field. Another reason must be added to this. While the Jewish archaeologists who worked in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities continued their previous work in the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM), which was established in July 1948, all the Arab archaeologists who were active during the Mandate period left Palestine. Prior to the founding of the state, Naim Makhouly served as Northern District Inspector in the Department of Antiquities of the British Mandate. However, in May 1948, when Fawzi al-Kaoukji’s forces invaded the north of the country, Makhouly fled from

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  89 Nazareth to Lebanon. Makhouly’s sons were studying at the American University in Beirut at the time, and it is possible that he decided to be close to them, in a place that was far from the winds of war, until the situation calmed down and he could return to his home in Nazareth. With the establishment of the IDAM, Makhouly remained outside the new state’s borders, and without intending to, became a refugee. In 1950, Makhouly applied to return to Israel. Shmuel Yeivin, who was the director of the IDAM at the time, was asked to give an opinion, but he refused to recommend this. A year later, Makhouly contacted Immanuel Ben-Dor, with whom he had worked in the Mandatory Department of Antiquities. Ben-Dor, who served as deputy director of the IDAM, corresponded with him for a while, and in his letters updated him on excavations taking place in Israel, but he, too, did not help him return.6 Makhouly, who remained in Lebanon with his wife, was unable to engage in archaeological work there and lived in poverty until his death in Beirut in 1976.7 Dimitri Baramki, who had been the chief antiquities inspector of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities, remained in the West Bank until 1951 when he left for Beirut and became a lecturer at the American University (see above). As a result, not only were there no Palestinian Arab archaeologists left to work in the IDAM, but even if there were young people who were interested in the field, they did not have role models from whom they could take an example or be influenced by. The absence of Arab archaeologists from work in this field must also be seen in a broader context and that is the attitude of the Palestinians in Israel towards the institution of the field trip or hike. Hiking culture has been a major component of Zionist Jewish society from the 1920s onwards. The trips were linked to a return to the landscape and nature of the Land of Israel and were intended to strengthen the connection to the land. Hiking routes also included visits to sites of historical significance, usually antiquities sites (Almog 2000: 164–168). In Palestinian Arab society, however, hiking culture was not part of a national ideology. To this must be added the difficult economic and social situation that has characterized the Palestinian citizens of Israel over the years. Therefore, field trips were almost nonexistent and even when schools went on annual trips, they were one-day excursions. The destinations of the trips were Arab cities such as Nazareth and Acre, but the significance given to these trips was recreation for the purpose of a break from routine, without any reference to the historical and archaeological aspects of the places being toured. During the last decade, a significant change has occurred in the hiking culture within the Palestinian Arab education system in Israel (see below). These changes are showing their influence and will certainly have an effect in the future on the attitude towards archaeology in general, and the integration of students into the field, in particular. The attitude to archaeology from the 1980s onwards Beginning in the 1980s, Palestinian citizens of Israel began to study in archaeology departments at various academic institutions. The improvement in the economic situation among Palestinians in Israel over the past decades has been a primary factor in this change, as more and more young people from that community began

90  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology to study in an academic setting.8 Among the first students of archaeology were Raduan Badhi, Walid Atrash, Hamudi Khalaily, and Kamil Sari. An examination of their areas of expertise shows that they dealt with a variety of eras and not just the Islamic period, among them prehistory, the Persian period, and the RomanByzantine period. However, none of them specialized in the Iron Age (the biblical period). Yet even if over time there has been an increase in the number of Arab archaeologists, the practice of archaeology has remained the domain of very few among the Palestinians in Israel. That being said, we are currently witnessing something of a flourishing of ­interest in archaeology. In recent years, the Palestinian archaeologists at the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) have spearheaded a process of making the country’s past accessible for the Palestinian citizens of Israel. In this context, actions are being taken to bring the subject closer to various groups in this community. Among other things, there are Arabic-language radio programs that deal with archaeology, training courses on the subject are provided for Palestinian teachers, and Palestinian youth are integrated into the Cultural Heritage project (see above, Chapter 1). In addition, twice a year, the journal The Cornerstone (‫) حجر الزاوية‬, dedicated to recently discovered findings, is published in Arabic.9 The popularization of archae�ology to the Arab public has been gaining momentum recently. Kamil Sari, the regional archaeologist (director) of the northern region, one of the highest-ranking officials in the IAA, has published a book which presents the archaeological findings discovered in the Galilee from all periods (Sari 2022). Another book about the archaeology of Jerusalem (al-Quds), edited by Walid Atrash, is now in print. Atrash was also awarded the Et-Mol Award by the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem, for his activity in making the field accessible to the Arab community. However, in contrast to the integration of archaeologists from among the Palestinian citizens of Israel within the IAA, there are only two such faculty members at Israeli academic institutions: Rabei Khamisy in the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, and Tawfiq Da’adli, who deals with Islamic material culture, in the Department of Islamic and Middle Studies and the Department of Art History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It seems that similarly to observant Jewish society, in this case, too, the fact that archaeology became a professional field from the second half of the 1980s has paved the way for the entry of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Archaeology is no longer just a way of “proving our right to the land” but is also perceived as a common heritage over which no group has a monopoly. This worldview has not only brought about a growing interest in archaeology among Palestinians in Israel but also opens up the possibility of telling the story of the country in later periods and referencing relics originating in the Ottoman and the Mandate periods. The archaeology of the abandoned Palestinian villages Thus far, we have examined the processes which have characterized the development of archaeological knowledge among Palestinian citizens of Israel, namely the discussion addressed the way the Palestinian community itself treated the field.

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  91 However, any review of this topic must refer to the changes that have taken place within the Israeli archaeological establishment regarding the issue of the Palestinian villages that were abandoned in 1948. It seems that these issues, which are ostensibly professional (the attitude towards contemporary archaeology), clearly reflect the in-depth processes that have taken place in Jewish Israeli society’s attitude to the Nakba, the Palestinian term for the events in 1948 that were such a catastrophe for them. Of the approximately 420 villages as well as Arab towns and neighborhoods in mixed cities abandoned in 1948, a minority were destroyed during the war and the rest were deserted and subjected to destructive processes by natural forces, random or planned robbery, and demolition operations. Deliberate destructive actions continued over the years as part of an ongoing policy (Golan 2001; Shai 2006; and see below). Many villages were located on ancient antiquities sites and their houses mingled with the ancient buildings. In most cases, however, the ancient buildings were incorporated into new construction, and no separation could be made between the various parts of the buildings. The difficulty in preserving the ancient buildings that existed in these villages stemmed from the definition of “antiquity” in the Mandatory Antiquities Ordinance. Since at the time this ordinance was enacted, there was no awareness of archaeological remains relating to recent finds, “antiquities” worthy of protection were considered to be only those dating to before 1700. After 1948, with the establishment of the IDAM, activities for the preservation of antiquities now found within the boundaries of the new state were carried out by virtue of the Mandatory Antiquities Ordinance, and therefore the year 1700 remained as the upper limit for “antiquities.” Examining the attitude of the archaeological establishment to these post-1700 remains makes it possible to discern the changes that have occurred over the years. Although the law prohibited any activity related to ancient remains without the permission of the IDAM, until the early 1960s archaeologists were not involved in policy-making regarding the fate of abandoned villages, and the demolition operations in them were not coordinated with them (Sulimani and Kletter 2014). There are several reasons for this: First, the IDAM was a small body and did not have sufficient places for employees nor budgets that would allow it to supervise and maintain these sites. While the Mandatory Department of Antiquities enjoyed an almost unlimited budget thanks to John Rockefeller Jr.’s donation, the IDAM was affiliated with the Ministry of Labor and Construction through the Department of Public Works, its budget was reduced, and some employees were responsible for several areas (Katz 2011: 73). To this must be added “ideological” reasons. One of the main pillars of Zionist ideology was the idea of “causing the wilderness to bloom,” intensive construction aimed at establishing a national home for the Jewish people throughout Israel. In the name of this idea, the settlement bodies preferred rapid development and new construction at all costs, regardless of these antiquities. During the years of Shmuel Yeivin’s tenure as director of the IDAM, he tried to prevent the destruction of ancient remains in the villages, but for the most part he did not succeed. It should be said that Yeivin was ahead of his time, in that although the regulations stated that “antiquity” referred only to finds dating

92  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology to before 1700, he advocated the view that there are “scenic” complexes, such as Acre, that should be preserved even if not defined as “antiquities” by the letter of the law (Kletter 2006: 55–56). Beginning in mid-1965, the Israel Lands Administration began an initiative to demolish more than a hundred abandoned Arab villages that were still standing. In some the buildings were well preserved, others had undergone natural processes of destruction and weathering. The purpose of the operation, which lasted for about two years, was to demolish the buildings or, as in the term used in the documents of the period, to “level” the area. These villages were evidence of the remnants of the Arab past and of the inhabitants of the country prior to the establishment of the state of Israel and were therefore perceived as a threat that should be erased from view. At the beginning of the operation, the Israel Lands Administration, which carried out the destruction of the villages in practice, asked the IDAM to conduct a survey of the sites designated for demolition. In reality, the purpose of the surveys was not academic-scientific; rather, they were intended for obtaining the formal approval required by law to demolish the buildings. The Israel Lands Administration forwarded a list of villages according to priorities, gave instructions and directives, and even clarified that the survey should not be delayed. The surveys were conducted by the Israel Archaeological Survey Society (IASS), which was established in 1964 with the aim of conducting a general archaeological survey of the country. However, at the beginning of the operation, the IASS was recruited to survey the villages and in fact to legitimize their demolition (Shai 2006). Analysis of the “demolition reports” shows that even in cases of damage to antiquities, while the archaeologists did mention this, they accepted the phenomenon and in fact rubber-stamped the demolition. Moreover, in some of the villages there were post-1700 buildings with special cultural landscape value, yet in the survey of the villages, no use was made of the possibility of declaring them worthy of protection due to this, and they too were destroyed (Kletter 2006: 57–60, Sulimani and Kletter 2014: 219–223). In this context, a research proposal submitted by Avi Eitan in 1964 should be examined. Eitan, who was then a student in the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University, proposed a study that aimed to investigate the destruction processes that had taken place in Arab villages since 1948. The proposal itself never materialized, but despite the innovation in the very fact that he wanted to deal with this issue, it should be noted that he did not want to excavate the villages and reveal their pasts, but to use them for the purpose of researching the destructive processes that took place in them. That is, to use the destroyed villages as a kind of experimental archaeology that examines destructive processes today and in doing so extrapolates and learns about the processes that occurred in the past (Sulimani and Kletter 2014). The development of “historical archaeology” in Europe, and especially in the United States, led to a focus on the study of remains from later periods, including the 18th and 19th centuries and beyond (“contemporary archaeology” refers to remains dating from the 20th century). This approach, which emerged during the 1960s and 1970s as a branch of the “new archaeology,” deals with archaeological research that examines material culture dating to these periods in the broader

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  93 historical context, using documents, maps, aerial photographs, archives, and oral evidence where possible (Preucel and Hodder 1996; Deetz 1996; Harrison and Schofield 2010; Graves-Brown et al. 2013; González-Ruibal 2019). As stated, in Israel the Antiquities Law established the year 1700 CE as the upper chronological boundary of an “antiquity.” This date, which first appears in the Mandatory Antiquities Ordinance, is also found in the regulations set down with the establishment of the state and in the Antiquities Law enacted in 1978. However, during the last 20 years, under the influence of archaeological and historical research around the world, there is increasing interest in this field also within Israeli archaeology (Baram 2002; Saidel and Erickson-Gini 2021). It should be noted that even in the Code of Ethics recently adopted by Israeli archaeologists within the framework of the Israel Archaeological Association, reference is made to this issue: Those conducting surveys and archaeological excavations of any kind will give their full attention to all periods, strata and finds discovered during them. In the excavation, all strata will be carefully excavated using accepted methods; these things also apply to remains dating from the early 18th century CE to the present day.10 Today, many excavations include references to the Late Ottoman period and the Mandate period, which actually means research on Arab settlements prior to 1948 (see, for example: Tsuk, Bordowicz and Taxel 2016; Da’adli 2017; Saidel et al. 2021; Arbel 2021; Eisenberg-Degen and Levi Hevroni 2021). It could be assumed that this change is a result only of the influence of contemporary archaeology in North America on Israeli archaeological research. However, an analysis of these studies indicates that although the research on this subject is certainly inspired by contemporary archaeology, yet at the same time it reflects, first and foremost, changes that have occurred in Israeli society. These studies aim “to put the contributions of each period in its true perspective,” as Baramki wrote back in 1969 (Baramki 1969: IV). Moreover, its implications oblige Israeli archaeologists to confront the consequences of the actions committed by the Jewish side during Israel’s War of Independence. Equally, this study is difficult for Palestinians since it requires them to deal with tangible evidence of the collective memories associated with the destruction of their villages (Baram 2002: 25). As part of these studies, landscape surveys are conducted in the areas of sites that were inhabited during the 19th and 20th centuries, which allow for a reconstruction of social and historical processes that date to these periods. Some of the excavations being carried out today are salvage excavations resulting from development processes occurring in open areas that were Palestinian villages before 1948. An example of this can be found in the excavation project at Motza. Tel Motza has been inhabited since prehistoric times. Over the years, due to work required for the development of Road 1 from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, which passes through the site, a number of excavations were conducted at the site, in which mostly remains from the Neolithic and Iron Ages were discovered. These excavations also treated the houses of the Palestinian village of Colonia (Qaluniya)

94  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology that was located there until 1948. Archaeological research based on the remaining buildings was combined with historical research based on maps of the period, Royal Air Force aerial photographs, and testimonies of villagers. All sources of information were cross-referenced, and with the help of GIS software it was possible to reconstruct the village plan, streets, residential areas, and public buildings as well as to identify changes that had taken place in the village structure over the years. In addition, the residential areas of the various clans were mapped, and the relationship between the physical organization of the village and the locations of the residences of the various clans was examined (Wachtel et al. 2020). Additional projects are being conducted as part of excavations of ancient sites located near villages destroyed in 1948, whose purpose is to explore the remains of the villages and tell their story within the historical framework of the place. An example of this can be found in the reconstruction of the history of the village of Zir‘in, located on Tel Jezreel (Figure 4.1). The village was abandoned in 1948, but was destroyed only in January 1967, and was one of the last villages to be destroyed. The excavation expedition, led by Norma Franklin and Jennie Ebeling, focused on “Greater Jezreel,” including the lower mound, Tel Ein Jezreel, as well as the intervening and surrounding areas. The village of Zir‘in was mainly on the western half of the upper tel (usually represented by the Iron Age enclosure), with some buildings West and South of the enclosure as well. The expedition excavated the ancient remains, but at the same time, they conducted a study that focused on the Palestinian village that had existed there before 1948 with the intention of

Figure 4.1  The village of Zir‘in (between 1898 and 1914) (Library of Congress, Prints & Photographs Division, [LC-DIG-matpc-06983])

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  95 presenting the village of Zir‘in as one of the stages of settlement at the site from the Neolithic period onwards. Zir‘in was taken by Israeli forces in May 1948. In August 1948, demobilized army veterans established a temporary settlement there, which in 1950 was moved West to the neighboring hill and became Kibbutz Jezreel. In January 1967 the remaining buildings deemed of interest were recorded by an archaeologist of the IDAM, and the village was bulldozed. The photographs, plans, and reminiscences of the kibbutz founders have proved invaluable, particularly a map of the village of Zir‘in combined with information provided by doing a landscape survey. The survey documented the architectural remains of the village, and a handheld GPS unit provided reference points. The survey data and historical aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force were combined with the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) map to create a digital model of the village as it was in 1948. In order to understand the population make-up and economy of the village, the excavators also gathered information from a variety of sources, e.g., British Mandate period documentation and census forms, oral histories recorded and stored in Bir Zeit University, and material housed in the Israel National Archives.11 It seems, therefore, that similarly to other areas in Israeli archaeological research, the attitude to the issue of the destroyed villages has also changed. The avoidance of research dealing with remains dating to the Late Ottoman period and the Mandate period allegedly stemmed from the wording of the law setting the upper limit to “antiquity” in 1700. However, it seems that until recent years there were other factors that influenced this, too. The interest in biblical archaeology and Jewish archaeology expressed first and foremost the “national archaeology” that characterized Israeli archaeological research in its infancy (Silberman 1989). The period of time that has passed since the establishment of the state now makes it possible to conduct research that actually deals with Palestinian material culture. Archaeologists who are the second and third generation after the founders of the state are no longer afraid to touch on painful points in Israeli history, and the recognition that any period is worthy of study allows these finds to be addressed as well. Notes 1 It should be noted that when he wrote the book, the prevailing opinion in research regarding the origin of ancient Israel was that the Israelites should be seen as new arrivals who settled in the country (for example, Albright 1971; Aharoni 1979), in contrast to Baramki’s view of the autochthonous origin of the Israelites. Nevertheless, from the 1980s onwards, many scholars speculate that the origin of the Israelites is local, whether it was a population living in the Central highland region of Palestine (Finkelstein 1988) or composed mainly of refugees from the Canaanite culture that collapsed at the end of the Late Bronze Age (Dever 1993). Thus, although his conclusions stemmed from political motives and not from data revealed in excavations, in the end, today, there are quite a few supporters of the opinion that the Israelites originated in the local population that lived in Canaan before the settlement period. 2 “The antiquities of al-Quds [Jerusalem],” al-Karmil, 3 March 1923. 3 I would like to thank Raz Kletter for this information.

96  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology 4 A current expression of this can still be found today in the museums that preserve traditional Palestinian culture of the 19th and early 20th centuries that have been established in a number of localities (Shay 2011). 5 In practice, no change was made in the museum during the 19 years it was under Jordanian control. In 1967, after the Six Day War, when the Jewish staff who worked there during the Mandate returned to the museum, they found that all the things they left in their last working days in December 1947 had remained in place ever since (Katz 2011: 69). 6 On the Makhouly affair, see in detail in Kletter (2006: 46–51). 7 I would like to thank his great-grandson, Naim Makhouly, for this information. 8 I. Fidelman, Data on students from the Arab sector in higher education institutions (Jerusalem: The Knesset Research and Information Center, 2009). 9 I would like to thank Walid Atrash for this information. 10 The ethical code of the Israel Archaeological Association. 11 Personal communication from Norma Franklin. I would like to thank Norma Franklin and Jennie Ebeling for this information.

References Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial SelfFashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Abu El-Haj, N. 2002. “Producing (Arti) Facts: Archaeology and Power during the British Mandate of Palestine.” Israel Studies 7: 33–61. Aharoni, Y. 1979. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. London: Burns & Oates. Albright, W.F. 1971. The Archaeology of Palestine. Gloucester: Peter Smith. Almog, O. 2000. The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew. Translated by H. Watzman. Berkeley: University of California Press. Arbel, Y. 2021. “The Archaeology of Mandate-Period Jaffa: Purpose, Finds, and Contribution.” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 9: 6–27. Baram, U. 2002. “The Development of Historical Archaeology in Israel: An Overview and Prospects.” Historical Archaeology 36: 12–29. Baramki, D.C. 1938. “An Early Byzantine Synagogue Near Tell Es Sulṭān, Jericho.” The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6: 73–77. Baramki, D.C. 1969. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Palestine: A Survey of the Archaeology of Palestine from the Earliest Times to the Ottoman Conquest. Beirut: Palestine Liberation Organization, Research Center. Ben-Arieh, Y. 1999. “Non-Jewish Institutions and the Research of Palestine during the British Mandate Period: Part Two.” Cathedra 93: 111–142. (Hebrew) Canaan, T. 1927. Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine. London: Luzac and Co. Canaan, T. 1933. The Palestinian Arab House, Its Architecture and Folklore. Jerusalem: Syrian Orphanage Press. Da’adli, T. 2017. “Khan el-Hilu: Summarizing Results Ahead of the 10th Excavation Season.” Lod “Diospolis–City of God” 3: 141–159. (Hebrew) Deetz, J. 1996. In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. New York: Anchor Books. Dever, W.G. 1993. “Cultural Continuity, Ethnicity in the Archaeological Record and the Question of Israelite Origins.” Eretz-Israel 24: 22*–33*.

Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology  97 Eisenberg-Degen, D. and A. Levi Hevroni. 2021. “Of the Lands That Lay North of Late Ottoman Beersheba.” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 9: 164–186. El-Eini, R.I.M. 1996. “The Implementation of British Agricultural Policy in Palestine in the 1930s.” Middle Eastern Studies 32: 211–250. Feige, M. and Z. Shiloni, eds. 2008. Archeology and Nationalism in Eretz Israel. Sde Boker: The Ben-Gurion Institute. (Hebrew) Fidelman, I.2009. “Data on students from the Arab sector in higher education institutions.” Jerusalem: The Knesset Research and Information Center. Finkelstein, I. 1988. The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Geva, S. 1992. “The Israeli Biblical Archeology in Its Beginning.” Zmanim 42: 93–102. (Hebrew) Glock, A.E. 1994. “Archaeology as Cultural Survival: The Future of the Palestinian Past.” Journal of Palestine Studies 23: 70–84. Golan, A. 2001. Wartime Spatial Changes: Former Arab Territories within the State of Israel, 1948–1950. Beersheba: Ben Gurion University Press. (Hebrew) González-Ruibal, A. 2019. An Archaeology of the Contemporary Era. London and New York: Routledge. Graves-Brown, P.M., R. Harrison, and A. Piccini. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Contemporary World. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, R.W. 1993. “Khirbat al-Mafjar.” In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, edited by E. Stern, Vol. 3, 922–929. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. Harrison, R. and A.G. Schofield. 2010. After Modernity: Archaeological Approaches to the Contemporary Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Irving, S. 2018. “A Young Man of Promise: Finding a Place for Stephan Hanna Stephan in the History of Mandate Palestine.” Jerusalem Quarterly 73: 42–62. Irving, S. 2021. “Palestinian Christians in the Mandate Department of Antiquities: History and Archaeology in a Colonial Space.” In European Cultural Diplomacy and Arab Christians in Palestine, 1918–1948, edited by K.S. Summerer and S. Zananiri, 161–185. Cham: Springer International/Palgrave Macmillan. Kabha, M. 2004. The Press in the Eye of the Storm: The Palestinian Press Shapes Public Opinion, 1929–1939. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi. (Hebrew) Kabha, M. 2013. The Palestinian People: Seeking Sovereignty and State. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Kabha, M. and D. Caspi. 2011. The Palestinian Arab In/outsiders: Media and Conflict in Israel. London and Portland: Valentine Mitchell. Katz, H. 2011. Ruth Amiran: A Biography. Haifa: Pardes. (Hebrew) Kletter, R. 2006. Just Past?: The Making of Israeli Archaeology. London: Equinox. Kletter, R. 2008. “The Friends of Antiquities: The Story of an Israeli Volunteer Group and Comparative Remarks.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8. https://doi​.org​/10​.5508​/jhs​ .2008​.v8​.a2 Morris, B. 1987. Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947–1949. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Preucel, R and I. Hodder, eds. 1996. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Radai, I. 2016. “The Rise and Fall of the Palestinian-Arab Middle Class under the British Mandate, 1920–39.” Journal of Contemporary History 51: 487–506.

98  Palestinian citizens of Israel and their attitude to archaeology Saidel, B.A. and T. Erickson-Gini. 2021. “From the Guest Editors.” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 9: 1–5. Saidel, B.A., T. Erickson-Gini, and A. Mashiah. 2021. “An Architectural Survey of the ‘Mufti’s House’ in Qālūnyā/Motza.” Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 9: 85–115. Sari, K. 2022. Stones That Speak: Antiquities from the Galilee. Jerusalem: Franciscan Press. (Arabic) Shai, A. 2006. “The Fate of Abandoned Arab Villages in Israel, 1965–1969.” History and Memory 18: 86–106. Shay, O. 2011. “Folklore, Memorials and Nationalism: Museums and Collections in Israel’s Arab Society.” Horizons in Geography 77: 74–88. (Hebrew) Shiller, E. 1989. “The Islamic Museum in the Temple Mount.” Ariel 64–65: 145–154. (Hebrew) Sigalas, M. 2021. “Between Diplomacy and Science: British Mandate Palestine and Its International Network of Archaeological Organisations, 1918–1938.” In European Cultural Diplomacy and Arab Christians in Palestine, 1918–1948, edited by K.S. Summerer and S. Zananiri, 187–211. Cham: Springer International/Palgrave Macmillan. Silberman, N.A. 1982. Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land, 1799–1917. New York: A.A. Knopf. Silberman, N.A. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: H. Holt. Silberman, N.A. and D. Small. 1997. The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. St. Laurent, B. and H. Taşkömür. 2013. “The Imperial Museum of Antiquities in Jerusalem, 1890–1930: An Alternate Narrative.” Jerusalem Quarterly 55: 6–45. Sulimani, G. and R. Kletter. 2014. “Destruction That Can Be Studied: Israeli Archeology and the Abandoned Palestinian Villages.” Theory and Criticism 42: 207–235. Sussmann, A. and R. Reich. 1987. “The Rockefeller Museum Building.” In Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume: Essays on the History, Archaeology and Lore of the Holy Land, Presented to Zev Vilnay, Vol. 2, edited by E. Schiller, 83–91. Jerusalem: Ariel. (Hebrew) Taha, H. 2019. “Palestinian Historical Narrative.” In A New Critical Approach to the History of Palestine: Palestine History and Heritage Project 1, edited by I. Hjelm, H. Taha, I. Pappe, and T.L. Thompson, 19–42. Abingdon: Routledge. Tamari, S. 2009. Mountain against the Sea: Essays on Palestinian Society and Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Tsuk, Z., I. Bordowicz, and I. Taxel. 2016. “Majdal Yābā: The History and Material Culture of a Fortified Village in Late Ottoman and British Mandate-Palestine.” Journal of Islamic Archaeology 3: 37–88. Wachtel, I., S. Kisilevitz, E. Ayalon, H. Drawshi, N. Amitai-Preiss, Y. Gadot, Y., and A. Nadan. 2020. New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region, Special Issue: Proceedings of the International Conference on Motza (Supplementary Volume). Jerusalem: IAA Publications. Whitcomb, D. 2013. “Dimitri Baramki: Discovering Qasr Hisham.” Jerusalem Quarterly 55: 78–82. Zerubavel, Y. 1995. Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

5

Women in Israeli archaeology

This book deals with the relation of subaltern groups in Israeli society to the discipline of archaeology, and therefore, we must ask whether it is correct to devote a separate chapter to women engaged in archaeology. The answer to this is complex, since the discussion of this issue cannot stand alone but is part of the broader picture of women’s position in general. This study deals mostly with the 20th century, from the establishment of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society in 1913 up to the present day. Thus, it is clear that the zeitgeist regarding the status of women also influenced their place in archaeology. Moreover, issues related to commitment to family and raising children are a component in any discussion of the status of women who have dedicated their lives to science. This, from a starting point, examines how much they paid for this desire in the currency of family, since the burden involved in raising and caring for children is a barrier that in many cases limits women’s careers (Nelson 2019: 117). This chapter will study the place of women in archaeological research and will try to examine the extent to which their areas of practice reflect the changes that have taken place in archaeology in particular and in Israeli society in general. In contrast to various scientific fields that were the domain of men only, during the Mandate period one can find a number of women who left their mark on research in the archaeology of Palestine. Even after the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, women were involved in archaeological work. The question of the place and role of women in archaeology has been discussed extensively in studies dealing with both European and American archaeology. The relevance of studies dealing with the archaeology of the UK in the first half of the 20th century should be noted, since the researchers who came to Palestine during the Mandate were for the most part British, and some of the studies specifically address these researchers (Davis 2008; Green and Henry 2021). Research on the status of women in archaeology began to develop in the early 1980s in parallel with the development of gender studies (Nelson 2019: 114). The main purpose of the researchers (usually women) who examined this issue was to expose the female voice in the archaeological narrative. An examination of the studies written over the years makes it possible to distinguish between two types: First, those engaged in the analysis of archaeological finds while providing a feminist interpretation of the objects and processes that characterized society in the past, usually the prehistoric periods (Conkey and Spector 1984; Gero and DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-6

100  Women in Israeli archaeology Conkey 1991; Hays-Gilpin and Whitley 1989; Nelson 2007; Wylie 2007). The second category comprised studies dealing with the history of research through the prism of women’s studies, discussing the status of women engaged in archaeological research today (Gero 1985; Claassen 1994; Díaz-Andreu and Sørensen 1998; Hays-Gilpin 2000; Conkey 2003; Cohen and Joukowsky 2004; Browman 2013). It should be noted that in some studies, both aspects are addressed. Over the years, biographies of women archaeologists have been written. In some of these biographies, reference is also made to issues related to the status of women in archaeology (e.g., Davies and Charles 1999; Davis 2008; Carr 2012). One of the central themes in the discussion of the status of women in archaeology is the system of images that characterized the field and influenced the norms that actually existed during the 20th century. This image or stereotype subconsciously reflects the characteristics of prehistoric hunter-gatherer society. The male archaeologists are active in the field and “hunt” for the findings. They represent strong men—the “cowboys of science.” The women, on the other hand, are involved in “archaeological housework.” They are passive, “gathering” the findings that men bring from the field and performing work in laboratories and museums (Gero 1985: 344). For most of the 20th century, however, this stereotype did not remain merely a metaphor but expressed actual reality. Until the 1960s, in American archaeology women had few opportunities to attend field schools compared to men. A male archaeologist had to be involved in large-scale excavations and many excavation managers felt that involving women in these excavations would distract the excavators from their work. Expeditions were a kind of homosocial fraternity of middle-class white men with no room for women (Hays-Gilpin 2000: 91; Browman 2013: 251–276; Nelson 2019: 113). An examination of the status of women engaged in archaeology in Britain in the first half of the 20th century paints a complex picture. Married women who engaged in fieldwork were usually the wives of the archaeologists with whom they conducted excavations. Analysis of the characteristics of these archaeologists indicates that because they worked and collaborated with their husbands, in many cases they did not receive full credit for their work, as their individual contributions were not examined separately. Examples of such archaeologists are Hilda Petrie, wife of Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, and even more so, her contemporary Tessa Verney Wheeler, wife of Sir Robert Eric Mortimer Wheeler, who conducted excavations, published, and taught at the same time as her husband. In contrast, women who conducted excavations and developed a significant independent career were usually those who did not marry, among them Dorothy Garrod, Gertrude CatonThompson, and Kathleen Kenyon (Carr 2012: 6–8). Some of these researchers also worked in Palestine during the Mandate. Women archaeologists during the Mandate period Most of the female archaeologists who were active in the country during the Mandate period were British, the most prominent of whom were Dorothy Garrod and Kathleen Kenyon. Dorothy Garrod began her research work in France and

Women in Israeli archaeology  101 Gibraltar. At Gibraltar she conducted the excavation at the Devil’s Tower, where she discovered remains belonging to the Mousterian culture, including parts of a child’s skull. In 1928, after she had already become famous as a prehistoric archaeologist, she was invited to Palestine by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. She excavated at a number of sites, the most important of which was Shuqba cave in the north of Wadi en-Natuf, on the western slopes of the Judean Mountains. There she discovered tools, beads, and burials from a unique and previously unfamiliar hunter-gatherer culture. It was a culture that represented a transitional stage, unknown until then, between the hunter-gatherer cultures of the Paleolithic period and the agricultural cultures of the Neolithic period, and Garrod named it after the area where it was first discovered—the Natufian culture. In the 1930s Garrod uncovered remains of ancient hominids in the Mount Carmel Caves. Garrod’s research in prehistory made her one of the most important archaeologists during the emergence of this field. Later, she was the first woman to be appointed a professor at a British university, when she became a professor at Cambridge in 1939. Beyond her research, Garrod tried to promote the employment of women. She employed women from the Arab villages near Nahal Me’arot, and after she acquired a good command of Arabic, she formed working and friendship relationships with some of them that lasted several years (Davies and Charles 1999; Smith 2000). Another British archaeologist who excavated in Palestine for many years was Kathleen Kenyon, who participated in the expedition to Samaria in the first half of the 1930s and later conducted excavations in Jericho and Jerusalem. Kenyon was the daughter of Sir Frederic Kenyon, director of the British Museum. She studied history at Oxford, and upon graduation in 1928 joined Gertrude CatonThompson’s expedition that excavated at the Great Zimbabwe site. In all her excavations, Caton-Thompson assembled expeditions that comprised only women and Kenyon’s role was to be in charge of the composition of the group. In addition, being an experienced photographer, she also served as the expedition’s photographer and was given additional technical assignments. During the course of the excavation, she decided to specialize in archaeology, and upon her return to England, she joined Mortimer and Tessa Wheeler’s expedition as a volunteer, excavating at the Roman site of St. Albans. She dug with the Wheelers every summer between 1930 and 1935, and in 1934 they let her direct the excavation of the theater at the site. At the same time, in the years 1931–1935 she also excavated in the Joint Expedition to Samaria under the direction of John Crowfoot. From 1951 to 1966, Kenyon served as the director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. During these years she directed excavations in Jericho (1952–1958) and in Jerusalem (1961–1967) (Davis 2008). The excavations in Jericho were of great importance, as Kenyon developed there her method of excavation based on digging limited test pits and avoiding excavating large areas. This method focuses on the accurate identification of soil layers and collapse layers and therefore takes care to leave balks at fixed distances in the excavation area. These partitions form a cross-section of the accumulation of remains in the mound and allow a careful analysis of the layers according to their stratification. Except for the last season of excavations in Jerusalem (1967) that took place after the Six Day War, Kenyon

102  Women in Israeli archaeology excavated in areas that were not part of the state of Israel, and therefore her impact on Israeli archaeology is mainly reflected in encounters with Israeli archaeologists who went to London for their studies.1 Olga Tufnell began her archaeological career during the mid-1920s, as a staff member of Flinders Petrie’s expedition to Tell el-Far‘ah (south) and Tell el-‘Ajjul. Later on, she moved to dig with James Starkey at Lachish between 1932 and 1938. After Starkey’s assassination, Tufnell published the excavation report, but unlike Garrod and Kenyon, in her professional life she specialized in analyzing objects (mainly ceramics and beads) and did not direct an excavation herself. In addition to these three archaeologists, mention should be made of another dig conducted by a woman during this period. In contrast to the British archaeologists, Judith Krause-Marquet was born and raised in Palestine. After graduating high school, she went to Paris to study French language teaching. In France she changed her plans and enrolled at the Sorbonne to study literature and medieval history. Eventually, she turned to studying languages and studied Akkadian, Syrian, and Armenian at the École des Hautes Études, while at the same time studying the archaeology of Palestine and the Near East at the École du Louvre (Barag 1996: 118). After graduating she stayed for a time in Paris, where she taught. Yves Marquet, a member of a French noble family who was one of her students there, fell in love with her, converted to Judaism, and married her. They divided their time between Paris and Mikve Israel, where her parents lived.2 At the beginning of 1933, Krause applied to the Mandatory Department of Antiquities for an excavation permit for the tel associated with the biblical Ai. Krause, who was only 27, did not have much digging experience. Hamilton, the director of the Antiquities Department, initially refused to approve the excavation. Baron de Rothschild, who was in contact with the Krause family, personally approached the High Commissioner and even promised to fund the excavation, thus Krause received the license and began preparations.3 Krause enlisted the help of Shmuel Yeivin, who already had experience and had previously worked with Petrie in Egypt. One day in 1933, shortly after the dig began, Krause learned that she had contracted tuberculosis. Before the excavation proper began, she traveled to Switzerland as the common opinion was that a prolonged stay in the mountains had the power to cure the disease. The first excavation season took place in the fall and revealed remains dating to the Early Bronze Age. Throughout the years 1933–1935, Krause suffered from tuberculosis, and in the periods between one excavation season and another, she traveled to Switzerland.4 In 1935 the third excavation season in Ai took place, where Krause also participated, although the doctors explained to her that this endangered her life. Indeed, this was her last excavation season, for in the summer of 1936 Krause died, and the excavations at Ai were interrupted. Women also joined the Mandatory Department of Antiquities, but none of them served as inspectors and therefore did not direct excavations. Milka CassutoSalzmann was the director of the library. Another employee who served as cocurator of the Palestine Archaeological Museum was Ruth Kelner (Amiran), who was primarily responsible for recording and documenting the collections of the Archaeological Museum (Ben-Arieh 1999: 159; Katz 2011: 66).

Women in Israeli archaeology  103 Women archaeologists after the establishment of the state of Israel From 1948 onwards, there was an increase in the number of archaeology students at the Hebrew University, as well as in the number of women who graduated and joined the field. Among the prominent students who graduated during those years was Trude Dothan (1922–2016), who would later become one of the most important Israeli archaeologists (Figure 5.1). Dothan, who from her earliest research was involved in the study of the intercultural ties among the peoples of the Mediterranean basin, specialized in the Philistine culture, and became a leading scholar in this field. Dothan directed excavations from the beginning of her professional career, in the years 1962–1963 at the Ein Gedi excavations in collaboration with Benjamin Mazar and Immanuel Dunayevsky and later at Deir el-Balah (1972–1977). Between 1981 and 1996 she and Seymour (Sy) Gitin directed the excavation at Ekron (Tel Miqne). The results of this excavation made it possible to develop a comprehensive outline of Philistine culture throughout

Figure 5.1  Trude Dothan, Deir el-Balah (Photo: Zev Radovan, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem)

104  Women in Israeli archaeology its 600 years of existence. Dothan received the Israel Prize in 1996 (Gitin 2016: 127–128). Another researcher who began her career in the field as a volunteer at the “Friends of Antiquities” was Claire Epstein (Figure 5.2). Epstein was born in 1911 in London and in 1937 immigrated to Palestine. During World War II, she enlisted in the British Army, and after demobilization, she joined Kibbutz Ein Gev as a member. In 1955 she joined the expedition to Hazor where she discovered the Orthostat Temple in Area H. Following the excavation, she decided to study archaeology and in 1959 returned to England and studied at the University of London’s Institute of Archaeology at the University of London. She wrote her doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Kathleen Kenyon and, after graduating, returned to Ein Gev and researched the prehistory of the Golan Heights. In 1995 she received the Israel Prize for her work in this field (Hartal 2001). It is worth mentioning the 1955–1958 dig at Hazor. The excavation, led by Yigael Yadin, was the first Israeli dig in which a biblical tel was excavated for

Figure 5.2  Claire Epstein (courtesy of Kibbutz Ginosar Archive and Claire Epstein’s family)

Women in Israeli archaeology  105 several seasons. To this day, this dig is considered fundamental in the history of Israeli research, since almost the entire next generation of Israeli archaeology was trained there in archaeological fieldwork. However, this dig is also unique in that three women field directors participated in it, all of whom later won the Israel Prize: Ruth Amiran, Trude Dothan, and Claire Epstein. Since in this chapter I do not intend to review all of the Israeli archaeology over the years, I will focus on the figure of Ruth Amiran. Amiran not only was the first graduate of the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University but also combined her work with pottery research and directing a large-scale excavation at Arad. Ruth Amiran: an exemplar of an Israeli female archaeologist5 Ruth Amiran (1914–2005) (Figure 5.3) began her studies at the Hebrew University in 1933 as part of the Chair for the Exploration of Israel, headed by Prof. Shmuel Klein. A year after starting her studies, her name appears at the top of a list of

Figure 5.3  Ruth Amiran, et-Tell (biblical Ai) excavation, 1934

106  Women in Israeli archaeology students who signed a letter that they addressed to the university administration. The letter states that they “feel the need to establish an institute of archaeology at the University. The absence of this institute forces them either to give up their desire to study the archaeology of Palestine or to look for study opportunities elsewhere,” and indeed, in 1935 the Department of Archaeology was established. At this point, Amiran was already in the middle of her studies. However, she studied for another year, graduated with a master’s degree in archaeology, and in 1939 became the first graduate of the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University. Her professional life, from the completion of her MA studies in the late 1930s to the end of her work in Arad in the 1980s, largely reflects the history of Israeli archaeological research, including the changes that occurred within it over the years. Amiran dealt with many topics during her years of activity, but her scientific work can be divided into two main periods. In the 1940s and 1950s she engaged in the study of ceramics, and from the beginning of the 1960s until the end of her life she went on to study mainly the Early Bronze Age. After graduating, she began working at the Jewish Antiquities Museum, established by Eleazar Sukenik at the Hebrew University. The museum served as the basis for the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University, as not only were the various findings from the Hebrew University’s excavations displayed there, but its purpose was also to publish the excavations conducted under the auspices of the Department of Archaeology. Amiran’s role was to manage the library and to process the archaeological material of the excavations and the museum. In addition, Amiran served as an assistant teacher in the department and taught the course on ancient pottery. In 1946 she moved to the Mandatory Department of Antiquities as Deputy Curator and after the establishment of the state she moved with all the other Jewish workers to the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) and was appointed inspector of the Northern District. Amiran spent only a few days of the week in the north, and the rest of the time she continued to work in Jerusalem. At that time, she supported local enthusiasts with the establishment of an array of local museums (see Chapter 1). In 1955 she left the IDAM and joined the Hazor excavation team. By this time Amiran had already become an authority in the field of pottery research, so even though she left the IDAM on bad terms, less than two years later the director of the IDAM, Shmuel Yeivin, contacted her again to write a booklet, intended for the “Friends of Antiquities,” about ancient ceramics. After the work in Hazor was completed in the fall of 1959, Amiran did not return to work in the IDAM and since she had not completed her doctorate, which she began in 1954, she could not teach at the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University. At this point, Amiran chose to expand the booklet she wrote for the IDAM into a complete and detailed volume that would cover all types of pottery and would serve as a basic book on the subject. Amiran devoted the book’s introductory chapter to describing the various dating methods as well as to an extensive description of the history of the pottery industry. She then began a systematic description of all types of vessels from the Neolithic period to the end of the Iron Age. The book was published in Hebrew in 1963, and for about 50 years, it was the book on which the study of ancient ceramics in Israel was based. Her research on

Women in Israeli archaeology  107 ancient ceramics was unique, in that from the very beginning her multidisciplinary approach to the study of ceramics was apparent. She viewed pottery as not only an aid intended to assist in dating archaeological finds but also a valuable tool in its own right, “as a product expressing the technical and artistic achievements of its time.” In her many studies, a combination of several research directions can be found, including the history of pottery, the methods of creation, the status of pottery, the chronological and typological aspects of pottery, and the uses of ceramics in art and religion. In the first half of the 1960s, Amiran devoted her time to establishing two museums: the ceramics pavilion at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv and the Archaeology Department at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. She constructed the display plan of the ceramics pavilion in light of her general conception of pottery research. This proposal was profoundly innovative, because at this time most museums in the world referred to pottery only in its chronological aspect—presenting the vessels along the timeline, whereas Amiran also made reference to the craft of pottery and the use of tools in private households. During 1964, the construction of the Israel Museum was completed, and at the same time the division of roles there was decided upon. Amiran was not appointed curator, but rather the Museum’s field archaeologist, since of all the workers there, she had the richest experience in archaeological fieldwork. Amiran was ahead of her time in a number of areas which over the years have become an integral part of any archaeological excavation. The most important one was her recognition, already in the early 1940s, of the importance of the various sciences for archaeological research. Amiran was a pioneer in introducing the use of science into the field of archaeology in Israel. In doing so, she realized the significant contribution that can arise from collaboration between various disciplines in the study of important archaeological and historical problems, long before the archaeological establishment recognized this. Amiran believed that in her new position at the museum she would be able to advance this issue. She saw great importance in developing laboratories that would be used for active research and not just for the preservation of ancient objects. The first laboratory she tried to develop was for petrographic research, and for this purpose she invited Anna Shepard, one of the pioneers of the use of petrography in archaeology, to Israel. Shephard visited Israel at the end of April 1966, and stayed for six months, working with Amiran on several projects. Later she also invited Maria Hopf, at the time one of the most important researchers in archaeobotany, to help establish a laboratory for palaeobotany at the museum. Although the laboratories did not continue to exist at the museum, bringing to Israel researchers who were considered leaders in their field at the time opened up the possibility for young scholars to become familiar with these fields of research and later even to specialize in them. Simultaneously with her work at the Israel Museum, starting in 1962, Amiran began digging at Arad (Figure 5.4). During the 18 seasons of excavation at the site, Amiran uncovered extensive parts of the Canaanite city dating to the Early Bronze Age and the layers that preceded it. Amiran believed that an archaeologist needed “one site for life,” which meant first and foremost that as large an area as possible of the site should be excavated. Since the remains of the Canaanite city protruded above the surface

108  Women in Israeli archaeology

Figure 5.4  Ruth Amiran, Tel Arad

and were not covered in later strata, Amiran uncovered in Arad the entire quarters of the city, public buildings, fortifications, and more. The combination of “total archaeology,” focusing on maximum exposure of the site, with careful collection of all the excavation findings enabled Arad to become a key site for the study of the Early Bronze Age. Amiran was a pioneer of archaeological research in Israel. She dealt with many topics during her years of activity and influenced various fields of research: the analysis of ceramic assemblages, the Early Bronze Age, issues related to worship, and archaeology and science. However, was she a model for the women archaeologists who came after her? The answer to that is complicated. Amiran devoted her entire life to science, and archaeological work became the focus of her life. Amiran was married to David Amiran, a professor of geography at the Hebrew University, but they did not have children, The fact that she was childless is crucial in this context, as Amiran never had to deal with the dilemmas associated with balancing her home life and her archaeological career. Her child-free status made it easier for

Women in Israeli archaeology  109 her to direct excavations and travel abroad, even for relatively long periods of time. Despite her professional success and her central place in the pantheon of important Israeli archaeologists of the 20th century, she does not seem to be a role model for other women, who did—and do—face such dilemmas. Has archaeology indeed “escaped from the kitchen”? In the national Zionist worldview, female homemaking in the domestic sphere was perceived as women’s contribution to the establishment of a national identity. The woman’s role was to organize the family’s daily life at home. Instructional literature on topics such as household management, cooking, nutrition, health, and raising children was published under the auspices of state bodies (Chacham 2017). It appears that, as in the cases of the groups described in the previous chapters, this notion, which represents the hegemonic Zionist establishment’s approach to women in Israeli society in general, had an impact on the place of women in Israeli archaeology until the early 1990s. An examination of the status of women in Israeli archaeology shows that a reality in which there is a distinction between “cowboys of science” and “archaeological housework” also characterized Israeli archaeology in the second half of the 20th century and that in academic institutions this reality continues to exist to one degree or another to this day (in contrast to the situation in the Israel Antiquities Authority [IAA], see below). Most women were engaged in “para-archaeological” professions, i.e., ancillary professions that have a scientific theoretical basis that requires expertise in specific things, such as ceramic analysis, archaeozoology (including specialization in malacology), archaeobotany, expertise in glass and beads. This phenomenon was particularly pronounced in the second half of the 20th century, when men conducted large-scale excavations (for example, Yohanan Aharoni at Tel Beer-Sheba and Arad, Avraham Biran at Tel Dan, David Ussishkin at Lachish, Amihai Mazar at Tel Batash and Beth Shean, and Zeʼev Herzog at Tel Gerisa), while women were responsible for processing ceramics (Lily Singer-Avitz in the excavations of Aharoni and Herzog, Rachel Ben-Dov at Dan, Orna Zimhoni at Lachish and Nava Panitz-Cohen in A. Mazar’s excavations). Other areas in which women were active and that can be defined as “archaeological housework” are curating (for example, Miriam Tadmor at the Israel Museum and Uzah Zevulun at the Eretz Israel Museum). Similar to women archaeologists in Britain, the women archaeologists who conducted large-scale excavations in Israel were in most cases unmarried (Pirhiya Beck, Claire Epstein) or married to archaeologists (Trude Dothan). Ruth Amiran was married but had no children (see above). It should be noted that the only areas of archaeology that are exceptions in this context are prehistoric research and the study of the Islamic periods, in which women were integrated as archaeologists leading significant excavations from the early 1980s onwards. Thus, in prehistoric research we find Naama Goren-Inbar at Gesher Benot Ya‘aqov, Mina Weinstein-Evron at the Mount Carmel Caves, and Anna Belfer-Cohen at Kebara Cave in the Carmel and HaYonim Cave in the Galilee. It is noteworthy that even today women are prominent in this field.

110  Women in Israeli archaeology This phenomenon also characterizes the study of Islamic periods: Myriam RosenAyalon, Miriam Avissar, and today Katia Cytryn-Silverman. In an attempt to explain this circumstance, we may have to go back to hegemonic archaeology, which deals mainly with the biblical and the classical periods. As we saw in the first chapter, these two periods occupied and still occupy a central place in Israeli archaeological research and have gained prominence both among the archaeologists themselves and in Israeli society as a whole. Thus, perhaps women were able to integrate into the prehistoric and Islamic periods more easily precisely because these were less “attractive” periods in archaeological research.6 Significant excavations conducted by women do occur nowadays, but an examination of the way the research path of these archaeologists developed shows that most of them started in areas related to “para-archaeology.” Thus, we find Ayelet Gilboa, who directs the excavation in Dor, whose MA thesis and doctoral dissertations dealt with Dor’s ceramics; Nava Panitz-Cohen, who directs the excavation at Abel Beth Maacah, whose MA thesis and doctoral dissertation dealt with the ceramics of Tel Batash; Adi Erlich, who directs the excavation at Beit She‘arim, whose area of expertise was figurines; Naama Yahalom-Mack, who specialized in metallurgy and from there moved on to directing the excavation at Abel Beth Maacah with Nava Panitz-Cohen. Moreover, examining the archaeologists with permanent faculty positions at universities indicates that this phenomenon of women’s exclusion still exists. For example, at Tel Aviv University, out of 16 faculty members, four are women, but only one (a specialist in prehistory) conducts excavations. The Hebrew University is unusual in the number of faculty members, as out of 18 faculty members, eight are women. When examining the ratio of women to men in directing excavations, it appears that there is almost equality, with seven men versus five women. A more in-depth examination, however, shows that out of the five women, two specialize in prehistoric periods and one specializes in the Islamic period. One of the main topics currently being discussed in studies dealing with the status of women in archaeological research in the USA is the number of women receiving funding from federal research funds. This issue is very important because winning prestigious funds makes it possible to advance one’s career, and therefore, their significance goes beyond funding the specific research proposed (Nelson 2019: 117; HeathStout 2020). To examine this issue in relation to Israeli archaeology, the research grants awarded by the Israel Science Foundation (ISF) in the field of archaeology between the years 2010 and 2020 were examined. It seems that over the years, there was considerable variation in the number of recipients of funding (see Table 5.1). The distinction between “cowboys of science” and “archaeological housework” is also reflected in research grants. Between 2010 and 2020, only 20% of the grants for research intended to fund excavation directly were won by women. On the other hand, in the fields of ancillary sciences, the percentage of women rises to 38%, and in subjects related to ceramics and art, there is a female majority, as shown in Table 5.2.7 The prominence of women archaeologists excavating in the field of prehistory compared to their almost complete absence from the biblical period, and to a large extent also from the classical periods, is also evident in the ISF’s grants (see Table 5.3).

Women in Israeli archaeology  111 Table 5.1 Percentage of Women Who Submitted Grants to the ISF and Received Funding, between 2010 and 2020a Year

Number of women submitting

Percentage of women among those submitting

Percentage of women recipients of funding

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

6 6 11 5 10 13 11 7 12 18 15

25 25 33 19 26 43 31 17 24 38 43

25 29 40 17 14 55 47 18 9 24 42

I would like to thank the Israel Science Foundation for providing the data for this study.

a

Table 5.2 Distribution of Grants between the Years 2020 and 2010, According to Topicsa

Excavation Ancillary sciences Ceramics Art Total

Men

Women

Men

Women

59 20 3 1 83

15 12 4 5 36

80% 63% 43% 17% 70%

20% 38% 57% 83% 30%

The data in this table are based on the database of recipients that appears on the ISF website. I thank Amira Feher for permission to use this information.

a

Table 5.3 Distribution of Grants to Fund Excavations between the Years 2020 and 2010, According to Periodsa Period

Men

Women

Men

Women

Prehistoric Bronze Age Iron Age Hellenistic Roman Byzantine Crusader Multi-period Total

18 9 15 2 7 2 3 3 59

10 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 15

64% 100% 88% 100% 78% 100% 100% 75% 80%

36% 0% 12% 0% 22% 0% 0% 25% 20%

The data in this table are based on the database of recipients that appears on the ISF website. I thank Amira Feher for permission to use this information.

a

112  Women in Israeli archaeology While between the years 2010 and 2020 ten women received grants relating to prehistorical periods, only two women received grants relating to the biblical period (Bronze and Iron Ages). This situation also characterizes the classical periods (Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine). It should be noted that during these years, no scholar of the Islamic period (neither male nor female) received a grant. An analysis of these data indicates that similar to the processes observed in the United States, a clear affinity can also be seen in Israel between winning ISF grants, women’s involvement in conducting large-scale excavations, and their professional status. The number of research grants that women have won and that are intended to fund excavations has been significantly low. Other than the prehistoric periods in which, as stated, there is a prominent female presence, one woman archaeologist twice received grants relating to excavations of the classical period, and two others received grants relating to the biblical period. To a large extent this is a vicious circle: women raise significantly less money through research grants and therefore cannot fund large-scale initiated excavations. Since directing large-scale excavations is the key to their professional advancement, their promotion is affected, and it becomes more difficult for them to raise additional grants that would allow them to conduct major excavations. Similar to other areas discussed above, the establishment of the Israel Antiquities Authority in 1990 also had an impact on the status of women in Israeli archaeology. Working at the IAA opened up new possibilities for women who wanted to engage in field archaeology. The need to raise budgets and research grants for excavations does not exist when directing an excavation on behalf of the IAA. The director of the excavation does not have to worry about the financial aspects of the excavation. They only have to meet the IAA’s goals that include directing the excavation and its publication. Under these conditions, it is easy for women to be integrated, since the “technical envelope” provided for the excavator neutralizes the need to raise money for the dig, and archaeologists are assessed only according to their professional abilities. Moreover, digs within the framework of the IAA allow women to run a household and raise children more easily, since directing an excavation is work like any other. Although work begins early in the morning, the director of the excavation is not required to stay in the field for weeks on end. As a result, the percentage of women who have been integrated into work as inspectors and excavation directors at the IAA currently stands at 39% of all workers in this position (a total of 120 women). This group constitutes 40% of all women working at the IAA.8 However, it should be noted that despite this, the senior management of the IAA still has no representation of women. It seems, then, that we need to ask: What is women’s place in the processes of the growth of archaeological knowledge? Did the fact that processing findings is less arduous and allows flexibility in relation to childcare lead women voluntarily to choose to engage in this and prefer it over conducting excavation in the field? Or perhaps, this area of knowledge was initially perceived as less valuable than directing excavations and therefore women were led, consciously or unconsciously, to engage in it? The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. “Archaeological housework,” in which one’s work focuses on analyzing ceramic assemblages or working in laboratories, makes it possible

Women in Israeli archaeology  113 to cope optimally with a woman’s commitment to family life and raising children. Although this perception of the zeitgeist was more significant in the second half of the 20th century, even today the question of the balance between fieldwork in long-term excavations and raising children still weighs heavily on young women archaeologists. Another issue that arises in contemporary studies dealing with the status of women in archaeology is the issue of double discrimination or intersectionality. This concept generally refers to discrimination on the basis of belonging to more than one excluded or discriminated group. For example, women who are discriminated against on the basis of race, sexual identity, age, belief, or disability. These women face the intersection of characteristics that cause them to be discriminated against because at the same time as they are women, they are also discriminated against because of belonging to another specific community (Yuval-Davis 2006; Carastathis 2014). In the archaeological context, it has been argued that although women have been involved in archaeological research, including directing excavations, all these women are white women and there is no diversity among them (Heath-Stout 2020: 422–423; Spencer-Wood and Trunzo 2022). In this study, I dealt with two groups that can be examined using this criterion of double discrimination: female observant and Palestinian archaeologists. With regard to employees of the IAA, full data enabling statistical analysis of these two groups are not available. An attempt to examine this issue in relation to institutions of higher learning shows that there is currently no female Palestinian archaeologist with a permanent faculty appointment in any department of archaeology in Israel. There are only a few female archaeologists with a PhD degree, only one of whom is working in the IAA as an excavator. However, it is important to note that today more Arab women are studying for advanced degrees in archaeology (mainly for an MA degree). Absolute quantification of the number of observant women with permanent faculty appointment is not possible, because unlike identification according to ethnic origin, religious behavior in Jewish women can be expressed in a variety of ways and does not even require a certain dress code similar to a man’s skullcap. Despite this difficulty, there are five female observant archaeologists with permanent faculty appointments that together constitute 21% of the total number of women faculty in the various institutions of higher education. It seems that this issue of intersectionality in archaeology, which has not been discussed at all in the Israeli context, will have to be left for another study. Notes 1 Among these archaeologists were Trude Dothan (Gitin 2016: 128), as well as Ruth Amiran and Yigael Yadin (Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, file ARC 40 1800/54). Another researcher was Claire Epstein, who studied at the University of London’s Institute of Archaeology in the early 1960s and wrote her doctoral dissertation under Kenyon’s supervision (Hartal 2001: 136). 2 According to the recollections of her niece, Judith Krause-Sobol. 3 IAA Archives: Mandatory Administrative Folder: File 28/66, Tel, El-(Ai).

114  Women in Israeli archaeology 4 According to the recollections of her niece, Judith Krause-Sobol. 5 This section is based on the detailed biography of Amiran, published in Hebrew (Katz 2011). 6 See Geva’s (1992) reference to Yadin and other Biblical archaeologists in the second half of the 20th century, who acted as “know-it-all” archaeologists who have decisive answers to all the archaeological questions. 7 All the successful grants are in the field of archaeology, but the distinction between the various groups was made on the basis of an analysis of the grant topics, keywords, and summaries, published on the ISF website. 8 I wish to thank the Human Resources department at IAA for this information.

References Barag, D. 1996. “Judith Krause-Marquet - The First Excavator of Ai.” Qadmoniot 112: 118–119. (Hebrew) Ben-Arieh, Y. 1999. “Non-Jewish Institutions and the Research of Palestine during the British Mandate Period: Part One.” Cathedra 92: 135–172. (Hebrew) Browman, D.L. 2013. Cultural Negotiations: The Role of Women in the Founding of Americanist Archaeology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Carastathis, A. 2014. “The Concept of Intersectionality in Feminist Theory.” Philosophy Compass 9: 304–314. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/phc3​.12129. Carr, L.C. 2012. Tessa Verney Wheeler: Women and Archaeology before World War Two. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chacham, M. 2017. “Home within Home: Domestic Discourse, Nationalism and Colonialism.” In Consciousness between Crisis and Empowerment: Interdisciplinary Writing on Women and Gender, edited by I. Alphandary, 230–275. Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew) Claassen, C., ed. 1994. Women in Archaeology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Cohen, G.M. and M.S. Joukowsky, eds. 2004. Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Conkey, M.W. 2003. “Has Feminism Changed Archaeology?” Signs 28: 867–880. Conkey, M.W. and J.D. Spector. 1984. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1–38. Davies, W. and R. Charles, eds. 1999. Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic: Studies in the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Davis, M.C. 2008. Dame Kathleen Kenyon: Digging up the Holy Land. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Díaz-Andreu, G.M. and M.L. Sørensen, eds. 1998. Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London: Routledge. Gero, J.M. 1985. “Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology.” American Antiquity 50: 342–350. Gero, J.M. and M.W. Conkey, eds. 1991. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell. Geva, S. 1992. “The Israeli Biblical Archeology in Its Beginning.” Zmanim 42: 93–102. (Hebrew) Gitin, S. 2016. “Trude Dothan.” Qadmoniot 152: 127–128. (Hebrew)

Women in Israeli archaeology  115 Green, J.M. and R. Henry. 2021. Olga Tufnell’s ‘Perfect Journey’: Letters and Photographs of an Archaeologist in the Levant and Mediterranean. London: UCL Press. Hartal, M. 2001. “Claire Epstein.” Qadmoniot 122: 136. (Hebrew) Hays-Gilpin, K. 2000. “Feminist Scholarship in Archaeology.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 571: 89–106. Hays-Gilpin, K. and D.S. Whitley, eds. 1989. Reader in Gender Archaeology. London: Routledge. Heath-Stout, L.E. 2020. “Who Writes about Archaeology? An Intersectional Study of Authorship in Archaeological Journals.” American Antiquity 85: 407–426. Katz, H. 2011. Ruth Amiran: A Biography. Haifa: Pardes. (Hebrew) Nelson, S.M., ed. 2007. Women in Antiquity: Theoretical Approaches to Gender and Archaeology. Lanham: AltaMira Press. Nelson, S.M. 2019. “Gender in Archaeology: Where Are We Now?” In Chacmool at 50: The Past, Present and Future of Archaeology. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Chacmool Archaeology Conference November 8–12, 2017, edited by K. Pennanen and S. Goosney, 112–120. Calgary: University of Calgary. Smith, P.J. 2000. “Dorothy Garrod, First Woman Professor at Cambridge.” Antiquity 74: 131–136. Spencer-Wood, S.M. and J.M.C. Trunzo. 2022. “Introduction to Archaeologies Special Issue on Intersectionality, Theory, and Research in Historical Archaeology.” Archaeologies 18: 1–44. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/s11759​-022​-09442​-5. Wylie, A. 2007. “Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 209–216. Yuval-Davis, N. 2006. “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13: 193–209.

Conclusions

The processes described in this study of the emergence of archaeological knowledge in Israel largely constitute a mirror image of the in-depth processes undergone by Israeli society, from the crystallization of the Yishuv during the Mandate period to the present day. From the 1920s onwards, and especially in the first decades after the establishment of the state of Israel, archaeology, which was a central component of the “national religion,” served as a tool for constructing the national Zionist identity. Archaeology can be seen as another expression of the way that the Zionist hegemony instilled its values. As stated, hegemony is not based on the use of force and coercion on subaltern groups, but rather its influence is manifested through the use of the culture and education of the masses who perceive themselves as partners in a joint project. This definition largely describes the worldview and activities of the “archaeological hegemony” at that time, the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) staff and the faculty of the Hebrew University. They served as cultural agents, concerned with shaping a consciousness that recognized the value of archaeological finds as an expression of the connection between the past and the present in the new-old land. Activities were carried out both directly by the IDAM (mainly through the “Friends of Antiquities” and the establishment of local museums) and indirectly at conferences organized by the Israel Exploration Society, attended by IDAM staff and by faculty of the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University as organizers and lecturers. Nevertheless, an examination of the audience that took active part in these enterprises shows that it was composed of the group that comprised Israeli hegemony at that time: Ashkenazi Jews living in the big cities and the “working settlement.” It was they who came to the conferences, were members of the “Friends of Antiquities,” and volunteered in excavations. In this sense, the “archaeological hegemony,” even if it sought to break boundaries and act and influence the whole of Israeli society, in practice was active only among its reference group. Groups that were part of Israeli society but not of Zionist secular society, that is, were not part of the cultural hegemony of the state of Israel (like observant Jews and Palestinian citizens) did not participate in these activities. When we analyze the reasons that led to the lack of involvement of these groups, it appears that this was not necessarily the result of intentional exclusion. Historical-structural analysis of the reasons that influenced the observant Jewish community’s avoidance of engagement with archaeology until the 1980s reveals a DOI:  10.4324/9781003390411-7

Conclusions  117 number of factors. To begin with, religious Jews did not need archaeology, since in the world of religious thought archaeological findings are not necessary to confirm the Jewish people’s right to the land; this right is enshrined in the divine promise. Moreover, among religious Zionists, the connection to the land drew its power from the sacred texts, and therefore, in this community no importance was given to archaeology, which essentially represents a physical connection to the land. To this must be added the tension that existed (and to some extent still exists) in the observant Jewish community between sacred-religious studies and secular-academic studies in the humanities in general, and in the field of archaeology in particular. Within the Arab community, the socio-economic situation and the living conditions of the Palestinian citizens of Israel during the first 20 years after the establishment of the state were the primary factors that decisively influenced this group’s absence from engaging in archaeology. However, despite the particular differences in each group, both in relation to the reasons that led to the avoidance of archaeology in the beginning and those that led to entry into the field in the second stage, a common factor can be found that influenced both groups’ attitude to archaeology. In both cases, these are groups that were on the fringes of Israeli society and were not part of the cultural hegemony of the state of Israel until the second half of the 1970s. As long as archaeology was clearly identified with Israeli secular Zionism, this identification formed a psychological barrier that deterred observant Jews on the one hand and Palestinians in Israel on the other, from entering the field, which was less and less relevant to them. It seems that until the 1980s, the approach of “archaeology of above” (i.e., using material culture to create a connection between the past and the present, but not by means of archaeological activity per se) was shared by both observant Jews and Palestinian citizens of Israel. The observant community avoided engaging in archaeology, and their link was mainly expressed in the connection to holy places. In the Arab community, this connection is obtained by engaging in the ethnography of Palestinian society. In contrast to these two groups, in the hegemonic Zionist society, archaeology played a central role in shaping the national identity. From the 1980s onward, the practice of “archaeology of below” began to permeate these groups as well, and since then they have participated in archaeological activity. This is an expression of the social changes that occurred in Israeli society in the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s and which greatly influenced the processes of the emergence of archaeological knowledge in Israel. The political upheaval in 1977 created a liberalization of political culture, as the status of secular Zionist hegemony was undermined, and for the first time, doors were opened to other groups in Israeli society. These changes are also clearly reflected in the two groups examined in this study, the religious Zionist community—which from then on became an influential factor in Israeli society—as well as the Palestinian citizens of Israel, where the changes that had occurred allowed a new freedom of political and professional expression. It might be said that the decline of the “national religion” from the beginning of the 1980s—and hence the weakening of the ideological aspects associated with archaeology—was what created the possibility for religious Jewish students and Palestinian students alike to enter the

118 Conclusions field during the same period. The practice of archaeology became less “threatening,” as archaeology no longer represented secular Zionism, and thus it became easier to take part in excavations and find work in the profession.1 This reality was expressed from the 1980s onwards with the entry, for the first time, of observant Jewish and Palestinian students into the academic study of archaeology. The process of professionalization in Israeli archaeology has become more significant since 1990, with the establishment of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). The supervision activities and salvage excavations carried out within the framework of the IAA were based on professional personnel and enabled the holders of degrees in archaeology to integrate into the work in an equal manner. Now, over four decades later, we must ask if it is possible to identify the impact of archaeologists from subaltern groups on the discipline. The answer to this seems to be complex. While the influence of the observant Jews manifested in institutional archaeological bodies (such as the Sanhedrin Trail of the IAA), a similar significant influence of the Palestinian citizens cannot be found, yet. It seems that in most cases they became part of the institutions, without actually making an impression. The gap between the numbers of observant Jews and of Palestinian citizens of Israel who are tenure-track and tenured faculty in institutions of higher education should be noted, but this gap is due to the fact that most observant archaeologists currently teaching in institutions of higher education graduated from the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan, which served as a “hothouse” for the sector, combining academic studies and an observant lifestyle. The lack of a parallel institution serving Palestinians in Israel prevented a similar growth in that community. The involvement of observant Jews in archaeology characterizes the religious Zionist public. The Haredi community, on the other hand, still regards all studies in the humanities negatively, and therefore no professional practitioners of archaeology can be found there. The degree of interest in archaeology in this group derives mainly from the use made of archaeological finds for the purpose of halakhic rulings. It can be assumed that these issues will continue to engage the Haredi community in the future as well. The struggle over the archaeological excavations in Area G in the City of David also reflected the social processes that took place during the late 1970s and the early 1980s. First, it seems that the archaeologists’ sweeping denial of the presence of a cemetery in Area G—as shown by their actions— despite the existence of the cemetery there, stemmed from the (justified) fear of change in the political and social system. The rise of the influence of the Haredi community, as well as the ultra-Orthodox one, in the political system was regarded as a threat to the values system of hegemonic Zionism, of which the archaeologists were a part. The events in the City of David also signified another process that began during this period: the change that has occurred since the early 1980s in the balance of power between the political leadership and the religious leadership of the religious Zionist public. For years, the National Religious Party (NRP) was a religious party in which the rabbis did not have the status of rulers on halakhah influencing political conduct. Although Hammer believed in the importance of the excavations in the City of David and wanted the archaeologists to continue them,

Conclusions  119 Rabbi Goren’s halakhic ruling forced a change in his position. It may be assumed that had the Minister of Education at the time not been a member of the NRP, he would not have stopped the excavation at the site, despite the ultra-Orthodox riots. This test case seems to be one of the first times in which the balance of power between politicians and rabbis providing halakhic rulings tended in favor of the latter, a phenomenon that within a few years became accepted within the framework of religious Zionism. The political and social changes that took place in Israel during the second half of the 1970s and the early 1980s also led to the accelerated entry of women into the labor market. Nevertheless, most women entered low-status professions such as teaching and auxiliary professions related to nursing. A parallel to this phenomenon can be seen in the fields in which women have been integrated within archaeology. The vast majority of the women who began working at the institutes of archaeology were engaged in ancillary sciences, mainly ceramic analysis but also processing of small finds and archaeobotany. These are fields that are considered in the archaeological hierarchy to be marginal professions and are defined by Gero (1985: 344) as “archaeological housework.” But, similarly to the opening for the integration of Palestinian and religious Jewish archaeologists into the field that occurred with the establishment of the IAA, here, too, women began to work as field archaeologists in a higher percentage than in academia. Even today, a comparison of the number of women conducting excavations at universities and colleges shows a significant gap compared to men. Another group, which remained on the fringes of Israeli society until the 1977 upheaval and to which I did not refer in this study, is the Mizrahis (Jews originating in the Islamic world). Many of the conferences of the Israel Exploration Society in the 1950s and 1960s were held in development towns, with the intention of giving the Mizrahi immigrants living in the periphery a sense of national Zionist belonging and roots. In practice, however, the vast majority of conference participants were guests who came from afar and belonged to the Zionist secular hegemony, as described above. It seems that the main integration of the Mizrahis in archaeology over the years was as laborers who found their livelihood by working at digs (for example, Hazor and Tel Erani in the 1950s, but also in Beit Shean in the 1980s). Since most of the Mizrahis were observant or traditional, there was a great deal of intersectionality at play here, as they were discriminated against both on the basis of origin and on the basis of religion. At present, it can be assumed that their attitude towards archaeology was similar to that of Ashkenazi observant people.2 In conclusion, Foucault’s conception of the development of knowledge, which views it as an expression of social and political forces that change throughout time, largely reflects the processes related to the growth of archaeological knowledge in the state of Israel from its establishment in 1948 until today. The power relations that existed and still exist between the various groups in Israeli society, which relate to hegemony and exclusion of marginal groups (whether intentionally or voluntarily), have played a central role in the development of Israeli archaeology. It seems, therefore, that if we want to answer the question of where Israeli

120 Conclusions archaeology is headed in the coming decades, we must first examine where Israeli society as a whole is headed. Notes 1 It should be noted with regard to the religious Jewish community that the overt identification of religious Christians with biblical archaeology, which formed another barrier to taking an active part in the field as far as they were concerned, also blurred during the 1980s due to the influence of Dever, who called for the “secularization” of archaeology from the late 1970s and the early 1980s. 2 This topic is currently being extensively researched by Rafi Greenberg and Gideon Sulimani, and therefore, I will not elaborate on it here.

Reference Gero, J.M. 1985. “Socio-Politics and the Woman-at-Home Ideology.” American Antiquity 50: 342–350.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures, bold indicate tables in the text, and references following “n” refer to endnotes. Abarbanel, I. 43 Abel Beth Maacah site 110 Absalom’s Tomb 61, 68 Adan-Bayewitz, D. 40 Agudat Israel (political party) 5, 71 Aharoni, Y. 38, 109 Albright, W.F. 36 al-Karmil (newspaper) 84 ‘Alma, antiquities of 14, 14 Amiran, R. 7, 14, 24–25, 86, 102, 105–109, 105, 108, 113n1 Anshin, S. 75 Antiquities Department of the Mandate Government 10; see also Mandatory Department of Antiquities Antiquities Law 64, 93 archaeological hegemony 116 “archaeological housework” 109, 112–113, 119 archaeology: of abandoned Palestinian villages 90–95; attitude of Haredi public to 48–51; bio-archaeology 56; community 23–26; contemporary 93, 94; historical 92; in Israeli society 10–29; and national identity 12; in national religion 3, 4, 13, 20, 22, 40, 41, 116, 117; Palestinian citizens of Israel and attitude to 81–95; and politics 3; religion of 20–21; in religious Zionist society 45, 46; as symbol of secularism 40–41; women status in 1, 6, 99–114; see also biblical archaeology; specific entries “archaeology of above and archaeology of below” approach/practice of 41–42, 117 Area G excavations (City of David) 66–67 Ariel, D.T. 39, 78n18 The Art and Architecture of Ancient Palestine (Baramki) 83

Ashkenazi Jews 43, 61, 83, 116 Association for the Holy Places in Eretz Israel (Atra Kadisha) 64 Atra Kadisha Association 64–65, 75 Atrash, W. 90 Avigad, N. 62 Avissar, M. 110 Avitsur, S. 16 Avi-Yonah, M. 10 Ayelet Hashahar, museum at 19–20 ‘Ayn Silwān 68–69 Bachrach, N.H. 77n13 Badhi, R. 90 Bahat, D. 75 Baramki, D. 82–84, 89, 93 Barghuti, O.S. al- 85 Bar-Ilan University 45–49, 51 Beck, P. 109 Begin, M. 4 Beit El site 37 Beit Shean valley 39 Beit She’arim site 11, 11, 61–62 Beit Tzur site 37 Belfer-Cohen, A. 109 Ben-Arieh, Y. 73 Ben-Dor, I. 10, 86, 87, 89 Ben-Dov, M. 73 Ben-Dov, R. 109 Ben-Gurion, D. 18–19, 20 Ben Yair, M. 64 Bible Lands Museum 23 Bible study, in observant Jewish society 42–44 biblical archaeology 6, 19, 44, 45, 95, 120n1; archaeology of Palestine and 36, 83; decline of 34–37; foundation of societies for 35; golden age of 36; importance of 18;

122 Index observant Jewish society and 34–35, 40, 42, 44; secularization of 37 Biran, A. 109 Bloy, Rabbi U. 70 bodily resurrection 58 Brand, Y. 39 Braslavsky, J. 16 Braverman, Z. 70 Brawer, A.J. 10 Breasted, J.H. 86 Canaan, T. 85 Canaanism 47, 52n15 Cassuto-Salzmann, M. 10, 39, 102 Caton-Thompson, G. 100, 101 Cave of Jehoshaphat 68 Chief Rabbinate of Israel 63, 69, 72 Christian Arabs 82 Christian biblical archaeology, flourishing and decline of 35–37 City of David: Area G excavations 66, 66, 118; excavations (1981) 58, 69–74 Cochavi-Rainey, Z. 38 community archaeology 23–26 The Cornerstone (journal) 90 Crowfoot, J. 12, 101 Cultural Heritage Project, IAA 27–28, 90 Cytryn-Silverman, K. 110 Da’adli, T. 26, 90 Deir el-Balah site 103 Department of Archaeology, at Hebrew University 10, 13, 48, 106, 116 Department of Land of Israel Studies, at Bar-Ilan University 45–49, 51, 118 de Rothschild, A. 61, 102 de Saulcy, L.F. 59–61 de Vaux, R. 35 Dever, W.G. 37 Dinur, B.Z. 42, 63 discourse formations, institutionalization of 2 District Planning and Construction Committee 69 Dorfman, Y. 65 Dor site 110 Dothan, M. 16 Dothan, T. 103–104, 103, 109, 113n1 Drori, A. 65 Dunayevsky, I. 103 Duncan, J.G. 67, 78n14 Ebeling, J. 94 ‘Edah Haredit 71, 78n15 Ein Gedi site 103

Eitan, A. 76, 92 Ekron (Tel Miqne) site 103 Eleh Masa’ot (Travels, book) 68 El-Haj, N.A. 81, 83 el-Husseini, S.K. 82 Enlightenment movement (Haskalah) 43, 52n12 Epstein, C. 16, 104, 104, 109, 113n1 Eretz Israel 3 Eretz Israel Museum, in Tel Aviv 107 Erlich, A. 110 Eshel, H. 40 et-Tell (biblical Ai) site 12 Even, D. 75 excavation of graves 56–78; Area G excavations 66–67; cemetery on Ophel slope 67–69, 67; City of David excavations (1981) 58, 69–74; halakhic prohibition of moving graves 57–58; opposition to 56; between religious Zionist and Haredi society 58–59; shovel test 74–75; struggles 59–66 Feige, M. 48, 58, 76 Finkelstein, I. 46 Franklin, N. 94 French Biblical and Archaeological School, in Jerusalem 35 Friends of Antiquities 15–17, 24–25, 106, 116 Friends of Tel Arad 24–25 Gadot, Y. 26 Garrod, D. 100–101 Gemarah (Talmud) 42–44, 51n11, 57; see also Mishnah and Talmud period, archaeology of Gero, J.M. 119 Gilboa, A. 110 Gitin, S. 103 Glock, A. 81, 82 Glueck, N. 51n4 Goldschmidt, S. 39 Gordon, A.D. 21 Goren, Rabbi S. 72–73, 76, 119 Goren-Inbar, N. 109 Gramsci, A. 3–4 graves, kinds of 57–58; “memorandum of understanding” 63–64; see also excavation of graves Great Zimbabwe 3, 101 Gush Emunim movement 47, 52n14 Haaretz Museum 23 Haddad, E. 85

Index  123 halakhah (Jewish law) 6, 34, 43, 48–50, 51n1, 57–58, 76 Halakhah Committee 69 Ha-Levanon (newspaper) 60 Hamilton, R.W. 86 Hammer, Z. 71–73, 71, 76, 118 Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) 84 Haredi society/group 5, 34, 63, 70; attitude towards archaeology 5, 48–51, 118; excavation of graves and 57; protests against excavation of tombs 64–65; between religious Zionist and 58–59 Har Etzion Yeshiva 47 Hasson, I. 27 Ḥatam Sofer (Schreiber, Rabbi M.) 48, 52n18 Hazor Museum of Antiquities 19 Hazor site 19, 104–105 Hebrew University 10, 11, 13, 39, 48, 73, 82, 103, 110, 116 Hecht Museum 23 hegemony 3–4, 116 Herzog, Z. 109 Hildesheimer, Z. 38 Hirschberg, A.S. 10 Hisham’s palace, at Khirbat al-Mafjar site 82 Hoffmann, D.Z. 38 Holy Land 34, 36, 82 Hopf, M. 107 Iliffe, J. 86, 87 In Oriental Lands (Hirschberg) 10 Ir Ganim–Kiryat HaYovel neighborhood 25 Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) 2, 6, 17, 22–23, 27, 29n15, 64–65, 78n25, 90, 109, 112–113, 118; Cultural Heritage Project 27–28, 90 Israel Archaeological Association 93 Israel Archaeological Survey Society (IASS) 92 Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) 2, 13–16, 22–24, 27, 29n4, 39, 42, 62–65, 71, 73–74, 76, 88–89, 91–92, 95, 106, 116 Israel Exploration Society (IES) 2, 13, 17, 17, 73, 116, 119 Israeli archaeological research, trends in (1948–1967) 13–20 Israeli Ministry of Religions 41–42, 59, 62–64, 73 Israeli society: archaeology in 10–29; attitude to archaeology, changes in 21–23; Haredi community in 5, 48–49; religious Zionism in 5; transformation 6

Israel Lands Administration 92 Israel Museum, in Jerusalem 107 Israel Science Foundation (ISF) 110, 111 Israel, state of, establishment 21, 88; IDAM 13; Palestinian Arab community 5–6; and War of Independence 6, 18–19, 87, 93; women archaeologists 103–105; see also Mandate period Jebusite ramp, City of David 67 Jericho (synagogue) 82–83 Jericho (Tell es-Sultan site) 101 Jerusalem Antiquities (article) 84 Jewish Antiquities Museum 106 Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah) movement 43, 52n12 Jewish Palestine Exploration Society (JPES) 1, 10, 11, 99 Jewish Transjordan (Klein) 12 Jordanian Department of Antiquities 88 Kahan, Y. 74 Kahana, S.Z. 41–42, 62 Kalai, Z. 16 Kalba Savu‘a tomb 59 Kalischer, Z.H. 41 Kanael, B. 39 Kaoukji, F. al- 88 Kaplan, J. 16, 23 Kenyon, K. 67, 100–102 Khalaily, H. 90 Khamisy, R. 90 Khan el-Hilu (Lod), community excavation at 25–26 Khirbet al-Mafjar site 82–84 Kidron River, cemetery in 67–68 Klal Israel 59 Klausner, J. 12 Klein, S. 12, 38–39, 38, 51n5, 105 Kollek, T. 42 Korazim, community excavation at 26 Krause-Marquet, J. 12, 102 The Land Before the Conquest of Joshua (Raffaeli) 38 Luntz, A.M. 77n13 Macalister, R.A.S. 67, 78n14 Mafdal see National Religious Party (NRP) Maimonides’ tomb, in Tiberias 61–63 Makhouly, N. 82, 88–89 Mamluks 62 Mandate period: attitude to archaeology during 82–86; women archaeologists during 100–102

124 Index Mandatory Antiquities Ordinance (1929) 64, 91, 93 Mandatory Department of Antiquities 13, 37–38, 81, 82, 84, 86–89, 91, 102, 106; see also Antiquities Department of the Mandate Government Marquet, Y. 102 Masada, excavations in 18, 29n7 Matmoney Eretz Association 50, 50 Mayer, L. 11, 86 Mazar, A. 109 Mazar, B. 11, 61, 73, 75, 103 Mishnah and Talmud period, archaeology of 10, 19, 42, 44, 50 Na’aman, N. 38 Natan, H. 72 national identity: and archaeology 12, 23–24, 95; shaping/building 17, 22 national religion, archaeology in 3, 4, 13, 20, 22, 40, 41, 116, 117 National Religious Party (NRP) 5, 8n3, 76, 118 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 57 Natufian culture 101 New Yishuv 10 observant Jewish society: attitude to archaeology 37–40, 118; Bible study in 42–44; and biblical archaeology 34–35, 40, 42, 44 Old Yishuv 10, 28n1, 37 Ophel slope, cemetery on 67–69, 67 Orlev, Z. 71, 76 Ory, J. 10 Ottoman Antiquities Law 60 Palestine Archaeological Museum 83, 86–88; see also Rockefeller Museum Palestine Oriental Society 85 Palestine Workers’ Party (Mapai) 4 Palestinian citizens of Israel and attitude to archaeology 6, 7, 8n1; after 1948 88–89; from 1980s onwards 89–90; abandoned villages 90–95; between Jews and Arabs, at museum 86–88; during Mandate period 82–86 Panitz-Cohen, N. 109, 110 “Peace be upon Israel” inscription (‘Alma) 83 Petrie, H. 100 Pinchas, S. 14

Praises of the Ari (Vital) 69 pulsa de-nura ceremony 76–77 Rabbi Jacob (the emissary of Rabbi Yechiel of Paris) 68 Rabbi Judah the Prince, burial of 61–62 Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai tomb, at Meron 41, 51n9, 59 Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) 58 Rachel’s Tomb 41 Raffaeli, S. 10, 37–38, 51n5 “Redemption of Synagogues” project 11 Religious Education Administration, Ministry of Education 27 religious society: and attitude to archaeology 34–52; and attitude to excavating graves 56–78; see also national religion, archaeology in religious Zionist society 4–5, 34, 72, 119; attitude to archaeology in 45, 46, 48–49, 51; and Haredi society 58–59; Six Day War impact on 47 Rockefeller, J., Jr. 86, 91 Rockefeller Museum 83, 86, 87; see also Palestine Archaeological Museum Rogem Ganim, community excavation at 25 Rosen-Ayalon, M. 110 “Sanhedrin” religious court 29n17 Sanhedrin Trail project 27–28, 28 Sari, K. 90 Schocken Library 86, 87 Schreiber, G. 72 Second Aliyah 21, 29n8 Second Temple period, archaeology of 10–11, 19, 51n5, 67–68 secularism, archaeology as symbol of 40–41 Sephardic Jews 61, 83 Shapira, H.M. 8n3 Shechem site 37 Shepard, A. 107 Shiloh, Y. 67, 69–70, 70, 73, 75, 76 Shmidel, D. 65 shovel test, conducting east of Area G 74–75 Shuqba cave 101 Silverstein, Y. 73 Singer-Avitz, L. 109 Six Day War, influence of 47–48 Slouschz, N. 11, 61 Society for the Protection of Nature 47

Index  125 Starkey, J. 102 Stephan, S.H. 82, 85 Sukenik, E. 11, 39, 86, 87, 106 Syro-Palestinian archaeology 37 Talmud (Gemarah) 42–44, 51n11, 57; see also Mishnah and Talmud period, archaeology of Tefilinski, N. 39 Tel Arad 24 Tel Batash 110 Tel el-Ful site 37 Tell Dothan site 37 Tel Motza site 94 Tel Yarmut site 50 Tomb of Absalom 61, 68 the tomb of Pharaoh’s daughter 68 Tomb of the Sons of Hezir 68 Tomb of Zechariah 68 Tombs of the Kings 59–60, 60 Tufnell, O. 102 tumulus 25 United Samaria Expedition 12 Ussishkin, D. 109 Va‘ad he-‘Edah ha-Sefaradit committee 61, 77n7 Vincent, L.H. 35 Vital, M. 69 Warhaftig, Z. 62, 64 War of Independence 6, 18–19, 87, 93

Warren, C. 66 Weinstein-Evron, M. 109 Weiss, Z. 40 Wheeler, T.V. 100, 101 women status, in Israeli archaeology 1, 6, 99–114; Amiran, as exemplar of Israeli female archaeologist 105–109, 105, 108; archaeological housework 109, 112–113, 119; distribution of grants 110, 111, 112; after establishment of state of Israel 103– 105; IAA impact on 112; issue of double discrimination 113; during Mandate period 100–102; para-archaeological professions 109; receiving funding 110, 111 Wosner, Rabbi S. 49–50 Wright, G.E. 36 Yadin, Y. 19, 104–105, 113n1 Yahalom-Mack, N. 110 Yediath Ha’Aretz (Knowledge of the Land) 15, 29n3, 29n5 Yeivin, S. 13, 42, 86, 89, 91, 102, 106 Yellin, D. 10 yeshivas 5, 37, 43–45 Yishuv 10, 28n1 Zevulun, U. 109 Zilbershats, R. 77n1 Zimbabwe 3 Zimhoni, O. 109 Zionism 4–5, 20, 41, 83–84 Zippori 61 Zir‘in village 94–95, 94