• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

chapter 5 “The Longer, the More Happiness I Derive from This Undertaking” James Simon and Early German Research into Galilee’s Ancient Synagogues Gabriele Faßbeck* In volume six of his unpublished memoirs, recorded for his sons and dated to the year 1927, Gustav Hölscher recalls his first encounter with Galilean syna- gogue ruins in the early summer of 1903. The memoirs are based on original notes. He writes: Archaeologically speaking, the most curious feature here in Galilee are the numerous ruins of old Jewish synagogues and it became ever clearer to us how important thorough documentation of these ruins must be, all the more since we observed at every turn how the natives demolished the beautiful ashlars of these ruins and used them for new buildings. Safest of all of course were the remotely located ruins, but those in the vicinity of villages were facing a swift, visible demise. (Hölscher 1927b, 869–70)1 In 1903, Hölscher was a young scholar with a recent doctoral degree (1901) in Old Testament studies from the University of Leipzig and on track to complete his Habilitation on “The Jewish Religious Parties” (“Die jüdischen Religionsparteien”). Upon recommendation of the German Society for the Exploration of Palestine (Palästina-Verein), Hölscher had been asked by the German Oriental Society (Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft) to accompany another scholar, the classical archaeologist Hermann Thiersch, on an explor- * Department of Religious Studies, University of Alabama, USA, [email protected]. It is a particular honor to contribute this article to Professor Hachlili’s festschrift. I have greatly benefitted from her distinguished scholarship over the years. I am very indebted to the following individuals: Prof. Ann E. Killebrew for her continuous support. Prof. Lucian Hölscher and Prof. Tonio Hölscher graciously made their grandfather’s memoirs and pri- vate correspondence available to me. Dr. Hanswulf Bloedhorn, Dr. Annette Haller, and Dr. Olaf Matthes generously shared insights and information with me. The staff of the Berlin Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft archive provided me with the relevant archival materials. 1 All translations from the German are the current author’s. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/978900430659�_006 102 Faßbeck atory journey to Palestine. Thiersch was in charge of this expedition,2 which was to identify suitable places for future archaeological excavations to be con- ducted by the society. Not long after Thiersch and Hölscher’s return, the society settled on the documentation of the Galilean synagogues as its first independent involve- ment with Palestinian archaeology. In spring 1905, the architects Heinrich Kohl and Ernst Hiller set out together with classical archaeologist Carl Watzinger to examine and record the then-known synagogue ruins.3 Their work culminated in the 1916 publication of Kohl and Watzinger’s pivotal study Antike Synagogen in Galilaea. While Kohl, Watzinger, and Hiller’s work is well recognized by the scholarly community, not much is known about the process of decision- making that led to the DOG’s interest in Palestine and to the somewhat surpris- ing focus on synagogue research there.4 One has to bear in mind that at the time the DOG was known for large-scale, spectacular excavations in Babylon, Assur, and Abusir, later to be followed by the no-less remarkable explorations of Ḫattuša and, in particular, Amarna.5 Those excavations yielded a rich harvest of artifacts, which ultimately greatly benefit- ted the collections of Berlin’s museums. Palestine was not per se on the DOG’s agenda; it was brought to the society’s attention by the Palästina-Verein, which in 1902 asked for financial support of its Megiddo excavations. This support for a tell excavation was granted, and interest seemed to have suddenly been sparked on the part of the DOG, leading eventually to the sponsoring of Ernst Sellin and Watzinger’s investigation of Jericho in 1908–1909, which represents the last DOG involvement with archaeology in Palestine. Megiddo and Jericho, both large tells and key locales of biblical history, fitted the DOG’s interest in grand sites with the promise of outstanding artifacts. Between these two proj- ects, however, stands, somewhat enigmatically, the exploration of the Galilean 2 In particular, Hans Stumme and Hermann Guthe had recommended Hölscher for the assign- ment (cf. Hölscher 1927a, 792). Hölscher took the place of Gustav Dalman, who had been the DOG’s first choice as accompanying scholar. However, Dalman had declined to participate because, as Hölscher remarks in his memoirs (1927a, 795), he was not interested in a second- in-command position. 3 Their investigations followed earlier work by Ernest Renan, Victor Guérin, and Claude R. Conder and Horatio H. Kitchener. 4 Only Olaf Matthes has examined this question in some depth, based on archival materials, mainly from the holdings of the DOG archive in Berlin (2000, 241–46). He recognizes the crucial role that the DOG’s founder, James Simon, played, but does not speculate on Simon’s possible motivation. 5 A comprehensive overview of the DOG’s activities can be found in Wilhelm 1998. Volkmar Fritz contributed a survey of the DOG’s involvement with Palestine to this volume..

Load more

  2

Copy Link