sign in sign up
<<
Home , Avdat, Banias, Beit Alfa, Maresha, Masada, Shivta

The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in

The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel: A Case Study of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority and the Franciscan Order

Mayumi OKADA*

It has been noted that archaeological research, subsequent preservation works and public exhibitions of historical sites in the Near East are affected by various ideologies. Especially in Israel, political leaders have used archaeology and historical sites to highlight the idea that Palestine has surely been the from ancient times. Thus, preservation works and public exhibitions of archaeological sites have concentrated on as well. Besides, such heritage management partially supported the Zionism movement and the unification of new citizens in a certain period. However, it has not been discussed enough how non- Jewish sites, such as those of Christians, Muslims and other religious groups, have been treated from the standpoint of heritage management. Therefore, this article takes Christian church sites as examples to examine how non-Jewish sites have been preserved and exhibited in the modern society of Israel. Two organizations, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) and the Franciscan Order, are dealt with in my discussion. According to my analysis, several differences are revealed in their methods of heritage management for church sites. These differences stems not only from the different purposes for which the churches were erected, but also from the agencies’ different sense of the value of the sites when they are preserved and exhibited. While the INPA exhibits church sites as one element of their cultural heritage, which reflects a certain period of Israel’s history, the Franciscans retain them as religious symbols to prove the historical continuity of the Christian faith. These results indicate that several approaches have existed for preserving and exhibiting the ancient churches, which may play an important role in generating the cross- cultural landscape in Israel. Keywords: Israel, Christian Church Site, Heritage Management, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Franciscan Order

*Graduate Student, Graduate School of Letters, Keio University

Vol. XLVII 2012 147 I. Introduction In Israel, quite a number of archaeological sites have been unearthed over the years by planned excavations as well as by salvage excavations carried out before new construction. In addition, the sites are restored and preserved to pass on the national legacy and to develop it for public exhibition. This is not only owing to the fact that Israel is rich in cultural, historical, and religious heritage, but also because it is aware of the political, religious, economic, and educational benefits that can accrue from the archaeological and historical heritage of ancient Israel (Abu El-Haj 2001; Shavit 1987; Silberman 1989, 1990, and 1997; Zarubavel 1995). Since the birth of the state in 1948, political leaders have used archaeology as means of generating a common cultural and historical background for the new citizens who emigrated from all over the world (Glock 1985; Elon 1997; Rosen 1998; Shavit 1997). It is worth considering how conservation works have been done and how archaeological remains are displayed to the public at sites in such a region, in order to portray a new aspect of the social impact of archaeology and heritage. The public’s shared perception of the past obtained through visits to archaeological sites is mostly outlined by the authority’s choices: which sites are selected, which structures are preserved, and which interpretations of the sites are shared through informational brochures, signposts, and even tourist guides (Silberman 1997, 63). Scholars frequently discuss the preservation of archaeological sites in Israel within various disciplines such as archaeology, tourism studies, heritage studies (cultural resource management), and even urban planning. It has been stated that certain trends can be identified in the selection of sites for conservation and presentation in Israel (Silberman 1997; Killebrew 1999, 2011; Bauman 1995, 2004). Killebrew divides sites that are preserved in Israeli national parks into three categories: ancient such as , biblical sites such as that were once royal cities built by Israeli kings, and sites not- directly related to biblical or Jewish history, such as the Nabatean cities in the , or the Roman-Byzantine cities of Beit She’an and Caesarea. She argues that preserving archaeological sites promotes the creation of a common denominator for all newcomers and a feeling of historical continuation (Killebrew 1999, 19). Bauman and Silberman stress that heritage tourism for both Israeli people and foreigners contributes to economic development in the country: they point out that immediately after the founding of the nation there was a trend to develop historical sites related to Christianity since Christian pilgrims are a source of economic benefits (Bauman 1995; Silberman 1997). As a function of tourism, Bauman notes that heritage sites have contributed to the

148 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel “design to make the Jewish homeland visible as well as a mechanism of landscape transformation” (Bauman 2004, 208-210). On the other hand, there have been few studies on heritage management of the Jewish religious sites related to the Old Testament, the Talmud, or eminent rabbis in the Rabbi Judaism. Starting in 1948, the director general of the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs, Shmuel Zanwil Kahana, actively regenerated and developed Jewish sacred sites inside Israeli territory, some of which had not been popular with the Jewish pilgrims (Bar 2004, Bar 2008). He did this partly because numerous Jewish sacred sites are located in the region that the Jordanian kingdom had ruled after 19481 and so could not longer be easily visited. Another reason is that the ministry was concerned that a new type of sacred place emphasizing mostly ethnic aspects such as Jewish heroism and martyrdom was being given more importance than the sites of traditional Jewish religiousness (Bar 2008, 3-4). It is, however, still unclear how non-Jewish sites or historical sites from traditions that do not fit nicely into the perceived idea of the modern state of Israel have been preserved, restored, and presented to the public. This paper will consider heritage management by analyzing ancient church sites that are managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) and by the Franciscan Order in Israel as examples. These two agencies are worth studying, since the INPA is the governmental organization that administers historical and natural assets at the national parks and nature reserves across the country, while the Franciscan Order, members of the Roman Catholic religious order, have long protected and maintained church sites and other archaeological remains relating to Christianity. In other words, while the INPA policy represents the government’s approach to the non-Jewish sites, the archaeological sites that the Franciscan Order have preserved and maintained reflect their own policies on preserving the ruins of ancient churches.

II. Background 1. Excavation of Church Sites in Israel During the British Mandate period, the British government conducted more scientific and systematic archaeological surveys than had ever before been carried out (Glock 1994; Kersel 2006). In the early stages of the regime, the Department of Antiquity of the British Mandate was in charge of excavating, recording, and preserving the ancient remains of the country. By the end of the Mandate, 3780 antiquity sites had been registered (Glock 1995, 50; Killebrew 1999, 18). European and American institutes were also successively established,

Vol. XLVII 2012 149 such as École Biblique et Archéologique Française (1890; the French Biblical and Archaeological School), the American School of Oriental Research (1900), Deutsches Evangelisches Institut für Altertumswissenschaft des Heiligen Landes (1900; the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology), the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1919), and Studium Biblicum Franciscanum of Jerusalem (1924; the Franciscan Biblical School). So far, a variety of institutes have conducted surveys and excavations of over four hundred ancient churches.2 There are two important observations concerning the history of these excavations. Firstly, the 1930s and the 1950s through the 1960s were very active periods for surveys of ancient churches (Okada 2009, 142).3 During the 1930s, in addition to the foreign institutes mentioned above, the Department of Antiquity of the British Mandate eagerly worked all over the country. In contrast, there were few surveys conducted during the 1940s since the internal situation was unstable owing to conflicts among the , Arabs, and Zionists that accompanied the birth of the new Israeli state. In the 1950s and 1960s, the foreign institutions resumed their archaeological surveys again; the government also launched into action across the country to salvage excavations, since the young nation needed to develop its infrastructures and a basis of human science. In particular, the Israel Department of Antiquity,4 established in 1948 under the Ministry of Labor and Construction and later the Ministry of Education and Culture in 1955, took the initiative to manage archaeological surveys all around Israel. Secondly, one should observed that the Franciscan Order is significant in terms of the archaeological survey of ancient churches. They have continuously run surveys

Table 1 The Number of Excavations of Ancient Churches in Israel (made by the present author based Stern 1993)

The Number of Excavations

150 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel and excavations of ancient ecclesia on the behalf of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) since the beginning of the twentieth century, and such studies are quite influential in Christian archaeology. While the number of their surveys is only half of that conducted by the Israeli government, it still accounts for half of all the surveys by religious groups (table 1, Okada 2009, 143). Even though the rulers of this area have changed several times, the Franciscans have constantly protected what they excavated as their property under the law of the status quo of the Ottoman Empire.

2. Administration of Archaeological Sites In Israel, a country where various types of heritage exist, there are four categories of groups that supervise antiquity sites.5 At the national level, there are the INPA, the Israel Antiquity Authority, and the Ministery of Religious Affairs. At the local level, there are the Site Preservation Committees of the local planning authorities and the (Amit-Cohen 2005: 292-293). Among the private bodies are NGOs and NPOs such as the International Council on Monuments and Sites of Israel (ICOMOS), the , and the Society for the Preservation of Israel Historical Sites. Furthermore, religious groups play an important role in managing heritage sites. The Franciscan Order has been very actively involved in researching and preserving religious remains. Other Christian denominations and members of other religions such as Judaism, Islam, and the Baha’i faith also own sites relating to their heritage. Although archaeological remains, sites, and monuments belong to the state according to the Antiquity Law of 1978,6 many of the shrines remain under the jurisdiction of various religious denominations and authorities (Killebrew 1999, 18). Moreover, the archaeological heritage contributes to the tourism industry (Stock 1977; Bauman 1995, 2004; Assaf 2009), especially since the Christian heritage is quite popular for pilgrims worldwide (Bauman 1995; Silberman 1997), even though only 2 percent of Israel’s population is Christian.

3. The Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) The predecessor to the INPA, the Committe for Improvement or Repair of Landscape and Historical Sites was established in 1955 within the prime minister’s office (Tsuk 2004, 7). This committee, headed by T. Kollek, Y. Yadin and Y. Yanai,7 aimed to administer archeological, historical, and natural sites as national assets for tourism development. In 1964, the National Park Authority (NPA) and the Nature Reserves Authority (NRA) were made independent from the prime minister’s office. While the NRA concentrated on protecting nature’s

Vol. XLVII 2012 151 diversity, the NPA mainly developed and administered parks that contained historical, archaeological, architectural, and natural assets designated for the educational and recreational use of citizens and tourists. In 1998, the two authorities were merged to form the National Parks and Nature Reserves Protection Authority, which in 2009 was renamed the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The INPA manages forty-three national parks and twenty-two nature reserves that are open to the public.8 These national parks and nature reserves include archaeological and historical national parks, nature and landscape national parks and nature reserves, sites of national significance, parks or reserves combining archaeology with outstanding views, protected beaches, and water resources. Thus, the Israel national parks and nature reserves plays an essential role in heritage management in the country.9

4. The Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) The Franciscan friars began their missionary work in the area in the thirteenth century (Custody of the Holy Land 1981, 10). They built or reconstructed churches on the sites that were directly related to the New Testament (Meyers 1997, 432-434). They began their archaeological activities as part of their duty to pass on the Christian beliefs and missions of ancient times. They started investigating and protecting holy sites, mostly those mentioned in the Bible. During the process of cleaning and reconstructing ancient churches, they came across archaeological remains and structures. The Franciscans began full-dress excavations in the late nineteenth century, after the discovery of an ecclesial structure with a beautiful floor in Bethlehem (Custody of the Holy Land 1981, 75). In 1924, the Studium Biblicum Franciscaum (SBF) was established, which aimed to “specialize in the study of the Christian presence in the Holy Land witness in the Sanctuaries of the Late-Roman, Byzantine, and Crusader period.”10 Father V. Corbo, B. Baggatti, and M. Piccirillo led archaeological research around , Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Israel; the SBF has carried out archaeological research at more than 20 percent of all the church sites in Israel (Okada 2009, 44). They also preserve, restore, and exhibit their archaeological finds for the public. For instance, in , one of the most popular spots for Christian pilgrims, there is an exhibition of the ancient churches commemorating St. Peter, which explains the transformation from a proto-type house church (domus-ecclesia) to a basilica (White 1990, 11-25; Piccirillo 2000, 52).

152 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel III. Analysis The purpose of this paper is to clarify how the non-Jewish heritage has been conserved, restored and presented to the public in Israel. In order to do this, this chapter describes that the INPA and the Franciscan Order have carried out the preservation, restoration and exhibition of ancient church sites.11 This paper employs the following approach to clarify the difference between their policies of heritage management of ancient churches.

1. Object of Study In this article, two types of sites are looked at: the church sites located in Israeli national parks and nature reserves, and those in the Franciscan facilities. The location of each church site is shown in figure 1. Israel national parks and nature reserves with church sites include ① Hermon Stream Nature Reserve (); ② Nature Reserve; ③ Kursi National Park; ④ Zippori National Park; ⑤ Beit She’an National Park; ⑥ Beit She’arim National Park; ⑦ Caesarea National Park; ⑧ Herodion National Park; ⑨; ⑩ Beit Guvrin and Tel National Park; ⑪ National Fig. 1 Church Site Locations Park; ⑫ Mamshit National Park; ⑬ National Park; and ⑭ National Park.12 Those of the Franciscan churches are [1] St. Peter Memorial Church in Capernaum;13 [2] Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and the Fishes in Tabgha (hereafter “Church of the Multiplication”);14 [3] Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth;

Vol. XLVII 2012 153 [4] Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem;15 and [5] Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.16 Some national parks and nature reserves include more than one church site, and I count each site separately. For instance, if three church sites are located separately inside one national park, they are counted as “three.” This article deals with twenty-three church sites from fourteen national parks and nature reserves. However, I count the number of church sites maintained by the Franciscan Order differently. Owing to religious tradition, Christian people tend to construct new churches immediately above holy places and ancient ecclesia. Therefore, each of the Franciscan facilities includes the remains of more than one ancient church beneath it, and those multilayered remains are counted as singular in this analysis.

2. Method The following six points are used to evaluate how the two authorities have treated their church sites: (1) Preservation, (2) Restoration, (3) Public exhibition, (4) Description of the ancient churches in brochures, (5) Captions for church sites, and (6) Explanation boards for the church sites. Table 2 and 3 show whether each point is confirmed at a site. The mark ○ means that the point has been confirmed, while × means it has not. Thus this paper illustrates the two agencies’ policies toward Christian heritage management, through a microscopic analysis.

3. Result 1: Church Sites in Israeli National Parks (table 2) (1) Preservation: Among the twenty-three church sites, the circular church in ⑤ Beit She’an has not been preserved, since it was removed in order to excavate the strata beneath it. It is reported that this circular church, which was decorated with mosaic floors and carved capitals, was built during the Byzantine period (Amihai 2006, 40). At other sites, the churches are preserved as excavated, although the residual situations are different among them. In ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ④ Zippori, and ⑨ Ashkelon, mainly just the substructures of the ancient churches are left. On the other hand, the rest of the churches are fairly well preserved, with a part of superstructure, mosaic pavements and architectural decorations: especially sites in ③ Kursi and ⑧ Herodion retain well-preserved mosaic floors. (2) Restoration: Except for ① Hermon Stream (Banias) and ⑤ Beit She’an, church sites have been restored to a certain extent. In ③ Kursi, ④ Zippori, ⑦ Caesarea, ⑧ Herodion, and ⑪ Masada, the mosaic floors have been elaborately

154 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel restored using original tessera; the churches in ② Gamla, ③ Kursi, ⑩ Beit Guvrin, ⑪ Masada, ⑫ Mamshit, ⑬ Shivta, and ⑭ Avdat are restored superstructures of ancient churches with original pillars and parts of the wall, as well as modern materials. However, the basilica church in ① Hermon Stream (Banias) has been hardly touched and has remained as it was excavated. (3) Public Exhibition: Generally speaking, there are several methods for public exhibitions such as real object displays and explanatory exhibits. In this article, “public exhibition” implies that real objects are displayed with some restoration and concern for accessibility, and the safety of the visitors. In ⑤ Beit She’an, archaeologists had already removed remains of ancient church, three churches from ⑧ Herodion are not ready for display; other nineteen churches were developed for public exhibitions. Maintenance at most of the church sites enables visitors to step inside sites and see more closely except for ① Hermon Stream (Banias) and ④ Zippori. If there are notable and fragile remains, for example mosaic floor, paintings, architectural decorations and interesting installation such as cistern, olive press, the INPA placed fences to keep visitors out and protect antiquities. (4) Description of Ancient Churches in Brochures: In the case of most of the national parks and nature reserves, brochures are given to visitors at the entrance.17 For this point, I consider if there is any description of ancient church remains in those brochures. On the one hand, in the brochures of ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ② Gamla, ⑦ Caesarea, descriptions of church sites mention only their existence as parts of other remains in the parks and reserves; the brochure of ⑥ Beit She’arim does not refer to the church site itself. The rest of the national parks and nature reserves, on the other hand, have introduary accounts that explain their historical background, dimension, and architectural significance. (5) Captions for Church Sites: Here, a caption is material that indicates basic information such as the name and period of ancient churches that is printed on a board and is attached or erected nearby the site. Usually, an exhibition is supposed to be accompanied by a caption and numerous ancient structures and installations in the national parks are furnished with them. In case of ancient church sites, there are captions placed at ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ② Gamla, ③ Kursi, ⑨ Ashkelon, ⑩ Beit Guvrin, ⑪ Masada, and ⑬ Shivta. The others do not provide any information on their sites. (6) Explanation Boards for Church Sites: Explanation boards include not only basic information about the displays, but also more detailed explanatory sentences, sometimes with illustrations and photos. Explanation boards with

Vol. XLVII 2012 155 descriptive sentences accompany seven church sites from ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ② Gamla, ③ Kursi, ⑨ Ashkelon, ⑩ Beit Guvrin (the Crusader church) and ⑪ Masada: among them, ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ② Gamla, ⑩ Beit Guvrin and ⑪ Masada furnish explanation boards with reconstruction images; ⑨ Ashkelon provides visitors a plan of an ancient church; and ③ Kursi gives on its board a translation of the Greek inscription written on the mosaic floor into Hebrew and English.

Table 2 Church Sites in Israeli National Parks and Nature Reserves

*1 NP=National Park, NR=Nature Reserves *2 The names of the churches are taken from Stern 1993, except for ② Gamla NR and ⑤ Beit She’an NP. The name in ② is taken from the brochure description. That of ⑤ is taken from Mazar 2006. 4. Result 2: Church Sites in the Franciscan Facilities (table 3) The churches in the Franciscan facilities are memorial churches built to commemorate biblical events, and owing to the Christian tradition of building new memorial churches on old sites, the ancient sites at the Franciscan facilities include structures from different strata (figures 2 and 3). For instance, [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church has at least three strata, including those from the first, fourth, and fifth centuries CE. In [3] the Church of the Multiplication, the fourth-century church lies beneath a floor of the present structure. Therefore, methods employed by the Franciscans for conservation, restoration, and public exhibition are different from those of the INPA. In addition, I will focus on

156 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel important remains in analyzing, since each Franciscan facility holds them to demonstrate the continuity of Christianity, such as the stone altar in [2] the Church of the Multiplication, the grotto of the Annunciation in [3] the Church of the Annunciation and the Hill of Calvary in [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. (1) Preservation: All strata identified through previous excavations have been preserved. While at [1] the St. Peter’s Memorial Church, [2] the Church of the Multiplication and [3] the Church of the Annunciation, the present buildings were constructed immediately above their ancient remains, some of the structures of the present churches in [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and [5] the Church of the Nativity can be traced back to the Crusader period and even before.18 In such a unique utilization of historical buildings, the situation of preservation in each site is different, which affects methods of restoration and exhibition. (2) Restoration: Here, I will focus on present conditions of restoration not only in church sites but also their important remains. It is to be especially noted that remains of ancient churches are restored as a part of present structures rather than artistic exhibitions. The mosaic floors at [2] the Church of the Multiplication and [5] the Church of the Nativity have been well restored elaborately with original tesserae: in [2] the Church of the Nativity, this restored mosaic makes up a part of the modern floor, and visitors are able to step onto the ancient mosaic floor. In [3] the Church of the Annunciation, [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and [5] the Church of the Nativity, the historical buildings, including pillars and substructures from the Crusader period, have been restored using reinforcement. However, the present [1] Church of St. Peter is a completely new building constructed off the ground without reuse of ancient remains. (3) Public Exhibitions and Methods of Presentation: Since the Franciscans erected memorial churches over ancient ecclesia or holy places to protect and pass them on, several differences can be observed in public exhibitions of these churches, compared to the case studies of national parks. The church sites are displayed both inside and outside of the Franciscan facilities. They use three types of methods in presentation of ancient churches remains: glass covering, reuse, and adornment (figure 4). Glass covering is a method with covers ancient remains with glass so that visitors can see them through the top. Glass covering can be seen at [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, the fourth and fifth-century church remains in [2] the Church of the Multiplication, and on the Hill of Calvary at [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Reuse is a method where

Vol. XLVII 2012 157 ancient church remains are preserved and reused as a part of the present Franciscan facilities. For example, in [3] the Church of the Annunciation (figures 5 and 6), one can see the reuse of the ancient remains as parts of the present church. Figure 5 shows how the apse of the fourth century basilica is reused as a prayer bench (dotted line), and in figure 6, how the ancient grotto is utilized as the apse of the present chapel. Adornment has been applied to the stone altar of [2] the Church of the Multiplication, the tomb of Jesus at [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the grotto of [5] the Church of the Nativity. In this method, the remains are covered or veiled with marble, decorations and even structures. (4) Description of Ancient Churches in Brochures: While at national parks and nature reserves, visitors pay an entrance fee and get brochures with information on the parks or reserves, the Franciscan facilities provide their official brochures by selling them at the souvenir shop or as a return for the visitors’ offerings. Besides, their brochures are not simply pamphlets like the ones which national parks and nature reserves provide, but more comprehensive booklets with the historical background of the area where the churches are located, related biblical references, and detailed descriptions of the excavation with plans and photos. Three Franciscan facilities, [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, [2] the Church of the Multiplication and [3] the Church of the Annunciation, provide their own brochures, and these contain detailed descriptions about the ancient church sites along with illustrations. There are no brochures at [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or [5] the Church of the Nativity. (5) Captions for Church Sites: Unlike national parks and nature reserves, captions are not common in the facilities: they are furnished at [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, [2] the Church of the Multiplication, and the Hill of Calvary at [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. While [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church provides a neat caption plate with its remains, the others have the information etched directly on the glass covering. (6) Explanation Boards for Church Sites: [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church and [2] Church of the Multiplication present explanation boards. The former is furnished with a board with archaeological accounts and the ground plans of ancient churches to show the historical transition of the site; on the other hand, the explanation of the latter church refers to main the historical events of the church with illustrations and photos. The others do not have any explanation boards inside the facilities.

158 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel

Table 3 Church Sites in the Franciscan Facilities

not.

*Dash appeared in Restoration means that the present author is not able to identify whether the remains have been restored or restored been have remains the whether identify to able not is author present the that means Restoration in appeared *Dash

Vol. XLVII 2012 159 1 CE 4 CE 5 CE

Fig.2 Multilayered remains beneath the present St. Peter Memorial Church at Capernaum (made by the author based on Stern 1993, 291)

Fig. 3 Ancient churches beneath the St. Peter Memorial Church (Photo by the author)

160 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel

Glass Covering (St. Peter Memorial Church)

Reuse (Church of the Annunciation) Adornment (Church of the Nativity)

Fig. 4 Three Methods of Exhibition in the Franciscan Facilities (Photos by the author)

Vol. XLVII 2012 161 Fig. 5 Utilizing the apse from the Byzantine period as the present chapel at the Church of the Annunciation (Photo by the author)

N

Fig. 6 Plan of area in Fig. 5. The reused part of the remains surrounded by a dotted line (Stern 1993, 1103)

162 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel 5. Summary An overview of the ancient church sites located in Israeli national parks, nature reserves and the Franciscan facilities in terms of their preservation, restoration, and public exhibition, indicates the following features and differences between the two organizations: the INPA and the Franciscan Order. Firstly, concerning preservation and restoration, while several ancient churches are preserved (or left) within multiple layers at each of the Franciscan facilities, most of the sites from Israeli national parks and nature reserves are preserved as a planarity, and they are from only one stratum. This difference also affects restoration works on the sites. At the national parks or nature reserves, church sites are restored as whole structures that have been mostly excavated from one stratum. In the Franciscan facilities, on the other hand, remains of ancient churches have been only partially restored. Since they were left stratified, they cannot be preserved as a whole structural planarity: they are often preserved as a part of the present facilities. Secondly, concerning methods of public exhibition, while the church sites from national parks and nature reserves tend to be displayed in open-air exhibitions, the remains from the Franciscan facilities are presented both inside and outside of the modern buildings with several methods of protecting their remains: glass covering, reuse, and adornment. Those methods are related to the historical background: the Franciscan Order built the present churches and chapels immediately above ancient churches or holy sites, of which significant parts are preserved and reused as parts of the present structures. In the case of [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, although its principal remains, the house church from time of Jesus, are preserved and exhibited outside of the present church, central part of the present building is glassed, and visitors are able to see the ancient remains from inside. These methods make it possible to display the ancient remains as a religious continuity to visitors.

IV. Conclusion 1. Differences between the National Parks / Nature Reserves and the Franciscan Facilities with regard to Preservation and Public Exhibition According to the analysis, it emerges that non-Jewish sites have not been always excluded from heritage management in Israel: church sites are preserved as representatives of the age of Christianity in national parks and nature reserves. This article particularly focuses on church sites administered by the INPA and the Franciscan Order and significant points in their heritage management. Considering major characteristics of the INPA’s and the Franciscans heritage

Vol. XLVII 2012 163 management, the reasons for the differences should be considered. Two factors can be noted as affecting methods of church site management. The first factor correlates with the original purpose of the establishment of the churches. Owing to the spread of Christianity throughout this area after the fourth century, basilica-style churches for local congregations began to be constructed (Tsafrir 1993, 2-3). At the same time, the emperors erected major memorial churches that pilgrims have visited over the centuries, such as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and memorial churches around the Sea of (White 1990, 4). While the churches for local congregations were established at the time of the emergence of Christianized cities and were mostly abandoned after the cities’ decline, the memorial churches have been protected, reconstructed, and passed on by the friars, regardless of circumstances. As a result, the former churches tend to have a single stratum in contrast to the latter whose remains have multilayered strata. It should be noted that the formation of remains may affect methods of preservation and exhibition at each location. Whereas churches for local congregations tend to be protected in Israeli national parks or nature reserves, the memorial churches have been maintained as Christian holy sites. The characteristics of their heritage management clearly show the interaction between the original purpose of construction and methods of heritage management. The second factor is the value judgments of the church sites that the two agencies made, in terms of their preservation and exhibition. The INPA is supposed to provide leisure spaces for citizens as well as preserve national assets (National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and Memorial Sites Law 1998).19 Therefore, the INPA has developed parks and reserves in order to represent the history of the Eretz Israel (Killebrew 1999, 19). Even before 1948, archaeological sites played the important role of the storyteller of the past, and young Zionist immigrants visited there to learn about their historical background and to strengthen their ties with ancient Israelis through the scouting activity called Yediat Ha’Aretz (“the knowledge of the land”) (Selwny 1995, 119-120; Shavit 1997, 55; Bar-Gal 2008, 55). Since the church sites represent the age of Christianity as one aspect of a long history, some major national parks, such as ① Hermon Stream (Banias), ② Gamla, ③ Kursi, ⑨ Ashkelon and ⑪ Masada, illustrate the age of Christianity through rich informational media, for instance brochures, captions and explanation boards. Besides, the church sites of Israeli national parks tend to be preserved with other installations, suggesting that church sites are a component of cities. On the other hand, the Franciscans

164 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel maintained church sites as evidence of their history and Christian faith. For them, it is important to utilize the multilayered remains as the living heritage of their religion. Therefore, the church sites in the Franciscan facilities tend to be preserved in isolation from the surroundings, except for in Capernaum.

2. Concluding Observations The purpose of this paper is to define how non-Jewish heritage has been preserved and exhibited to the public in the modern Israeli society. The results of this examination show that its heritage management is not monolithic, but rather, at least the two major agencies use different methods of preservation and management for Christian church sites. Those differences in church site management stem not only from the nature of the sites themselves, but also from the values that archaeologists and the agencies identified and granted to them. This is seen in the fact that the Franciscans have treated church remains as an object of faith inherited from the past, while the INPA maintains them as a part of the history related to ancient cities. Admittedly, it is difficult to compare two agencies that have completely different attitudes toward church sites: nevertheless, it is worth considering that different methods are based on the values of each stakeholder in the archaeological remains. Thus we can see that the cross-cultural landscape of Eretz Israel has been shaped by diverse methods of heritage management, which are affected by various values and interpretations. Such multiple expressions of ancient remains contribute to the generation of a historical landscape for its citizens, as well as for foreign tourists from all over the world. The microscopic viewpoint approach toward heritage management adopted in this paper indicates not only that there is an interactional relationship between archaeology, heritage, and the present society, but also that the unconscious values of archaeologists and agencies play a significant role in providing the interpretation and generating the images of Israel’s history.

Notes 1 In those days, the major holy places for the Jewish pilgrims were the Galilean cities of and , and around Jerusalem. However, important Jewish sites such as the tomb of the patriarch Abraham in , the matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem, and the in Jerusalem were under control of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan (Bar 2008, 3). 2 It is calculated from the data in Tasfrir (1993) and Stern (1993). 3 The number of research studies and surveys are according to reports in Tsafrir (1993) and Stern (1993). 4 The Israel Department of Antiquity is a precursor of the Israel Antiquity Authority. 5 From a viewpoint of international communities, it is also notable to see activities of the

Vol. XLVII 2012 165 ICOMOS Israel and its involvement in the World Heritage Convention. Israel has ratified the convention in 1999. 6 In the second chapter, it is stated that “When an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel after the coming into force of this Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become the property of the State.” 7 T. Kollek was the founder of the and mayor of Jerusalem from 1965 to 1993; Y. Yadin was the most influential Israeli archaeologist at that time; Y. Yanai was a commander of the Israel Defense Force. 8 These numbers indicate Israel national parks and nature reserves which require an admission fee from visitors and were open to the public until 2010. The INPA runs other types of parks and reserves, such as those with free admission and those that are restricted areas as well. 9 Israel holds six World Heritage sites: the Bahai Holy Places in and the Western Galilee: the Biblical Tels-Megiddo, Hazor, Beer Sheva: the Incense Route-Desert Cities in the Negev: Masada: the of Acre: the of Tel-Aviv-the Modern Movement. Some are in national parks such as Meggido, Hazor, Beer Sheva, Mamshit, Shivta, Avdat and Masada National Park. There are also quite a number of national parks and nature reserves listed as properties submitted on the Tentative List. 10 http://198.62.75.4/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFarch.html 11 In this paper, the term “site” is used to indicate single or multiple ancient church remains or complete structures. 12 Although there is an ancient church site in Shomron () National Park, it is not listed in this paper since the author could not research its present condition. This national park has been closed because of security situation. 13 As for [1] St. Peter Memorial Church in Capernaum, this area has also been declared an Israeli national park. However, since the Franciscans have jurisdiction over it, it is classified into the Franciscan facility in this paper. 14 [2] Church of the Multiplication has been administered by the Benedictine order since 1939. However, it was the Franciscan Order to obtain a possessive right in 1889 and survey there since then. Therefore, [2] Church of the Multiplication is included in the Franciscan facilities in this paper. 15 The Holy Sepulcher has private and communal areas. The former is given to seven communities who share the church, while the latter is under the authority of the Armenians, Greek Orthodox and Latin churches. Besides excavations of the Franciscan Order, the Armenians, Greek Orthodox and Latin churches worked together for survey and restoration of the church in 1954: the Armenian Orthodox surveyed his own property in 1966 and from 1975 to 1981. 16 In 1347, the Franciscan Order acquired a right to administer the church and have maintained their presence siuce there. At present, the church is administered jointly by Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox authorities. 17 Shivta does not provide a brochure at the entrance since there is no custodian. Visitors are able to get it on the INPA website. 18 In 1880, the Franciscans built the Church of St. Catherine on the north side of the church; the Armenian Orthodox constructed a new monastery on the southwestern side of the church. 19 Under the National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and Memorial Sites Law, a national park is defined as “an area serving or designated to serve for the countryside recreation of the public or for the preservation of values that are of historical, archaeological, architectural, natural or landscape importance and the like, whether remaining in its natural state or installed to serve such purposes”(The National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and Memorial Sites Law, Israel 1998, Chap.1).

166 ORIENT The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel

Bibliography Abu El-Haj, N. 2002 : Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self- Fashioning in Israeli Society, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Assaf, M. 2009 : National Parks in Israel: From Concept to Realization [1948-1998], Ph.D. Thesis: Bar-Ilan University [Hebrew]. Amit-Cohen, I. 2005 : “Synergy between Urban Planning, Conservation of the Cultural Built Heritage and Functional Changes in the Old Urban Center : The Case Study of Tel Aviv,” Land Use Policy, Vol.22, 291-300. Bar-Gal, Y. and Bar-Gal, B. 2008 : “To Tie the Lands Between the People and Its Land,” Israel Studies, Vol.13, 44-67. Bar, D. 2004 : “Re-Creating Jewish Sanctity in Jerusalem: The Case of Mount Zion and David’s Tomb Between 1948-1967,” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 23(2), 233-251. Bar, G. 2008 : “Reconstructing the Past: The Creation of Jewish Sacred Space in the State of Israel, 1948-1967,” Israel Studies, Vol.13(3), 1-21. Bauman, J. 1995 : “Designer Heritage: Israeli National Parks and the Politics of Historical Representation,” Middle East Report, No. 196, 20-23. Bauman, J. 2004 : “Tourism, Design and the Past in Zippori / , an Israeli National Park,” in Rowan, Y. and Baram, U. (eds.), Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past, Maryland: AltaMira Press, 205-228. Custody of the Holy Land, the (ed.) 1981 : The Franciscan Custody, Jerusalem: ranciscan Printing Press. Elon, A. 1997 : “Politics and Archeology” in Silberman, N. A. and Small, D. B. The : Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 35-47. Glock, A. E. 1985 : “Tradition and Change in Two Archaeologies,” American Antiquity, Vo l . 5 0 , 464-477. Glock, A. E. 1994 : “Archaeology as Cultural Survival : The Future of the Palestinian Past,” Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol.23(3), 70-84. Glock, A. E. 1995 : “Cultural Bias in the Archaeology in Palestine,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24(2), 48-59. Kersel, M. 2006 : License to Sell : The Legal Trade of Antiquities in Israel, Ph.D. Thesis: University of Cambridge. Killebrew, A. E. 1999 : “From the Canaanites to Crusaders: The Presentation of Archaeological Sites in Israel,” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Site, Vol.3(1)(2), 17-32. Killebrew, A. E. 2011 : “Who Owns the Past? The Role of Nationalism, Politics, and Profit in Presenting Israel’s Archaeological Sites to the Public,” in Boytner, K., Dodd, L. S. and Parker, B. J. (eds.), Controlling the Past, Owing the Future: The Political Uses of Archaeology in the Middle East, Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press, 123-141. Mazar, A. 2006: Excavation at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996 Vol.1, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Meyers, E. M. 1997: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in Near East, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Okada, M. 2009: “The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel: From the Viewpoint of Public Archaeology,” Bulletin of The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan Vol.52 (1), 138-158. Piccirillo, M. 2000 : “The Architecture and Liturgy of the Early Church,” in Israeli, Y. and

Vol. XLVII 2012 167 Meborah, D. (eds.), Cradle of Christianity, Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Rosen, S. 1998 : “One Hundred Years after Petrie: Is Archaeological Education in Israel Stagnating?,” in Judasim and Education: Essays in Honor of Walter I. Ackerman, Haim, M. (ed.), Ben-Gurion: Ben-Gurion University Press, 219-230. Selwyn, T. 1995 : “Landscape of Liberation and Imprisonment: Towards an Anthropology of the Israeli Landscape,” in Hirsch, E. and O’Hanlon, M. (eds.), The Anthropology of Landscape, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 114-134. Shavit, Y. 1987 : “The Truth Shall Spring Out of the Earth: The Development of Jewish Popular Interest in Archaeology in Erets-Israel,” Cathedra, Vol. 44, 27-54. Shavit, Y. 1997 : “Archaeology, Political, Culture and Culture in Israel,” in Silberman, N. A. and Small, D. B. (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 48-61. Silberman, N. A. 1989: Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology, and Nationalism in the Modern Near East, New York: H. Holt. Silberman, N. A. 1990: Digging for the God and Country: Exploration, Archaeology, and the Secret Struggling for the Holy Land 1799-1917, New York: Doubleday. Silberman, N. A. 1997: “Structuring the Past: Israelis, Palestinians, and the Symbolic Authority of Archaeological Monuments, in Silberman, N. A. and Small, D. B. (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 62-81. Stern, E. (ed.) 1993-2008: The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavation in the Holy Land I-V, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Stock, R. 1977 : “Political and Social Contributions of International Tourism to the Development of Israel,” Annals of Tourism Research Vol.5, 30-42. Tsuk, T. 2004 : The First Step of the National Parks Authority (NPA), Jerusalem: National Parks Authority [Hebrew]. Tsafrir, Y. (ed.) 1993 : Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Society. White, L. M. 1990 : Building God’s House in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation among Pagans, Jews and Christians, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zerubavel, Y. 1995 : “The Multivocaliaty of a National Myth: Memory and Counter-Memories of Masada,” Israel Affairs, Vol.1, 110-128.

168 ORIENT