On Sunday, March 20th Haaretz published a half-page article entitled ‘Before Islam: When Saudi Arabia was a Jewish kingdom’. The article was about pre-Islamic writing (dated 470s ce) discovered in southern Saudi Arabia in 2014. The article proceeded to discuss the archaeological find in relationship to the Koran, to a local Christian community, and an ancient Jewish kingdom in the region of Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Anyone touring Israel with me knows…. we never have enough time at any one site to talk about everything found or to cover the plethora of topics/histories found in this land. You also know…. the intersection of archaeology and narrative/politics is a topic I often delve into.
It seems that we all, religions, nations, and people like to think of ourselves as new and unique, even better perhaps. We often do this by stepping away from and even dismissing as “bad” those things that came before. Here in the land of religions there are many examples of this. When I guide and lecture on the movement of the Israelite tribes into the land under Joshua and the development of a Jewish kingdom under Kings Saul, David and Solomon I often mention that Tankah demands over and over again to ‘get rid of your foreign wives and idols’, trying to erase that which existed before. Christianity, after Paul’s influence, will walk away from Judaism as a basis of the new religion and source of converts to non-Jews. Those interpreting Paul will go even further as to deride Judaism. Similarly, while early Muslim leaders are typically not bothered by the existence of Christians and Jews, they describe the pre-Islamic time as jahilliyah – a time of ignorance and lawlessness. We could continue this theme with any number of the minority religions in Israel but…moving on.
What I find interesting is the interaction between the political-social-religious world and archaeology. The use of archaeology for political gain shows up consistently in the region (and I would think around the world as well) as religions, kingdoms and later countries have been established and/or their narratives changed.
The leaders of Syria, Iraq, Turkey, and even Egypt have used archaeology to further nationalistic goals. The 50s and 60s found most of the countries in the Middle East relatively stable. But the 70s were different as modernization continued making inroads, country-based nationalism was on the rise, Islam took a slightly back-seat, and rulers tried to make their countries…. well theirs. In addition to a host of other changes many leaders turned to archaeology to show the individuality of their country. In Syria, Hafiz Assad (Bashar’s father) used Roman and other archaeology to show the greatness of Syria prior to Islam. In Egypt, Sadat would go back to the ancient Egyptians and in Iraq Saddam Hussein would go back to the beginnings of Islam and tie his own lineage with Ali bin Abi Talib (#4 after Mohammed). None of these rulers were out to reject Islam but wanted to separate themselves as individual nation-states.
This turning to archaeology happens here in Israel as well. Prior to 1948 the Department of Antiquities was multi-ethnic with Jews, Arabs, and those pesky British overlords. With the division in 1948/49 between Israel and Jordan this cooperation, conversation and physical access to antiquities was lost.
In the 50s and 60s in Israel, archaeology was a search for secular and nationalistic identity. An attempt to show long connection to the land as well as proof of previous Jewish commonwealths. The excavation of Biblical and 2nd Temple sites took precedence. One of the first sights to be explored and with which Israelis connected, one of her most famous…. Masada. Rediscovered in the 1920s, Masada would quickly take her place in Israel’s consciousness. ‘Masada shall not fall again’ became the watchword of the military and the State. For decades, pre-military and later IDF recruits would make the trek up her path for their induction ceremony. Yigal Yadin, one of her primary archaeologists would say that Massada is “an undying symbol of desperate courage, a symbol which has stirred hearts throughout the last 19 centuries” (Herod’s Fortress and the Zealots Last Stand). Today, Masada does not hold quite the same place in the consciousness of the Israeli military and few recruits hike her paths for their induction but the archaeological import of this mountaintop is still undeniable.
The discovery of “Solomonic Gates’ at Meggido and Hatzor would spur the debate between the minimalists and the maximalists about the size and power of the First Kingdom, specifically the kingdom under Kings David and Solomon. (This conversation was recently reunited with the excavations of Khibat Qeiyafa in the Ella Valley.) As archaeology continued to enlighten us, inspire us, and provide us with physical/historical/Jewish connection to the land, money and time continued to flow. In the 60s the HaAretz museum in Tel Aviv and the Israel Museum, particularly the Shrine of the Book, in Jerusalem, would open displaying our past. We were creating connections to history and showing the outside world our legitimacy with study abroad, conferences, and by hosting foreign volunteers.
This changed after 1967. The Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem’s Old City became a major undertaking for archaeologist Professor Nahman Avigad. The Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem is once again accessible, additional Dead Sea Scrolls were obtained and the West Bank was open for exploration. Not knowing how long access to Judea and Samaria would last, an ’emergency survey’ was undertaken of some 6000 sites previously under Jordanian control. With changes in the government in the 70s and 80s the ultra orthodox began to pay more attention to the plethora of biblical sites (their interest in anything ‘pre-history’ being severely limited). The debate between biblical minimalists (who see Tanakh as primarily literary rather than historical) and the maximalists (who believe all events in the Tanakh happened and can be supported by material evidence) was on.
Today, as Israel continues to mature as a country and find her way in the larger world, we look not only to the past but to the present. How does each new archaeological site/find interact with the history of the land, with Israel’s perception of herself, with her narrative, with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other questions. Are we being “scientific” in our exploration? Are we asking what the site can tell us about the whole story, a specific part of that story or are we searching for a specific narrative? By it’s nature, with so many decisions made by people, archaeology can not be a pure science. We must decide where to dig, how deep to go, and what do we preserve/destroy along the way. And in the Middle East everything is connected to politics!
The Old City of Jerusalem and her surroundings are at center of the political debate. Is the whole story (7000 years) of Jerusalem being presented or only chosen parts of that narrative? Should there be a master plan or should each site stand alone with decisions left to the directors who are seeing the story of the past come to life and have first hand information?
If we take the Old City and her basin as a single unit and believe that there should be a master plan which shows evenly 7000 years of her history then we are falling short. Most of the archaeological sites are found in the Jewish Quarter and around the southern part of the Temple Mount/City of David and the majority of what has been highlighted is in-fact part of the Jewish story. Other time periods certainly exist in these sites but they are not predominate. Keep in mind, that the Jewish Quarter was predominately destroyed/unstable in 1967 when Israel began to excavate and was therefor available. Keep in mind that a fair number of these early digs happened in that period of elation after 1967. Keep in mind in the digs happening today – Givati and behind the Western Wall Plaza – several time periods are more easily preserved and seen.
The excavations in the City of David/Ir David provided some of the most stunning discoveries and understandings of First Temple Period Jerusalem. This is one of the few sites that can add to our understanding of the First Temple Period and one that is crucial in understanding that age-old question of ‘exactly how big/important was King David and his Kingdom?’ But like with all archaeology in order to dig deeper into the past one must destroy the layers that lie above. Currently administered by Elad a self-defined right wing settlement group, digs within her confines (a Jordanian neighborhood from 48-67) often find themselves in the headlines. Do the archaeologists dig with preconceived notions and look for specific things, are the digs ruining the neighborhood above them (today primarily Palestinian) and is that intentional and of course, can a political organization like Elad be trusted to present fairly. In many ways Ir David is the keystone in the political debate with more than one organization claiming that excavations there are purely to exert control over land and legitimize occupation of the Eastern parts of Jerusalem (which under Israeli law was annexed in 1967/1980).
And if the debate over land is not tough enough – what about one over the heart of Jews and Muslims? The Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary). Though taken/retaken/liberated by Israel in 1967, day to day control of these 35 contentious acres were given to the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf shortly after the war. In the late 90s under the guidance of the Waqf, more that 400 truckloads of dirt were removed from Solomon’s Stables* and dumped without regard to archaeology to create what is now called El-Marwani Mosque. No permission, no coordination with the Department of Antiquities, no fore-warning. This dirt is slowly being sifted but any finds, and there have been many, can only be presumed to represent history because they are no longer stratified in their original context. Though not to that scale, additional diggings have taken place as recently as April 2015 (floor replacement). In addition to the destruction of this potentially amazing archaeological site, the Waqf has also changed it’s literature to erase history indicating Jewish connection to the site. In1924 and 1950 the Guide Book published by the Waqf stated regarding the Temple Mount “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute”. In 2014 the language in the same brochure, produced by the same Waqf, has changed to “of their claimed ‘Jerusalem Temple’, which they assume is located”.
So, does archaeology influence politics, religion, nationalism or is it the other way around. Yonatan Mizrachi, an archaeologist active in Emek Shaveh once told al-Monitor “Archeology deals with the interpretation of physical findings, but interpretation itself is not an exact science and so comes from ideology: Our identity is a part of the interpretation. Am I Jewish or Arab, a woman or a man, religious or secular? ….. Its’ dialogue takes place in the present, with contemporary ideologies and world views.” Digs in Israel are under the auspices of the Department of Antiquities and most are partnered with universities from around the world. One would expect that with all the professionals on the scene decisions/interpretations are made in the most scientific way possible. Perhaps it is not about the process of the dig at all but rather about what the archaeologists, those who design access to the site, and those of us who share the site choose to emphasize and concurrently de-empasize. (as the French-Saudi expedition in Saudi Arabia, which started this whole thought process, did).
Just my thoughts on a complex issue not designed to be exclusive or exhaustive of the sites ’emphasized or de-emphasized’.
* Solomon’s Stables – a poor choice of names given the structure did not exist at the time of King Solomon nor does it seem animals were ever housed there this is the area within the Temple Mount at the South-East corner. Originally a structural element during the building of the Temple Mount (mount, not Temple) it was filled in with debris over the past 2000 years.