The Stones of Contention: The Role

of Archaeological Heritage in Israeli–

Palestinian Conflict

Maja Gori

Archaeologies
Journal of the World Archaeological
Congress

ISSN 1555-8622
Volume 9
Number 1

Arch (2013) 9:213-229

DOI 10.1007/s11759-013-9222-7

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by World
Archaeological Congress. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy

Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2013)

DOI 10.1007/s11759-013-9222-7

The Stones of Contention: The Role

RESEARCH
of Archaeological Heritage
in Israeli–Palestinian Conflict
Maja Gori, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Marstallhof 4,
69117, Heidelberg, Germany
E-mail: m.gori.sk@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
________________________________________________________________

Archaeology plays a fundamental role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The

practice of archaeology in Israel is embedded in the national identity
construction discourse and has severe repercussions on domestic politics.
From archaeological remains it is demanded to give proof of precedence
and legitimate claims over land. The relation between nationalism and
archaeology is a topic that became increasingly popular in scholarly works
of the past 20 years. The full UNESCO membership of Palestine is projecting
the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in a globalized dimension, but at the same
time the heritage of humanity’s politics reinforces the nation-states concept
and could pave the way to new political scenarios.
________________________________________________________________

ARCHAEOLOGIES Volume 9 Number 1 April 2013

Résumé: L’archéologie joue un rôle fondamental dans le conflit israélo-
palestinien. La pratique de l’archéologie en Israël fait partie intégrante du
discours construisant l’identité nationale et a des répercussions sérieuses sur
la politique nationale. On exige de l’archéologie qu’elle mette à jour des
vestiges qui prouvent l’ancienneté et la légitimité des revendications
territoriales. La relation entre nationalisme et archéologie est devenu un
sujet de plus en plus populaire dans les recherches scientifiques de ces
vingt dernières années. Le statut de membre à part entière de l’UNESCO
récemment octroyé à la Palestine donne au conflit israélo-palestinien une
dimension mondiale, mais dans le même temps, les politiques relatives au
patrimoine de l’humanité renforcent le concept de l’État-nation et
pourraient ouvrir la voie à de nouveaux scénarios politiques.
________________________________________________________________

Resumen: La arqueologı́a desempeña un papel fundamental en el conflicto

israelı́-palestino. La práctica de la arqueologı́a en Israel está inscrita en el
discurso de construcción de la identidad nacional y tiene diversas
repercusiones en la polı́tica interna. A partir de los restos arqueológicos se

 2013 World Archaeological Congress 213

 Author's personal copy

214 MAJA GORI

exige dar prueba de precedencia y legitimar las reclamaciones sobre la

tierra. La relación entre el nacionalismo y la arqueologı́a es un tema que se
hizo cada vez más popular en los trabajos de los estudiosos de los últimos
veinte años. La pertenencia plena como miembro de la UNESCO de
Palestina está proyectando el conflicto israelı́-palestino hacia una dimensión
globalizada, pero, al mismo tiempo, el patrimonio de la polı́tica de la
humanidad refuerza el concepto de naciones-estado y podrı́a allanar el
camino a nuevos escenarios polı́ticos.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

KEY WORDS

Nationalism, Archaeology, World Heritage, UNESCO

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Recent Developments

The 36th session of the World Heritage committee that took place in Saint
Petersburg at the beginning of July 2012 inscribed, among other sites, the
Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem on UNESCO’s World Heritage List.
The site, precisely denominated ‘Birthplace of Jesus: the Church of the
Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Palestine)’ was placed on
the List of World Heritage in Danger as well and granted with funding for
repairs. The official reason is indicated in the damages that the Church is
suffering due to water leaks, but the memory of the 39 days of siege that
the Church experienced in 2002 is still alive. The Church of the Nativity is
the first site to be nominated since Palestine, on October 2011, was granted
with full membership in UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scien-
tific and Cultural Organization, becoming its 195th full member after
retaining observer status since 1974. The Palestinian Authority has viewed
its entry into UNESCO as a strategic milestone ahead of the broader inter-
national recognition for future statehood. Palestinians celebrated the
inscription of Bethlehem in the World Heritage List as a significant politi-
cal and diplomatic achievement as much as a cultural one. Palestinian full
membership costs the UNESCO one-quarter of its yearly budget. US legis-
lation dating from 1990 and 1994 mandates a complete cut off of US
financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a
full member. State Department lawyers see no leeway in the legislation,
and no possibility of a waiver (Erlanger and Sayare 2011).
Indeed, UNESCO heavily depends on U.S. funding to implement its
projects, with Washington providing 22% of its budget—about $70 mil-
lion—plus another 3 percent contributed by Israel, which has cut its
financing too.
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 215

Israel has questioned the need for Bethlehem to be registered as an

endangered site and sees Palestinian moves at UNESCO and other UN
bodies as efforts to embarrass Israel on the world stage. ‘This is proof that
UNESCO is motivated by political and not cultural considerations. Instead
of taking steps to promote peace, the Palestinians are acting unilaterally,
which makes peace more distant’ (Al Jazeera 01 Nov 2011) Israeli Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement following the
decision. David Killion, the U.S. ambassador to UNESCO, was ‘profoundly
disappointed by the decision’ (Al Jazeera 30 Jun 2012). Shortly after a pop-
ular Israeli columnist belittled the importance of UNESCO as International
Institution and questioned its reliability, describing it as an institution in
full decline, moved by ‘political rather than purely aesthetic considerations’
(Ha’aretz 07 Jul 2012).

Geopolitical Scenario

The UNESCO full membership of Palestine in its political significance

needs to be assessed in a wider geopolitical scenario. The geopolitical equi-
librium of the region collapsed dramatically in 2011, which can be consid-
ered Israel’s annus horribilis. Indeed, 2011 witnessed many significant
transformations in the regional political asset, many of them having a
direct repercussion on Israel. As a consequence of the Arab spring, Israel
lost many important allies among its direct neighbours. For some political
analysts the ‘Arab spring’ is the ‘Israeli winter’ (Caracciolo 2011:7; Shavit
2011:41–46). The populist Islamic turn of many countries—above all
Egypt—can open new and unpredictable politic scenarios that would
directly affect Israeli international and domestic policies. The rise of politi-
cal Islam worries Israel because it exacerbates the hostility toward the Jew-
ish state (Shavit 2011:41–46). Further, the crisis of U.S. influence in the
Middle East is another issue that made Israel politically isolated. Recent
report of the Arab American Institute showed that the U.S. are viewed in
the Middle East as one of the major obstacles to the peace process in the
region. Overall, Arabs view the two greatest threats to the region’s peace
and stability to be ‘the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands’ and
‘U.S. interference in the Arab world’. Only in Saudi Arabia does the con-
cern with ‘Iran’s interference in Arab affairs’ rank as a top concern (Zogbi
2011). After the admission of Palestine to UNESCO, the Obama adminis-
tration–which had fervently opposed Palestine’s full membership—is con-
fronting the stark new limits of its influence in the Middle East. De facto
Abu Mazen’s move brought back under the international spotlight the con-
flict with Israel, which does not consider itself as an occupying power in
the West Bank, a region regarded as Jewish by definition (Caracciolo
 Author's personal copy

216 MAJA GORI

2011:13). In 2009 Netanyahu started his second term of office as Prime

Minister, supported by a coalition that includes the settlers lobby and the
ultra-orthodox. On 14th June of the same year Netanyahu gave his well-
known speech at Bar-Ilan University, in which he declared that Israeli legit-
imacy to exist is not given by the terrible fate and catastrophes that
afflicted the Jews. ‘‘The legitimacy of the Israeli state rely on history and
religion: […] the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of
Israel has lasted for more than 3500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places
where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jer-
emiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers. The
right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel does not derive
from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. […] But our right to
build our sovereign state here, in the land of Israel, arises from one simple
fact: this is the homeland of the Jewish people; this is where our identity
was forged’’ (IMFA June 2009).

The Stones of Contention

Dispute over archaeological heritage has occupied a critical place in the

conflict between Palestine and Israel already from the time of British pro-
tectorate. The very borders of the Palestine Mandate themselves were the
direct product of archaeological research (Silberman 2001:495). Archaeo-
logical practise is inextricably connected to the construction of Israeli colo-
nial nation state and Israeli national identity. In Israel—with more
intensity than in many European states—archaeology was used to construct
a common background for people with very different cultural provenience.
The first generation of Israeli archaeologists replicated the approach to the
ancient past that was proper of the European archaeology in the early 19th
century. Archaeological practice in Israel was driven by an epistemology
that assumed nation itself embedded in a specific conception of history
(Abu El Haj 2007:2–3). ‘‘Zionism was a variety of Eastern European
nationalism […], an ethnic movement in search of a state’’ (Shafir cited in
Abu El Haj 2007:3). Unless in several European countries where archaeol-
ogy is mostly oriented toward the construction of a secular national iden-
tity, in Israel the religious aspect plays a fundamental role in shaping and
directing archaeological practice. Archaeology is used as a tool to revive
the biblical landscape and support the creation of a new Israeli landscape
in continuity with the old Jewish one (Baram 2007:299–325; Feige
2007:277–298). Settlement in the land was structured and legitimized in
relation to a belief in Jewish national return and ideology of national right
(Abu el Haj 2007:5). Biblical archaeology is exploited to claim the legiti-
macy of Jewish presence on land. Israeli settlements are found in places
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 217

identified as the sites present in the Bible, shaping a contemporary Jewish

landscape in assumed continuity with the ancient one. A selection of
archaeological evidences and past happenings connected to Jewish history
and biblical times is used to support territorial and politic claims based
upon precedence of Jews over Arabs. As academic subject Biblical Archae-
ology undertook a deep transformation in the last decades especially in the
U.S., losing commitment to any particular religious understanding,
national interest or historical ideology (Silberman 1998:185). The relation
between archaeology as science and its popularisation and use by Israeli
state has on the contrary a strong political and ideological connotation.

Archaeology and Identity

In the last decades the topic of the relation between politics and archaeol-
ogy increased in popularity and it is discussed by a wide scholarly audi-
ence. The most debated issue is the relation of national identity
construction and archaeological practise (Anderson 1991; Diaz-Andreu
2007; Diaz-Andreu and Champion 1996; Graves-Brown 1996; Kane 2003;
Jones 1997; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Meskell 1998). Trigger (1984:355–370)
was among the first to address the topic arguing that archaeology is
strongly influenced by the position that the countries and regions in which
it is practiced occupy within the modern world system. In his analysis, he
divides archaeological practice in three categories: nationalist, colonial and
imperialistic archaeology, and argues that archaeology does not function
independently of the societies in which it is practiced. According to his
typological parameters Israeli archaeology can be defined as a mixture of
colonialism and nationalism, in which an intrusive population asserts
through archaeology its right to the land (Trigger 1984:358). In 1995 was
published ‘Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology’ (Kohl
and Fawcett 1995), the first important exhaustive work on the relation
between archaeology and national identity. Kohl and Fawcett’s work
focuses mainly on national identity construction in Europe and East Asia,
with a minor emphasis on Israel, Turkey and other Middle Eastern coun-
tries in the final commentary. According to Silberman ‘‘the emotional
power of archaeology in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Cyprus, Turkey,
Greece, and the regions of Former Yugoslavia […] is that they all implicitly
link the present to a particular golden age’’ (Silberman 1995:257). Popular-
ization of archaeology in these countries has a strong impact on the collec-
tive imagination, and some of the most familiar archaeological synthesises
are perceived as the adventures of ‘chosen people’ in the search of their
promise land. ‘‘The battle over archaeological public interpretation must
be seen for what it is: a struggle for power between rival groups in the
 Author's personal copy

218 MAJA GORI

fluid conditions of an emerging nation-state’’ (Silberman 1995:249, 257–

258).
The topic of archaeology and its relation to politics and its use in
national identity construction is entangled in the debate about different
theoretical approaches to archaeological practice and on the nature of
archaeological evidence itself. More in general, in Israel as in other states,
the relation of archaeology to politics has to be analysed through the rela-
tion of archaeology as science and the society that produces it (Abu El Haj
2007:10). Abu El Haj argues that ‘‘cultural, political, geographical, histori-
cal, and epistemological truths have been incrementally reformulated and
extended in the long and ongoing history of colonial-national politics,
practice and arguments in Palestine and Israel’’ (Abu El Haj 2007:19). In
the collective imagination the ancient nation emerged as an observable
entity through the empirical approaches to written texts and archaeological
artefacts. The nation than gained the status of historical fact. National ide-
ology and archaeological and historical practices converged most funda-
mentally on this epistemological terrain, on the shared foundation of
‘culture of fact’ (Abu El Haj 2007:16). Through the recourse to historical
and archaeological practice in national identity building, the ‘New Hebrew’
would be fashioned in and through a connection to the land rather than
just to religion and ethnic bonds. In that way Diaspora Jews would be
transformed into ‘rooted Israelis’ (Abu El Haj 2007:16). For secular Zion-
ism the creation of this symbolically powerful connection to land through
archaeology was essential. The 1963–1965 Masada excavations are a para-
digmatic example to illustrate the construction of connection between
ancient and present people, and the sense of belonging in relation to land.
The myth of Masada bridged the gap between ‘heroic Jews then’ and
‘heroic Jews now’ (Ben-Yehuda 2007:254). The active (re)making of place
was considered the principal pioneering activity to transform Palestine into
‘Eretz Yisrael’. Archaeological practice assembles material facts that became
symbols and render visible the land’s identity as Jewish (Abu El Haj
2007:18). The so-constructed identity is Jewish by definition and is believed
to be handled down without any interruption in occupancy, from biblical
sites to present settlements. The past is appropriated through the practice
of a selective memory that obscures the facts which cannot have part in
the construction of a Jewish land’s identity. The mechanism through which
the past is appropriated and created in Israel has some treats in common
with the Greek national archaeological and historic narrative (Hamilakis
2004; Loukaki 2008). In both cases the creation of the modern national
state is not considered as a new historic achievement, but rather it is per-
ceived as the restoration of a previous status quo. In both cases—even if
with some important differences—the past population is believed to entail a
direct and uninterrupted link with the present population. To archaeology is
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 219

demanded the provision of the material proofs that testify an uninterrupted

ethnic and ideological continuity.
In 2007 was published the book ‘Selective Remembrances’ (Kohl et al.
2007), which is conceived by the editors in thematic continuity with the
previous ‘Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology’. Its main
focus is the Middle East and the other areas under-represented in the first
book. A section is devoted to archaeological practice in the construction of
national past in Israel and Palestine. One of the most significant new
trends in the scholarship of nationalism and its relation to archaeology is
the study of popular archaeology and interest groups role in national iden-
tity issues. In Israel religious ultra-orthodox interest groups are enthusiastic
archaeology amateurs. Indeed, Biblical archaeology and its popularisation
support biblical narratives in a state where very strong theocratic elements
play a crucial role in political matters (Kohl-Kozelsky-Ben-Yehuda
2007:11–18).

Masada Shall Not Fall Again

Masada, perhaps the most suggestive and evocative Israeli site, is situated
nearby the occupied territories. Masada’s excavation was the most ambi-
tious Israeli archaeological project since the earliest years of statehood. The
state and the Israel Defence Forces supported excavations financially, logis-
tically and symbolically. The story of Masada is a parable for the modern,
besieged State of Israel and tells much of past as of present Jewish and
Israeli story. Due to the asperity of the terrain, the excavation project itself
was a challenge and it was realized with a synergy of different institutions,
like Israel Defense Forces and National Water Authority. The director of
the excavations Yigael Yadin and his staff supervised the work of hundreds
of volunteers from 28 countries (Silberman 1989:89).
Recruit volunteers to work on excavations in different Israeli sites is still
today a very popular practice. It is not just the cheapest way to perform a
huge amount of archaeological work and finance with participation fees
the excavation. Recruit volunteers to work in archaeological excavations
serves as a mean to allow the participants, even if not professional archae-
ologist, to directly became part of the millenary Jewish history by helping
its reconstruction. The involvement into archaeological activities, which are
per definition teamwork, strengthens the emotional connection of people
with places and their history. The connection to the land is fortified
through the suggestive and collective experience of archaeological excava-
tion. Archaeological volunteering provides a unique and exciting experi-
ences in which the participants get a feeling of authentic association with
the excavated place even if they have been there just a short period of time.
 Author's personal copy

220 MAJA GORI

In 1968, 3 years after the completion of Masada excavations the govern-

ment of Israel reburied the 28 skeletons of the ‘Masada defenders’ found
on the top of the plateau. Following the account of Josephus Flavius, the
skeletal remains were interpreted by the excavators as the last Masada
defenders. The bodies were reburied under head-stones used for the fallen
of the Israeli Defense Forces in the recent Israeli-Arab wars. The summit of
the mountain itself became the scene of an annual swearing-in ceremony
for the new recruits of the Israeli tank corps, who vowed every year under
the light of torches that ‘Masada shall not fall again’ (Silberman 1989:99).
The story that secular Zionism conveys is a very different tale that the writ-
ings of Josephus Flavius. It is a fabricated mythical tale of heroism that
cannot be found in the work of Josephus (Ben-Yehuda 2007:249, 255–256).
The majority of visitors that arrive to Masada from Jerusalem after a sug-
gestive trip along the Dead Sea don’t want to see just archaeology. They
came to participate in a modern pilgrimage ritual. After stepping off the
cable cars that rides to the summit of the site, the visitor is transported
back to the time of Masada’s most famous and stirring events by the vivid
description of the local tourist guides. The visible archaeological remains
on the summit of Masada became suggestive stage scenery for a modern
passion play of national rebirth (Silberman 1989:88). Masada has gained
an almost mystical significance in the Israeli consciousness, and the slogan
‘Masada shall not fall again’ is replicated compulsively on every type of
merchandising material available in the Museum’s souvenirs shop. Schol-
arly confutation of the first interpretation given to the archaeological traces
excavated on Masada has little influenced the fame and the popularized
understanding of the site. The popularity of the dramatic story that once
seemed so much in tune with its times is still absolutely relevant to Israeli
and foreign visitors. ‘‘A nation chooses its past by the way it sees its pres-
ent’’ (Silberman 1989:100–101). Masada was inscribed on the World Heri-
tage list in 2001 as ‘‘a symbol both of Jewish cultural identity and, more
universally, of the continuing human struggle between oppression and lib-
erty’’ (WHC Nomination Documentation 2001).

Jerusalem

Jerusalem’s sacred landscape is the theatrical scenery of the violent clashes

that fill Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Most of the violent clashes between
Israeli and Palestinians have aroused around the Sacred Esplanade. Since
1920 the Temple Mount and the Western Wall have become religious and
nationalist symbols for both Jews and Palestinian Muslims. The 1948 and
1967 wars, as well as the first and the second Palestinian uprisings (Intifa-
das), are landmarks in the history of the Esplanade and entangled in the
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 221

urban archaeological landscape of Jerusalem (Grabar and Kedar 2009). The

1948 war and the division of Jerusalem between an eastern sector con-
trolled by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and a western sector con-
trolled by the state of Israel had obvious effects also on archaeological
practise (Silberman 2001:497). The Israeli side of the border at that time
was poor of archaeological landmarks and archaeological activities had to
converge on other activities like musealization. After the 1967 war and the
occupation of east Jerusalem and the West Bank Israel took control over
the archaeological monuments of Jerusalem (Silberman 2001:498). Major
excavations were undertaken together with changes in the urban landscape.
The excavation of the Jewish quarter was the last of the ‘mythological digs’
that characterised the early years of Israeli statehood (Abu El Haj
2007:130). After the excavations the Jewish quarter occupied in the imagi-
nary of Israeli Jews the symbolic centre of the unified city. The ‘Western
Wall Tunnels’ and the Herodian and early Jewish remains became the ‘bed-
rock of Israel national existence’ (Nethanyahu cited by Silberman
2001:500). Even if likewise important and impressive, the findings belong-
ing to other periods were practically ignored. In the autumn of 1996 the
opening of the northern end of the tunnels in the Muslim quarter caused
dramatic violence eruption between Israelis and Palestinians. Political ten-
sion exploded again in the second Intifada, following the visit that Sharon
paid to the Temple Mount. The ‘Western Walls Tunnels’ excavations led
the Palestinian public to identify even the most legitimate archaeological
research and preservation efforts in Jerusalem as politically inspired Israeli
acts (Silberman 2001:501). The Jerusalem Islamic Waqf answer carrying on
large-scale excavations works without any archaeological supervision in
clear violation of Israeli antiquities law, triggering a cycle of reprisal and
recrimination. In winter 2007 Israel Antiquity Authority began new archae-
ological emergency excavations at the Mughrabi Gate Access, with the pur-
pose of making a preliminary survey functional to the construction of a
new access structure to the Temple Mount. This action provoked new
waves of strain and protests among both religious and secular Arab com-
munities, which condemned the Israeli action as illegitimate and disre-
spectful of the Palestinian/Arab rights on the Holy Shrines. The Western
Wall Heritage Foundation promoted the excavations, the main stated pur-
pose being the enlargement of women’s section at the Western Wall Plaza.
In the first weekend of February 2007 the only access to the Temple Mount
for the non-Muslims visitors was closed, and a huge amount of armed
forces were placed on the square in front of the Western Wall. The official
version of the facts that was given by Israeli Authorities claimed that the
deployments of troops was a necessary reaction to the turmoil caused by
some Muslim extremists in the Temple Mount to block the renovation of
the access ramp. Immediately after the beginning of the dispute over the
 Author's personal copy

222 MAJA GORI

legitimacy of archaeological excavations under the Mughrabi Gate Access

the Director-General of UNESCO intervened sending a technical mission
to undertake a technical assessment on the works conducted on the Mugh-
rabi pathway leading to the Temple Mount. The report submitted by the
experts resulted in a series of five recommendations addressed to the Israel
Antiquities Authority. In particular, UNESCO called on Israeli government
to engage immediately a consultation process with all concerned parties,
mainly the authorities of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf and Jordan. Jerusalem
is inscribed in the World Heritage List from 1981 with the name ‘Old City
of Jerusalem and its Walls’. The site of Jerusalem was nominated in 1981
by Jordan, and it was agreed at the time that inscription should in no way
be regarded as a means for registering political or sovereignty claims by
any state. From 1983 the site is inscribed in the list of World Heritage in
danger as well. Over the past 15 years World Heritage Committee has
deliberated over this property an increasingly amount of times. Despite the
prompt intervention and the lavished efforts to stop the excavations and
ward off further turmoil, UNESCO was practically ignored by Israeli Antiq-
uity Authority, which consider itself the only entitled institution to under-
take excavation works in Jerusalem. After this and other unsuccessful
attempts to exert an influence on Israeli and Palestinian activities con-
nected to the World Heritage it is clear that the role of UNESCO, its con-
crete actions and the implementation of its recommendations have to be
reconsidered and improved.

The Heritage Plan

In February 2010 the Israeli government adopted the National Heritage

Sites Project. The project’s stated goal is to strengthen the connection of
the Jewish people to the land of Israel through the development and pro-
motion of two kinds of sites: historical sites from the history of Zionism
and archaeological sites marking the Jewish presence in the land through-
out the ages. The initial proposal included 150 sites circa among museums,
monuments and lookouts. Thirty-seven archaeological sites are on the list,
six of them located in the Occupied Territories. The Heritage Plan was pre-
sented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing that the Cave
of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem would both
be added to the list of national heritage sites that the Israeli government
planned to promote. ‘‘Our existence depends not only on the Israeli
Defense Force or our economic resilience—it is anchored in […] the
national sentiment that we will bestow upon the coming generations and
in our ability to justify our connection to the land’’ declared the Prime
Minister (Haaretz 21 Feb 2010). The National Heritage Sites Project has an
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 223

intentional Jewish bias; it ignores much of the cultural heritage of the land
that cannot be characterized as exclusively Jewish, obscuring the many cul-
tural layers that exist below and above the Jewish remains identified (Mizr-
achi 2011, 2012). Archaeological sites in the territories are generally run by
private bodies or regional councils that are associated in one way or
another with the settlers (Mizrachi 2012:18). Israeli settlements in the
occupied territories are embedded in an ideology that legitimizes the pres-
ence on the territory on the basis of a belief in Jewish national return.
Israeli settlers have no doubts that they are the true natives and have a
right to the land. Most Israelis are secular, but large part of the settlers in
the West Bank promotes a vision of the Jewish right to the land derived
from the divine promise. In this ambit archaeology configure itself as
expropriation of land and appropriation of the past to the detriment of the
Palestinian Arabs that are considered as temporary trespassers (Feige
2007:280). In this context this form of recollection requires the elimination
of other memory and configure itself as predatory. ‘‘That is, they seem to
be premised on that idea that for them to subsist something else must go’’
(Appadurai 2001:44).
In the West Bank archaeology is also promoted by members of ultra
nationalistic, fundamentalist religious movement Gush Emunim (Feige
2007:277–298). Gush Emunim is a messianic religious movement that
claims the annexation of the territories occupied during the 1967 Six-Day
War and promote the construction of Jewish settlements on the basis of
the belief that God promised Judea and Samaria to Israelites and their
descendants. The settler’s problem was and remains native status and per-
suading others of their authenticity and of their right to claim the land,
regardless of actual historical precedence or contingent sociodemographic
realities (Feige 2007:279–280). Toponomastic is a tool abundantly used for
the reshaping of a Biblical landscape. The names of Israeli settlements are
taken from the Bible and are located close to the archaeological settle-
ments, sometime very approximately, to advance the idea of continuity
between past and present. National imaginations require signature of
the visible, and archaeology as a practice is about signatures of the visible
(Appadurai 2001:44). In the idea of Arjun Appadurai there are two types
of processes in identity building. One is driven by the past, the other is
fundamentally future-driven, a real ‘project’. ‘Those that are projected usu-
ally are likely not to be predatory. But those that are excessively driven by
the past tend to crowd others out’ (Appadurai 2001:47). Gush Emunim
archaeological projects is definitely future-driven and incompatible with
the presence of non-Jews in the land.
 Author's personal copy

224 MAJA GORI

A Palestinian Archaeology

The attempt to create an archaeology that is relevant to the national strug-

gle of Palestinians without compromising professional integrity was unsuc-
cessful (Ziadeh-Seely 2007:326). The desire for a national identity and a
national archaeology emerged in response to the threat Palestinian faced
from the overpowering Israeli occupation. Part of Palestinian intellectuals
tried to move along the lines of Israeli archaeology to provide a historical
right to the land. They promote a research agenda that links the Palestin-
ians to the Canaanites, since the Canaanites existed prior to the Israelite
conquest. Palestinian society is resilient to fully embrace archaeological
practice. Remaining occupation the prime cause for a failed development
of a Palestinian archaeology, the disaffection between Palestinians and
archaeology is due to different causes. Archaeology was traditionally associ-
ated with Western colonialism, and further Islam disdains all pre-Islamic
cultural relics (Ziadeh-Seely 2007:330–331). The assassination in 1992 of
Albert Glock, the head of the archaeology Department of Birzeit University,
was a blow to Palestinian archaeology. Ten years later, despite several
efforts, the department of archaeology of Birzeit University was perma-
nently shut down. Cultural heritage’s fate in Palestine knew ups and
downs, but in recent years, Palestinian involvement in archaeology has
been steadily growing, with universities, private preservation organizations
and the Department of Antiquities of the Palestinian Authority asserting
Palestinian claims to excavate and interpret ancient remains. In 2009 the
World Archaeological Congress held its first ‘Middle East’ meeting in
Ramallah, to focus on the powerful relationship between archaeology, heri-
tage and politics. The meeting provided a platform for the discussion of
the present and future treatment of Palestinian cultural heritage. The
choice of Ramallah as the location for the WAC Inter-Congress meeting
constituted a very strong message by the organizers about the need to pro-
vide a substantial platform on which Palestinian voices could be heard
(Dodd and Boytner 2010:4–6). The meeting was designed to enable recog-
nition of an emerging Palestinian concept for archaeology and ‘to focus on
their interest in and efforts at securing, documenting, and preserving the
archaeological and cultural heritage resources which have been placed in
their care (as a result of the Oslo Accords) and which they see as the patri-
mony of a future sovereign state of Palestine’ (Dodd and Boytner 2010).
One of the initiatives that were presented during the conference is known
as the ‘Israeli-Palestinian Cultural Heritage Agreement’. The document is
drafted by Israeli, Palestinian and foreign archaeologists. In thirty-nine
detailed sections, the agreement sought to ‘sketch the image of an archaeo-
logical peace’ (Benvenisti 2008). Many scholars and intellectuals have
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 225

criticized the Israeli-Palestinian Cultural Heritage Agreement because of its

unfortunate ‘Manichaean’ approach. Neil Silberman sees ‘the agreement’s
principles cling stubbornly to old-fashioned concepts of territory, sover-
eignty and exclusive possession of cultural property that dramatically
reduce the possibility of ever seeing archaeology as anything more than a
zero-sum game’ (Silberman 2008).

Is Archaeological Conflict Globalised?

With the full membership to UNESCO the role and use of archaeology in
the conflict between Israel and Palestine became internationalised and
entered in a new global scenario. The UNESCO ‘diplomatic reprisal’ over
Israeli authorities has to be discussed and evaluated in the light of the
changed political situation. Arjun Appadurai asserts that ‘‘the nation state
is no longer the only player with large-scale claims to sovereignty. It must
contend with being only one player among many’’ (Appadurai 2001:36).
Even if there are increasingly global processes that undermine the nation-
state and its sovereign ownership of the past, the state still ‘‘controls the
apparati through which the economy of remembering and forgetting is
configured’’ (Appadurai 2001:37). In the Israel–Arab conflict international
relations game is being played on archaeological field, which is used in this
new international scenario as instrument for international policy and inter-
national lobbying. For the first time in UNESCO’s history Israel lack inter-
national support on a fundamental matter. A crucial decision—as is
Palestinian full membership—was taken in open opposition to Israeli and
U.S. advices, despite the threat of economical support withdrawal.
Israel has seven properties inscribed in the World Heritage list and eigh-
teen submitted on the Tentative List. With these numbers Israel has a med-
ium ranking among the countries part of UNESCO that have their sites
declared World Heritage. All the Israeli sites were inscribed from 2001,
attesting an intense activity in the last ten years. Masada is one of the
properties inscribed in the world heritage list too. It is located nearby the
West Bank, which political status is one of the most violently disputed
issues in Arab–Israeli conflict. One of the sites that Israel submitted on the
World Heritage Tentative List is Jerusalem. The site is entitled ‘Jerusa-
lem—the Old City and Ramparts to include Mount Zion’ and was pro-
posed as an extension to the ‘Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls’
inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981, upon proposal by Jordan.
The consideration of this nomination proposal was postponed until an
agreement on the status of the city is reached. Now Palestine too has his
own Tentative List, and on the list appears Jerusalem with the denomina-
 Author's personal copy

226 MAJA GORI

tion ‘Jerusalem Southern Terraced Landscape (as a pilot site of the serial
nomination ‘Palestine: Land of olives and vines’)’.
The inscription of Bethlehem in the World Heritage, at a first sight can
give the impression of the upgrade of cultural heritage issue on a globalised
and supranational level. However, even if the approach of World Heritage
has changed since the 1972 Convention, a number of structural features
are inextricably linked to the absolute pre-eminence of states and experts
as the only legitimate actors in the heritage arena (De Cesari 2010:307).
World Heritage does not function without working state infrastructures. In
the case of Palestine World heritage Committee intervene in 2002 to fund
the institutional build-up of the Palestinian Authority’s Department of
Antiquities (De Cesari 2010:315). ‘‘There is no World Heritage without
nation-state sovereignty, and it is nation-states (and experts) that are con-
stituted as the proper actors on the World Heritage stage’’. (De Cesari
2010:305). The heritage of humanity reinforces the nation-states instead of
promoting a real globalised ownership and management of World Heritage
sites. The recently granted full membership at UNESCO may be for Pales-
tine the symptom of new course of events and opening of new political
scenario.

References Cited
Abu El Haj, N
2007. Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-fashioning
in Israeli Society. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Al Jazeera
2011. UN grants Nativity Church ‘endangered’ status, 1 Nov 2001. http://www.
aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/2012629182452482880.html.
Anderson, B
1991. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of National-
ism. Verso, London.
Appadurai, A
2001. The Globalization of Archaeology and Heritage: A Discussion with Arjun
Appadurai. Journal of Social Archaeology 2001/1:35–49.
Baram, U.
2007. Approriating the Past. Heritage, Tourism, and Archaeology in Israel. In
Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration,
and Consecration of National Past, edited by P.L. Kohl, M. Kozelsky, and
N. Ben-Yehuda, pp. 299–325. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Benvenisti, M
2008. There is No Archaeological Peace. Ha’aretz, Tel Aviv.
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 227

Ben-Yehuda, N.
2007. Excavating Masada. The Politics-Archaeology Connection at Work. In
Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration,
and Consecration of National Past, edited by P.L. Kohl, M Kozelsky, and
N. Ben-Yehuda, pp. 247–276. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Caracciolo, L.
2011. Non di questo mondo? In Israele. Più solo, più forte. Limes 5/2011:7–28.
De Cesari, C
2010. World Heritage and Mosaic Universalism: A View from Palestine. Journal
of Social Archaeology 2010/10:299–324.
Diaz-Andreu, M
2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology. Nationalism, Colonial-
ism and the Past. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Diaz-Andreu, M, and T Champion (editors)
1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. UCL Press, London.
Dodd, L., and R. Boytner
2010. The Future of Palestinian Cultural Heritage. Present Pasts 2(1):2–15.
Erlanger, S., and S. Sayare
2011. Unesco Accepts Palestinians as Full Members. New York Times (01 Nov
2011). http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/world/middleeast/unesco-approves-
full-membership-for-palestinians.html?pagewanted=all#.
Feige, M.
2007. Recovering Authenticity. West-Bank Settlers and the Second Stage of
National Archaeology. In Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Con-
struction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Past, edited by
P.L. Kohl, M. Kozelsky, and N. Ben-Yehuda, pp. 277–298. The University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Grabar, O, and BZ Kedar (editors)
2009. Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
Graves-Brown, P, S Jones, and C Gamble
1996. Cultural Identity and Archaeology, The Construction of European Commu-
nities. Routledge, London.
Ha’ aretz 21 Feb
2010. http://www.haaretz.com/news/netanyahu-west-bank-sites-added-to-national-
heritage-list-1.266037.
Hamilakis, Y
2004. Lives in Ruins: Antiquities and National Imagination in Modern Greece.
In The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context, edited by S
Kane, pp. 51–78. Archaeological Institute of America, Boston.
 Author's personal copy

228 MAJA GORI

IMFA June
2009. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Speeches+by+Israeli+leaders/2009/
Address_PM_Netanyahu_Bar-Ilan_University_14-Jun-2009.htm.
Jones, S
1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing the Identity on Past and Present.
Routledge, London.
Kane, S (editor)
2003. The Politics of Archaeology and Identity in a Global Context. Archaeological
Institute of America, Boston.
Kohl, P.L., and C. Fawcett (editors)
1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kohl, P.L., M. Kozelsky, and N. Ben-Yehuda (editors)
2007. Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration,
and Consecration of National Pasts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Loukaki, A
2008. Living Ruins, Value Conflicts. Heritage, Culture and identity. Ashgate,
Aldershot.
Meskell, L
1998. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle
East. Routledge, London.
Mizrachi, Y.
2011. Between Holiness and Propaganda. Archaeology and Political Claims over
the Old City of Jerusalem. Keterpress Enterprises, Jerusalem.
2012. Israel’s ‘National Heritage Sites’ Project in the West Bank: Archeological
Importance and Political Significance. http://www.altarch.org/docs/national
%20heritage%20sites%20beyond%20the%20green%20line.pdf.
Shavit, U.
2011. Primavera Araba, Inverno Israeliano. In Israele. Più solo, più forte. Limes
5/2011:41–46.
Silberman, N. A.
1989. Between Past and Present. Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the
Modern Middle East. Anchor Books, New York.
1995. Promised Lands and Chosen Peoples: The Politics and Poetics of Archaeo-
logical Narrative. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology,
edited by PL Kohl, and C Fawcett, pp. 249–262. University Press, Cam-
bridge.
1998. Whose Game is it Anyway? The Political and Social Transformation of
America Biblical Archaeology. In Archaeology Under Fire, Nationalism,
 Author's personal copy

The Stones of Contention 229

Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, edited
by L Meskell. Routledge, New York.
2001. If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem: Archaeology, Religious Commemoration and
Nationalism in a Disputed City, 1801–2001. In Nations and Nationalism
7/4/2001, pp. 487–495.
2008. Partitioning the Past, Ha’aretz.
Trigger, B
1984. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. Man, New
Series 19(3):355–370.
WHC Nomination Documentation
2001. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1040.pdf.
Ziadeh-Seely, G.
2007. An Archaeology of Palestine. In Selective Remembrances. Archaeology in
the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Past, edi-
ted by P.L. Kohl, M Kozelsky, and N. Ben-Yehuda, pp. 326–345. The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Zogbi, J.
2011. Arab attitudes 2011. Arab American Institute Foundation http://aai.3cdn.
net/5d2b8344e3b3b7ef19_xkm6ba4r9.pdf.