The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority (1918-2006): The Jerusalem Experience

Full text

125
The Departments of Antiquities and
the Israel Antiquities Authority (1918–2006):
The Jerusalem Experience
Jon Seligman
Israel Antiquities Authority
Introduction
Statutory organizations for archaeology, built heritage, as well as nature or eco-
logical conservation are an essential part of governmental structure for the pres-
ervation of heritage in all countries. While they are often viewed as enemies of
progress, especially by those who would benet from their absence, these organi-
zations are essential if we are to pass on to future generations both tangible and
intangible values. These organizations are among the benets of the modern world,
yet the values they represent are products of the age of enlightenment, which influ-
enced the original philosophy of these bodies and the ways in which they related to
society as consumers of the values they were designed to conserve.
Certainly, the British Mandatory Department of Antiquities was a product of its
time. Britain was at the zenith of its imperial power and related to the administra-
tion of territories under its control in a paternalistic manner that could never have
taken root in Britain itself. Luckily for us, Anglo-Saxon principles of ownership
were rejected when it came to ruling the “natives.” Thus, the control that Brit-
ish citizens have over the antiquities on their private property was not transferred
to Mandatory Palestine and other countries, leaving monopolistic ownership of
antiquities to the state. Private ownership of land in Mandatory Palestine would
only apply to the use of land for building, agriculture, or other functionary require-
ments set by zoning. Antiquities found on that land belonged, and still do, to the
state 1—the land-owner’s legal responsibility being to safeguard the nd and report
its discovery to the state.
Jerusalem, as the capital of Mandatory Palestine and the seat of government,
would become a central concern of the new archaeological authorities.
Founding of Mandatory Government of
Palestine Department of Antiquities (GPDA)
One of the rst actions of the British occupiers of Jerusalem in 1918 was Military
Governor Ronald Storrs’s (g. 1) proclamation to preserve the city of Jerusalem
in the area of the Old City and its surroundings. 2 This, and the foundation of the
1. See clause 2 of the Antiquities Law 1978.
2. Proclamation of April 18, 1919, issued by the British Military Governor of Jerusalem, Col.
Ronald Storrs.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman126
interfaith Pro-Jerusalem Society, whose
declared aim was the “preservation and
advancement of the interests of Jerusa-
lem,” attested to the fact that the new
administration took the preservation of
the city to be an important policy issue
(Ashbee 1921).
With the 1922 establishment of the
British Mandatory government under the
aegis of the League of Nations, the new
authority was given the task of securing
and preserving the important built heri-
tage of the country. Indeed, Article 21
of the Mandate specically requires the
legislation of an Antiquities Law and the
formation of a competent department to
manage archaeology and grant permits
for excavation. 3 In the same year, the
new Mandatory Government of Palestine
established a modern instrument for the
preservation, research, and excavation of
the antiquities of the county.
The Department of Antiquities was set
up together with a museum whose aim was to collect and display the antiquities
of the Holy Land within the country’s borders for the benet of its citizens. This
constituted a break from previous imperialist practice of removing Palestine’s most
important artifacts to other countries—especially Britain, France, Germany, the US,
and Turkey. Indeed, Turkey still holds some of Jerusalem’s most important artifacts
in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul.
The department was set up with ofces in Jerusalem, the Mandatory seat of gov-
ernment. Its rst director, John Garstang (g. 2), oversaw a staff of British, Jewish,
and Arab professionals based in Jerusalem but operating throughout the Mandate’s
territory. Inspection of both regional areas and Jerusalem was carried out by local
inspectors who submitted to the central archives in the capital reports of nds
and damage to antiquities due to the country’s rapid development. In this con-
text, we should also note other aspects of modern archaeological administration
introduced at this time. These were the outcome of the Antiquities Ordinance of
1929, which required citizens to coordinate work on archaeological sites with the
department in line with the requirements stipulated in the Mandatory document.
The ordinance required the documentation, scheduling, and registration of sites
and thus necessitated the involvement of the Antiquities Department in the plan-
ning process. These activities are still central to the function of the archaeological
3. League of Nations Mandatory document; see: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/
palmanda.htm.
Fig. 1. Ronald Storrs: British Military
Governor of Jerusalem in 1918 and founder
of the Pro-Jerusalem Society.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 127
administration of Israel. All such
matters are comprehensively
documented in the department’s
archives, together with detailed
descriptive and photographic re-
cords of every known site in Jeru-
salem and the rest of the country.
These records still form unique
testimony of the archaeological
sites and of the quality of the
GPDA’s management structure.
Based on the data collected, deci-
sions were made concerning the
necessity for a new entity in the
archaeological world—the sal-
vage excavation. During the years
of British rule, numerous salvage
digs were conducted, many of
them in Jerusalem.
The Antiquities Department
excavated under its own auspices,
through the schools of biblical
study and archaeology that grew
in the city, through foreign del-
egations, and through the newly
emerging academic institutions
of the Jewish community—the Hebrew University and the Jewish Exploration So-
ciety. A total of 140 excavations were conducted during the mandate. 4 Seventy-six
of these were executed by GPDA staff, using British archeologists—C. N. Johns, J.
Iliffe, R. Hamilton (g. 3) (who later served as director of the department)—and
local archaeologists—S. Husseini, N. Mahouli, and most notably D. Baramki, who
were trained by the GPDA. There was a growing pattern of increased responsibility
for archaeological research, in place of external institutions developed though the
mandatory period, a process that repeated itself in the period that followed the Six
Day War.
Many of the excavations consisted of salvage work following chance discoveries
of antiquities during development. Thus, numerous excavations of tombs became
a central aspect of the work of the GPDA. Notable excavations conducted on be-
half of the Department in the city were those of Johns at the Citadel (g. 4) and
at Gethsemane (Johns 1937 and 1950), the work at the YMCA by J. Iliffe (1934);
by R.W. Hamilton (1940) along the northern wall of the Old City, the approach to
4. All the statistical data for this paper have been collated by the author from the archives of
the Israel Antiquities Authority, from the records of excavation licenses granted to archaeologists
of all institutions by the Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Fig. 2. John Garstang: first Director of the
Department of Antiquities of the mandatory
Government of Palestine.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman128
Lion’s Gate (g. 5), at the Damascus Gate, and in the al-Aqsa Mosque (Hamilton
1949); by Baramki on the monasteries near the Third Wall (Baramki 1936), Ein
Hanniya (Baramki 1934), and in other areas within the city. The results of these
excavations were comprehensively published in the Department’s in-house jour-
nal—the Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, affectionately known
as QDAP.
This period was also marked by the deep involvement of the department in the
management of the holy sites. Close contacts were established between the depart-
ment and the Supreme Muslim Council (the Waqf), which was charged with reli-
gious and physical maintenance of the Temple Mount—Haram el-Sharif (Avni and
Seligman 2001: 11). This issue was especially acute due to the poor physical state
of the historic monuments on the site owing to continual neglect during the last
phase of the Ottoman rule. Inspectors working for the Department of Antiquities
had free access to almost every place on the Temple Mount, and they were allowed
to record, measure, and photograph its major monuments. Throughout the years of
British Mandate rule, documentation and surveys continued on the Temple Mount
Fig. 3. Robert Hamilton:
Director of the
Department of Antiquities.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 129
for preservation purposes, including that of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa
Mosque. These professional activities were recognized by the Waqf and promoted
good working relations between the functionaries on both sides. These professional
ties were maintained by the directors of the Department of Antiquities, who took
a personal active role in the documentation work. E. T. Richmond, who in 1927
would be appointed director of the Department of Antiquities, was an architect
who had worked previously on the preservation of Islamic monuments in Cairo.
Upon Storrs’s invitation, he conducted a detailed architectural survey of the crum-
bling Dome of the Rock; this survey was published in a magnicent volume in
1924 that provided the rst modern overview of the site, including analysis of
previous attempts to maintain the building (Richmond 1924). The attitude toward
preservation Richmond presented was both modern and extremely professional,
evincing a clear understanding that an edice like the Dome of the Rock is a living
structure, changing with time in order to continue its existence. Between 1938 and
Fig. 4. Cedric Johns’s
excavation of the Citadel.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman130
1942, Hamilton, the Director of Antiquities, documented the al-Aqsa Mosque and
conducted limited excavations in the building while extensive repairs were under-
way after the earthquake of 1927 (Hamilton 1949). These engineering-architectural
studies resulted from the need to report on the structural stability of the monu-
ments due the fear of collapse from weakened foundations. The swan-song of the
GDPA was also a document for the conservation of the Haram, prepared by A. H. S.
Megaw, the Director of the Department of Antiquities in Cyprus. The report, only
presented in 1952, formed the basis of the renovations conducted at the site by the
Jordanians beginning in the mid-1950s. 5
Similar involvement of the department was evident with regard to the Holy Sep-
ulchre. Again, it followed severe structural damage to the already neglected monu-
ment as a consequence of the earthquake of July 1927 and the inability of the
churches to reach an agreement concerning its repair. In contrast to the Temple
Mount, where much of the activity of the authorities consisted of inspection visits
and irregular meetings of the professional staff of the department and ofcials of
the Waqf, the involvement of these same ofcials in the matters of the church was
much more intensive. A joint professional committee of the Department of An-
tiquities and the Christian communities was established, and the Archaeological
Council was actively involved in professional issues concerning the church raised
during those meetings.
5. Unfortunately, the Megaw report was not published.
Fig. 5. A salvage excavation on the approach to the Lions Gate.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 131
Thus for example, the renovation and replacement of the dome of the Catholi-
con in the 1930s was funded jointly by the Mandatory government of Palestine and
the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, under the guidance of the Public Works Depart-
ment and the GPDA. The government appointed specialists in the elds of architec-
ture and engineering, led by W. Harvey, who also published their work in detailed
reports concerning the structural state of various elements of the church (Harvey
1935). The most important example of the cooperation between the Mandatory De-
partment of Antiquities and the heads of the Christian communities was the close
coordination when removing the highly decorative lintels of the Crusader period
from the entrance to the Holy Sepulchre for treatment and safe-keeping. This task
was conducted in 1929, with the assurance that the Mandatory authorities would
return the lintels to their original place after their consolidation and reversal of the
disintegration of the lintel’s decorative elements. Due to the precarious state of the
lintels, they remain in the Rockefeller Museum (g. 6) to this day; our own dealings
with the church authorities to replace them with replicas have not reached fruition.
Two Jerusalems—Two Antiquities Authorities
The excellent work of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities left a rm phys-
ical and professional foundation for the formation of similar departments in Jordan
and the newly established State of Israel. Furthermore, UN decisions prior to Israel’s
War of Independence had provided for an extraterritorial status for Jerusalem and
its antiquities. The Palestine Archaeological Museum, its contents, library, and ar-
chive were to be managed by an international committee, with the involvement of
both parties to the conflict. In reality, this never materialized. Jewish workers of the
previous Mandatory body were unable to access the building, and, similarly, Arab
workers abandoned their posts in areas now occupied by the new State of Israel.
The committee for the museum demanded that former Jewish employees of the
Fig. 6. The Palestine
Archaeological Museum or
Rockefeller Museum, home
of the Department of
Antiquities and today the
headquarters of the Israel
Antiquities Authority.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman132
GPDA return books and other items to the museum, while Israel insisted that their
scholars should have copies of the archives and that committee meetings be held at
a neutral location (Kletter 2006: 182, 185–86). This stalemate and Jordanian suspi-
cion of a foreign-controlled institution in its midst reached its zenith in 1966 with
the disbanding of the International Committee for the management of the Pales-
tine Museum and the nationalization of the collection by the Hashemite Kingdom
(Kletter 2006: 190–92). Inadvertently, this action allowed the Israel Department of
Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) to take the ofces of the museum for their own
only one year later, an action that I doubt Israel would have taken without the
unilateral decision of Jordan.
In East Jerusalem, the Jordanians managed the antiquities of the city through Y.
Saʾad, who had ofces in the Rockefeller Museum as its keeper, working under Di-
rector Lancaster-Harding, who was based in Amman. The 19 years of Jordanian rule
were marked by low levels of activity by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities.
Except for a single small excavation conducted in 1951 by A. Dajani in Qalandia in
north Jerusalem, salvage excavations at the time were not conducted by the staff
of the department but were offered instead to archaeologists of the British School
of Archaeology. Thus, a series of projects were conducted under the auspices and
directorship of K. Kenyon—the Muristan, Armenian Garden, Nablus Road (below
the ofces of what is today the Ministry of Justice), the Ophel—and in Silwan—the
City of David (Kenyon 1967, Prag 1995, Tushingham 1985).
During this era, the cooperation between the Jordanian Department of Antiq-
uities and the Waqf began to deteriorate. This is best exemplied by a seemingly
small incident in 1953, when documentation was required following the collapse
of part of the mosaic covering the walls of the Dome of the Rock. Responding to
Prof. K. A. C. Creswell’s request to erect scaffolding so that the mosaics could be
examined, Lancaster-Harding observed: “By the law I have no control over any reli-
gious buildings which are actually in use, but I might be able to pull a few strings.”
Saʿad’s attempt to facilitate this intervention was met with a curt reply: The Waqf
refused the request, explaining that it was unwilling for worshipers to be disturbed
by photography (Avni and Seligman 2001: 22). Indeed, personal discussion of the
issue with archaeologists active in Jerusalem at the time points to a withdrawal of
the involvement of Jordan’s Department of Antiquities in the management of the
holy sites and to a decrease of their activity in the city in general.
The armistice agreement of 1949 had left Israel in control of the western suburbs
of Jerusalem but disconnected from the city’s major archaeological sites. Still, in
April 1950, Jerusalem was allotted an antiquities guard, who had the status of a
police ofcer, by the newly formed but under-resourced Israel Department of An-
tiquities and Museums (IDAM), which was directed by one of archaeology’s unsung
heroes, S. Yeivin (Kletter 2006: 124). In 1953, there were two guards, one at the
Tombs of the Sanhedrin and another with general responsibility for the city’s sites
(Kletter 2006: 128). The unit of guards would develop in later years into the mo-
bile inspection system operated today. During the initial period, the archaeological
inspection of the city was managed by M. Avi-Yonah (g. 7), who also excavated
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 133
the remains of a monastery at Binyanei Haʾuma, the Jerusalem International Con-
vention Center (Avi- Yonah 1949), after they had been damaged by the contractor
at the site. The policy of salvage excavations that developed during this period
functioned according to the same basic principles still in use today. Certainly, the
policy of funding, whereby IDAM paid for the costs of everything but labor, must
have been a factor that limited the possibility of conducting archaeological work.
Several cases are recorded in which antiquities were destroyed due to the lack of
excavation due to budgetary limitations. This would change drastically with the
founding of the IAA.
Although Jerusalem underwent massive development to the west during these
years, only 88 excavations were conducted from 1949 to 1967, 60 of these by
IDAM’s over-stretched staff. R. Amiran, who by 1951 had replaced Avi-Yonah and
was given the title and post of Inspector of Antiquities for the Jerusalem Region,
investigated the stone heaps in Kiryat Menachem (Amiran 1958) and tombs at Har
Hamenuchot (Amiran 1951). The so-called “Tombs of the Sanhedrin” (g. 8) were
excavated by E. Ben-Dor and J. Rothschild (1952) and preserved by the conserva-
tion team under A. Hiram. In 1956, the Tomb of Jason in Rehavia was uncovered
by L. Yizhak Rahmani (1967) This case proved to be one of the few occasions in
which IDAM insisted on expropriating a site from the legal owners in order to pre-
serve it. Rahmani, Ben Dor, Y. Landau, O. Negbi, and others also researched dozens
Fig. 7. Michael Avi Yonah,
first Israeli inspector of
antiquities in Jerusalem.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman134
Fig. 8. The “Tombs of the Sanhedrin”: the major Jerusalem project of IDAM between 1948 and
1967.
Fig. 9. ʿAtiqot. Fig. 10. The Survey of Jerusalem.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 135
of tombs inadvertently exposed during construction. Mount Zion, the only area
of the Old City under Israeli control, became a military area, with archaeological
activity limited to a small excavation conducted by J. Pinkerfeld in 1949 (1960).
Publication would become a major pitfall of IDAM’s archaeological work. Exca-
vations were to be published in ʿAtiqot, IDAM’s new publication (g. 9). But exca-
vation processing was slow, with budgets directed primarily to digging. By 1967,
IDAM had only managed to publish 11 slim volumes of its journal.
Another feature of IDAM’s work was the use of unemployed laborers in archaeo-
logical excavations as relief work. While this was a major feature of excavations
outside the capital, especially in Caesarea, Hazor, and elsewhere, Jerusalem was al-
lotted six laborers for permanent work in the city (Kletter 2006: 144). What exactly
these workers did is not clear. As a system of employment used by IDAM and later
the IAA, this would remain one of the only ways that archaeology could nd state
sponsorship for the salaries of otherwise unfunded workers and a certain way to
reduce unemployment numbers prior to elections!
The Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums (IDAM) and
the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA): 1967–2006.
Shortly after the Six Day War, Israeli law was imposed on all of Jerusalem. Israeli
antiquity law was quickly enacted, and by August 1967, Jerusalem was declared part
of an antiquities site encompassing the entire Old City and its surroundings. 6
The activity of the archaeological authorities went through various stages of de-
velopment, depending on resources available and upon the emphases placed by
Directors of the IDAM and later the IAA and by the Jerusalem District or Regional
Archaeologist who occupied that position.
Following 1967 Jerusalem underwent vigorous growth, expanding into previ-
ously untouched natural areas that surrounded the city. The immediate threat to
the archaeological landscape and sites was evident. The Jerusalem District archae-
ologists —J. Naveh, A. Kloner, and D. Bahat—accompanied the planning, changing
plans to preserve antiquity sites and calling for the execution of salvage excavation
prior to development. From 1967 to 1979, excavation numbers exploded, with 150
such ventures in the city and an additional 95 excavations, until the dissolution of
IDAM in 1990.
As part of a national systematic archaeological survey conducted by a sub-agency
of IDAM, Jerusalem was given preference due to the immediate threat of loss of
vital archaeological data in the periphery of the ancient city (g. 10). A number of
teams covered every meter of the city and its surroundings under the leadership of
the Jerusalem District Archaeologist, Kloner (2000, 2001, and 2003). The results of
this survey are three important volumes that document 900 sites outside the walls
of the Old City, both signicant and insignicant, small and large, providing criti-
cal information on the archaeology of Jerusalem prior to the destruction of many
of those sites that resulted from development.
6. The Old City of Jerusalem and its surrounding were declared antiquities sites within the
provision of the Antiquities Ordinance in the Ofcial Gazette number 1390 on August 31, 1967.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman136
In the Old City, IDAM became involved in the huge national project to rebuild
the Jewish Quarter. In keeping with attitudes current in Israel at that time, IDAM
dealt only with aspects concerning underground remains. The preservation and
documentation of ruins and standing monuments were unfortunately left exclu-
sively to the responsibility and good will of the Jewish Quarter Development Com-
pany, the government agency entrusted with the rehabilitation of the site. Still,
the opportunity to investigate remains under the houses presented itself, and Prof.
N. Avigad was given the task of directing the huge, unprecedented excavations for
the Hebrew University, in association with IDAM, prior to the rebuilding of the
Jewish Quarter (g. 11) (Avigad 1980). The important results of this excavation
were greatly supplemented by those of a second joint project of the Hebrew Univer-
sity and IDAM. These excavations, led by B. Mazar, concentrated on the exposure
of remains southwest of the Temple Mount and in the Ophel area. Huge expanses
of remnants of the Second Temple, Byzantine, and Umayyad periods were exposed
(Ben-Dov 1982). Further work within the walls included excavations at the Citadel
Fig. 11. Excavation of
the Broad Wall In the
Jewish Quarter.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 137
conducted by R. Amiran, A. Eitan, and H. Gevʿa; D. Bahat in the Armenian Garden;
and M. Magen below the Damascus Gate.
Many salvage excavations were carried out in the area surrounding the Old City:
Magen Broshi to the west of the Old City; tombs on Mount Scopus, Givat HaMivtar,
French Hill, and elsewhere by V. Tzaferis (g. 12), A. Kloner, and others; the Third
Wall by S. Ben-Arieh and E. Netzer; and further aeld A. Kloner, Y. Gath, G. Edel-
stein, G. Mazor, and many others investigated the neighborhoods of Ramot, East
Talpiyot, Har Nof, Gilo, etc. 7
During this period, the Ministry of Religious Affairs exploited the status of the
Western Wall as a religious site—thus beyond the direct jurisdiction of the Law of
Antiquities—to conduct uncontrolled diggings along the Western Wall. After years
of conflict over this issue, archaeological control was established by Director A. Ei-
tan, and the Jerusalem District Archaeologist, D. Bahat, was given stewardship of
the work. The excavation, which has been conducted intermittently ever since, has
provided insights to this area of the city, especially to the numerous Mamluk build-
ings that overlie the tunnel and aspects of the construction of the Western Wall.
Underground work along the western limit of the Temple Mount, given its sensitive
7. Most of these excavations were detailed in the volumes of ʿAtiqot and Hadashot Archaeologi-
yot and can all be found through the on-line library search of the IAA.
Fig. 12. Excavation of the “Abba” Tomb in Givat HaMivtar.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman138
nature, has aroused much criticism. The
IDAM and later IAA have repeatedly been
sucked into the vortex of the political-re-
ligious conflict over this area, usually not
to the benet of archaeology.
The Temple Mount—Haram el-Sharif
Immediately after the 1967 war, special
arrangements were made for the adminis-
tration of the Temple Mount area (g. 13)
(Avni and Seligman 2001: 24). Accord-
ing to the instructions of then Defense
Minister M. Dayan, the Waqf was granted
full civilian authority over the enclosure,
whereas the Israel Police was made re-
sponsible for its security. Following the
model of the Mandatory Antiquities Or-
dinance, the Israeli Antiquities Law pro-
vided the IDAM and the IAA with only
limited authority over religious sites.
For the rst 20 years of Israeli rule in
east Jerusalem, IDAM maintained regular
contacts with the Waqf in all matters con-
cerning the Temple Mount. From time to
time, departmental inspectors would visit the mount, sometimes accompanied by
police ofcers or government representatives. During this period, especially from
the mid-1980s onward, informal relationships were established between IDAM rep-
resentatives and the professional staff of the Waqf, mainly engineers and architects
responsible on behalf of the Waqf for the development and maintenance work on
the platform. These relationships consisted primarily of occasional meetings of in-
dividuals during which views and opinions were presented regarding various issues
concerning activities on top of and surrounding the Temple Mount. At the same
time, the Waqf consistently declined ofcially to inform Israeli authorities of their
plans for construction and development on the Temple Mount.
On occasion, mainly when the Waqf was engaged in construction or earth-
moving operations on the Mount, questions concerning archaeological supervi-
sion and prevention of damage to antiquities arose; these questions frequently had
to be settled at the political and legal level. From 1988 on, the legal situation on
the Mount changed following an appeal brought before the Israel Supreme Court
by the Temple Mount Faithful movement and in light of the directives issued by
the attorney general, whose ofce reviewed the authority and the modus operandi
of government agencies in relation to works on the mount. In accordance with
these directives, IDAM, and later the IAA, conducted regular inspection tours on
the Temple Mount, monitoring work of various types—construction, development,
Fig. 13. A booklet describing the history
of archaeological inspection on the Temple
Mount / Haram al-Sharif.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 139
and conservation ––and submitted reports of those inspections to the attorney
general.
The Israel Antiquities Authority
In 1989, General (res.) Amir Drori (g. 14) was appointed to revive the weak
and inefcient IDAM. He accepted the position on the condition that he would be
able to transform the IDAM into an independent government authority, outside
the direct control of the Ministry of Education and Culture. In April 1990, the Is-
rael Antiquities Authority was established. The nature of archaeological inspection
changed, as did the intensity of demands by the IAA for salvage excavation before
development. The new, dynamic IAA would become involved in long-term excava-
tions of major sites and established a large conservation unit for the preservation
of nds.
In Jerusalem, G. Avni was given the task of building the new Jerusalem Region,
which consisted of the city of Jerusalem and the area to its west. Over the past 16
years the department has developed into a dynamic entity with around 40 staff
members, divided into areas of responsibility: West Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, the
Old City, and the Judean Hills within the Green Line. All plans for building and
infrastructure undergo inspection and impact surveys are composed; development
surveys are conducted in areas that are not known in full detail; watching briefs
are performed day and night; systematic inspections or even policing of the sites
are carried out; cases are brought against violators of the Antiquities Law; con-
tacts with a myriad of governmental, municipal, public, religious, and private bod-
ies are maintained; salvage excavations and their publication, mainly in the IAA’s
Fig. 14. Amir Drori, founder of the IAA, in his office in the Rockefeller Museum.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman140
journals, are conducted; the youth of the city is being instructed in various aspects
of archaeology by the education unit.
Without going into too much detail, I would like to concentrate on a number
of areas of activity that characterize the years of IAA work in Jerusalem. In 1994,
the IAA formed a coalition of organizations to sponsor the redevelopment of the
archaeological area excavated by B. Mazar to the south of the Temple Mount. Is-
rael had been rightly criticized for the neglect of spectacular nds that had been
uncovered to the chagrin of the diplomatic world after 1967. The IAA pushed for
the presentation of the new Jerusalem Archaeological Park, generating both public
and private funds for the work. A decision was made to reopen excavation at the
site under the directorship of R. Reich, Y. Billig, and Y. Baruch, to make the site
comphrehensible to the general public. The team opened up squares along the so-
called “Herodian Street” and exposed the area between the eastern Cardo and the
Umayyad palaces. As anyone who has visited Jerusalem over the past ve or so years
can validate, the archaeological park and the associated Davidson visitors center are
a valuable addition to the city. For the IAA, this venture, as well as others around
the country, formed the foundation for proper conservation work and pushed the
IAA into the eld of site development. The growth of the conservation department
from a single architect in the last years of IDAM’s existence into a large department
including architects, engineers, planners, and conservation specialists of mosaics,
frescos, metal, the Dead Sea Scrolls, pottery, etc., constitutes in my view one of the
major achievements of the IAA.
In fact, the Archaeological Park formed part of the larger so-called “King’s Valley
Project,” which envisioned changes and improvement of many of the sites around
Fig. 15. Graph showing organizational auspices of excavations in Jerusalem.
GPDA Government of Palestine, Department of Anquities
IDAM Israel Department of Antiquities
JDA Jordan Department of Antiquities
IAA Israel Antiquities Authority
non DA excavations conducted by other organizations
non JDA excavations conducted by other organizations under Jordan
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 141
the Old City. In this context, much effort has been invested in continued excava-
tions in the City of David by R. Reich and E. Shukron. The results of their work at
the Gihon Spring and the various elements of the water system, including the re-
cently uncovered section of the Siloam Pool, form central threads of the IAA’s work
in Jerusalem.
The contributions of the activities conducted by the IAA and their signicance
for our knowledge regarding the archaeology of the city can also be expressed in
numbers. Between 1967 and 1990, some 244 excavations were conducted in Jeru-
salem, while between 1990 and 2006, 455 salvage digs were undertaken (g. 15).
This is not the result of overly zealous activity but of a policy change concerning
the intensity of inspection and the funding of archaeological activity, which now
requires the developer to meet the costs of excavation. Because excavation is no
longer limited to modest budgets earmarked by the government, sites can be fully
excavated prior to development activities. While this change is viewed positively
by the archaeological community, it has received strong public, political, and legal
criticism, and the status of budgeting for salvage archaeology is a subject that is still
requires resolution.
A brief review of some of the more important excavation projects exemplies
this change (g. 16). Following is a list of the more notable projects conducted by
the IAA:
Fig. 16. Collage of IAA Excavations.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman142
• the excavations of tombs, a bathhouse, an aqueduct, and the Ayyubid city
wall in the area west of the Jaffa Gate into Mamilla—A. Maeir, R.Reich and
E.Shukron
• the Third Wall, Greek and Armenian Byzantine Monasteries—A. Onn,
D.Amit, N. Feig, V. Tzaferis
• farmhouses, monasteries, an abandoned Mamluk village, EBIV tombs,
agricultural installations at Pisgat Zeʾev—R. Avner, J Seligman, J. Nadelman,
Shukron
• a stoneware factory and monastery at Mount Scopus—D. Amit and
J. Seligman
• a tomb of the Caiphas family and a huge burial complex at
Akeldama—Z.Greenhut and G. Avni
• a Roman villa at Ein Yael—G. Edelstein
• Middle Bronze Age village at Malha—G. Edelstein and I. Milevski
• Middle Bronze Age village at Emek Rephaim— E. Eisenburg
• the octagonal church of the Kathisma—R. Avner (g. 17)
• a Crusader fresco from the abbey of Gethsemane— J. Seligman
• the Bezietha neighborhood near Herod’s Gate—G. Avni and Y. Baruch
• a Roman villa and agricultural installations at Shu‘afat— A. Onn
• the Lower Aqueduct— Y. Billig
• Alona— S. Weksler
• kilns of the 10th Roman Legion at Binyanei Haʾuma— H. Goldfus and
B. Arubas
• excavations within the Holy Sepulchre—G. Avni and J. Seligman
• the Mamluk bathhouse of Daraj el-Ain at Ohel Yizhak in the Old City—
H. Barbe and T. Daʿadleh
• a second-century CE village along the Ramallah Road— D. Skalar and R. Bar-
Nathan
• tombs and a farmhouse at Tel el-Ful—S. Gibson, and so on. 8
With regard to the increase in eldwork, a change is discernible in publication
activity in the form of a signicant increase in quantity and quality of the journal
ʿAtiqot and the IAA monograph series, including many of the excavations noted
just above (g. 18). Nevertheless, many of the major excavations conducted by the
IAA in Jerusalem since 1990 have yet to be published; it is hoped that this will be
rectied in the coming years.
A description of these activities would not be complete without a brief reference
to the work conducted on the Temple Mount, especially with regard to construc-
tion work (Avni and Seligman 2001: 27–29). Initially, the good, informal contacts
between the IAA and the professional staff of the Waqf were maintained. During
the course of meetings in the early 1990s the Waqf staff gave IAA representatives
advance notice of planned activities, such as extensive repairs to the Dome of the
Rock and the preparations of the underground vaults in “Solomon’s Stables” for
visitors and worshipers. The IAA representatives, for their part, showed the Waqf
8. These excavations are mostly published in preliminary form in Hadashot Archaeologiyot and
as nal reports in ʿAtiqot and can all be found through the on-line library search of the IAA (http://
libantiquities.exlibris.co.il/F).
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 143
staff their plans for excavation south of the Temple Mount and for developing the
area for tourism. The situation changed drastically in the autumn of 1996, with the
active entry of the radical Islamic movement of northern Israel into development
projects and work to prepare “Solomon’s Stable” for worship. Their operations,
many in violation of accepted conservation practice for the treatment of historical
monuments, were often behind the back of the professional staff of the Waqf, who
had in fact been barred at some points from entry to the site of work. During these
years, the IAA’s ability to inspect the site and to conduct informal discussion with
the Waqf was severely curtailed.
From 1998 to 2000, further work was carried out in the ancient underground
passages and vaults beneath the southern part of the Temple Mount. Those activi-
ties reached their zenith toward the end of 1999, when a monumental staircase
and entrance was excavated leading down into “Solomon’s Stables.” During the
process, a tremendous pit was dug with heavy mechanical machinery without any
archaeological supervision, causing major irrevocable changes to the site. This act
completely contravened internationally recognized conservation standards. Since
Fig. 17. The Cathisma Church during excavation.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman144
2000, direct contact between the Waqf
and IAA has been very limited. Reports
on the events occurring inside the com-
plex are communicated to the IAA by the
police, who in turn are advised on mat-
ters of conservation and excavation by
the IAA. The work of the IAA and the Is-
raeli authorities has been the subject of
considerable criticism, with some critics
demanding a more active response.
Over the last few years, great empha-
sis has been placed on archaeological
planning activities, and in this context
Jerusalem has taken center stage. The re-
actions of IDAM and the IAA with regard
to planning and development have been
responsive to proposed developments as
a consequence of clause 29 of the Law of
Antiquities, which states.
A person shall not carry out, or allow to be
carried out, any of the following on an antiquity site, save with the written approval
of the Director and in accordance with the conditions thereof—building, paving, the
erection of installations, quarrying, mining, drilling, flooding, the clearing away of
stones, ploughing, planting, or interment, the dumping of earth, manure, waste or
refuse, including the dumping thereof on adjoining property, any alteration, repair
or addition to an antiquity located on the site etc. etc. and any other operation desig-
nated by the Director in respect of a particular site.
Surprisingly, in spite of this all-encompassing, even draconian law, this clause of-
ten places the IAA in a defensive position, because the statutory consultation is
frequently applied late in the planning process. Modication of a nalized plan
is more difcult than influencing its creation. It was decided, in keeping with the
world-wide change in the elds of archaeological management, that a pro-active
approach should be adopted instead. This coincided with the formulation of a se-
ries of master plans for the Jerusalem region and the city itself. Rather than being
outside the planning process, the IAA would now be apart of it, integrating archae-
ology into the planning process. For the Jerusalem City Master Plan, 120 “special
sites” located outside the city walls were included in the main plan for full integra-
tion within the city. The plan also formulated a policy for the protection of the
visual basin surrounding the Old City and set the principles upon which a master
plan for the Old City could be created.
After the initial enthusiasm for the Old City after the Six Day War, the state lost
interest and many areas of the Old City were neglected, with minimal services
and municipal control. IDAM had not been active in aspects concerning the pres-
ervation of the historic city and concentrated on archaeology per se. This attitude
changed during the 1990s when the IAA took part in strategic planning, initially
Fig. 18. Excavations and Surveys in Israel.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

The Departments of Antiquities and the Israel Antiquities Authority 145
limited to the Old City. To date, two out of three phases have been completed, with
a plan now awaiting approval by the District Planning Commission. As part of the
process, the IAA has set up a eld ofce in the Old City, staffed by an archaeologist,
a conservator, and an architect, with the goal of working on the complex physi-
cal problems within the Old City in conjunction with the municipality’s planning
department. It will be the responsibility of the IAA to ensure that archaeological
and conservation work in the Old City are part of a partnership with the residents
in the future.
Conclusion
How do we envision future work in Jerusalem––that is, as long as the political
situation remains unchanged? The IAA should be constantly involved in and con-
cerned about improving the quality of excavation and in ensuring the publication
of all nds. Over the past 20 years, the IAA has acquired a virtual monopoly over
archaeological activities within the city, excavating 455 of 521 sites since its incep-
tion. This unbalanced and unhealthy situation has to change. Other Israeli and
foreign institutions, as well as the Jerusalem-based schools of archaeology should
once again become more involved. Unfortunately, no Palestinians have excavated
in Jerusalem since Hussein and Baramki during Mandatory times, with the notable
exception of Yusuf Natsheh’s (2001) signicant documentation of Ottoman monu-
ments in the Old City.
It is important to include all inhabitants of the city in the exploration of its
antiquities. Equally important to current research and excavation is the formula-
tion of a policy regarding the cultural legacy we will leave to future generations.
The more than 1,200 excavations over a period of 150 years within such a small
area suggest that, soon, all remaining heritage may be exhausted. One has to make
a deliberate choice not only about what to explore now but also what to leave to
future generations who will hopefully employ less destructive techniques. Further-
more, the IAA must move more activity into the eld of preservation of the built
heritage of Jerusalem, both as clearly dened by the limits of the Law of Antiquities
in and around the Old City but also beyond that in the myriad neighborhoods of
the eternal city.
References
Ashbee, C. R.
1921 Jerusalem 1918–20:Being the Records of the Pro-Jerusalem Council during the Period of
the British Military Administration. London: Murray.
Amiran, R.
1951 Short Report on the Excavations at Kh. Ras el-ʿAlawi (near Jerusalem). Bulletin of
the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel 3: 43–44. [Hebrew]
1958 The Tumuli West of Jerusalem:Survey and Excavations, 1953. IEJ 8: 207– 27.
Avi-Yonah, M.
1949 Excavations at Sheikh Bader. Bulletin of the Palestine Exploration Society 15/1–2:
19–24.
Avigad, N.
1980 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville: Nelson.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Jon Seligman146
Avni, G., and Seligman, J.
2001 The Temple Mount 1917–2001: Documentation, Research and Inspection of Antiquities.
Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Baramki, D. C.
1934 An Early Christian Basilica at ʿEin Hanniya. QDAP 3: 113–17.
1936 A small monastery and Chapel outside the ‘Third Wall.’ QDAP 5: 56–58.
Rothschild, J.J.
1952 The tombs of Sanhedria. PEQ 84: 25–38.
Ben-Dov, M.
1982 In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem. New York: Harper
and Row.
Hamilton, R. W.
1940 Excavations against the North Wall of Jerusalem, 1937–38. QDAP 10: 1–54.
1949 The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque:A Record of Archaeological Gleanings from
the Repairs of 1938–1942. Jerusalem: Department of Antiquities of Palestine.
Harvey, W.
1935 Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem: Structural Survey. Final Report. Jerusalem.
(No. publisher; this is a hand-typed report)
Iliffe, J. H.
1934 Cemeteries and a ‘Monastery’ at the Y.M.C.A., Jerusalem: c. 3rd and 6th centuries
a.d. QDAP 4: 70–80.
1937 The Abbey of St. Mary in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, Jerusalem. QDAP 8: 117–36.
Johns, C. N.
1950 The Citadel, Jerusalem: A Summary of Work since 1934. QDAP 14: 121–90.
Kletter, R.
2006 Just Past? the Making of Israeli Archaeology. London: Equinox.
Kloner, A.
2000 Survey of Jerusalem. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
2001 Survey of Jerusalem. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
2003 Survey of Jerusalem. Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Kenyon, K. M.
1967 Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 years of History. London: Thames and Hudson.
Natsheh, Y.
2000 The Architecture of Ottoman Jerusalem. In Ottoman Jerusalem: The Living City –
1517–1917, Volume 2, ed. S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand. London: The British School
of Archaeology in Jerusalem by Altajir World of Islam Trust.
Pinkerfeld, J.
1960 “David’s Tomb”: Notes on the History of the Building. Bulletin of the Louis Rabinow-
itz Fund for the Exploration of Ancient Synagogues 3: 41–43.
Prag, K.
1995 Two Cemetery Plans for East Jerusalem. Pp. 249–52 in Excavations by K. M. Kenyon
in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. IV: The Iron Age Cave Deposits on the South-East Hill and
Isolated Burials and Cemeteries Elsewhere, ed. I. Eshel and K. Prag. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Rachmani, L. Y.
1967 Jason’s Tomb. IEJ 17: 61–113.
Richmond, E. T.
1924 The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem: A Description of Its Structure and Decoration. Ox-
ford: Clarendon.
Tushingham, A. D.
1985 Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusalem 1961–1967, Vol. 1: Excavations in the Arme-
nian Garden on the Western Hill. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.
Oprint from:
Katharina Galor and Gideon Avni, eds.,
Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City
ç Copyright 2011 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.