the preservation and exhibition of christian church sites

147Vol. XLVII 2012

The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel

* Graduate Student, Graduate School of Letters, Keio University

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 land of Israel from ancient times. Thus, preservation

works and public exhibitions of archaeological sites have concentrated on

Jewish history 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

ORIENT148

I. Introduction

In Israel, quite a number of archaeological sites have been unearthed over theyears by planned excavations as well as by salvage excavations carried outbefore new construction. In addition, the sites are restored and preserved to passon the national legacy and to develop it for public exhibition. This is not onlyowing 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 educationalbenefits that can accrue from the archaeological and historical heritage ofancient 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 usedarchaeology as means of generating a common cultural and historicalbackground for the new citizens who emigrated from all over the world (Glock1985; Elon 1997; Rosen 1998; Shavit 1997). It is worth considering howconservation works have been done and how archaeological remains aredisplayed to the public at sites in such a region, in order to portray a new aspectof the social impact of archaeology and heritage. The public’s shared perceptionof the past obtained through visits to archaeological sites is mostly outlined bythe authority’s choices: which sites are selected, which structures are preserved,and which interpretations of the sites are shared through informationalbrochures, signposts, and even tourist guides (Silberman 1997, 63).

Scholars frequently discuss the preservation of archaeological sites in Israelwithin various disciplines such as archaeology, tourism studies, heritage studies(cultural resource management), and even urban planning. It has been statedthat certain trends can be identified in the selection of sites for conservation andpresentation in Israel (Silberman 1997; Killebrew 1999, 2011; Bauman 1995,2004). Killebrew divides sites that are preserved in Israeli national parks intothree categories: ancient synagogues such as Beit Alfa synagogue, biblical sitessuch as Jerusalem 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 theNegev, or the Roman-Byzantine cities of Beit She’an and Caesarea. She arguesthat preserving archaeological sites promotes the creation of a commondenominator for all newcomers and a feeling of historical continuation(Killebrew 1999, 19). Bauman and Silberman stress that heritage tourism forboth Israeli people and foreigners contributes to economic development in thecountry: they point out that immediately after the founding of the nation therewas a trend to develop historical sites related to Christianity since Christianpilgrims are a source of economic benefits (Bauman 1995; Silberman 1997). Asa function of tourism, Bauman notes that heritage sites have contributed to the

149Vol. XLVII 2012


“design to make the Jewish homeland visible as well as a mechanism oflandscape transformation” (Bauman 2004, 208-210).

On the other hand, there have been few studies on heritage management ofthe Jewish religious sites related to the Old Testament, the Talmud, or eminentrabbis in the Rabbi Judaism. Starting in 1948, the director general of the IsraeliMinistry of Religious Affairs, Shmuel Zanwil Kahana, actively regenerated anddeveloped Jewish sacred sites inside Israeli territory, some of which had notbeen popular with the Jewish pilgrims (Bar 2004, Bar 2008). He did this partlybecause numerous Jewish sacred sites are located in the region that theJordanian kingdom had ruled after 19481 and so could not longer be easilyvisited. Another reason is that the ministry was concerned that a new type ofsacred place emphasizing mostly ethnic aspects such as Jewish heroism andmartyrdom was being given more importance than the sites of traditional Jewishreligiousness (Bar 2008, 3-4).

It is, however, still unclear how non-Jewish sites or historical sites fromtraditions that do not fit nicely into the perceived idea of the modern state ofIsrael have been preserved, restored, and presented to the public. This paper willconsider heritage management by analyzing ancient church sites that aremanaged by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority (INPA) and by the FranciscanOrder in Israel as examples. These two agencies are worth studying, since theINPA is the governmental organization that administers historical and naturalassets at the national parks and nature reserves across the country, while theFranciscan Order, members of the Roman Catholic religious order, have longprotected and maintained church sites and other archaeological remains relatingto Christianity. In other words, while the INPA policy represents thegovernment’s approach to the non-Jewish sites, the archaeological sites that theFranciscan Order have preserved and maintained reflect their own policies onpreserving the ruins of ancient churches.

II. Background

1. Excavation of Church Sites in Israel

During the British Mandate period, the British government conducted morescientific and systematic archaeological surveys than had ever before beencarried out (Glock 1994; Kersel 2006). In the early stages of the regime, theDepartment of Antiquity of the British Mandate was in charge of excavating,recording, and preserving the ancient remains of the country. By the end of theMandate, 3780 antiquity sites had been registered (Glock 1995, 50; Killebrew1999, 18). European and American institutes were also successively established,

ORIENT150

such as École Biblique et Archéologique Française (1890; the French Biblicaland 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 ofArchaeology in Jerusalem (1919), and Studium Biblicum Franciscanum ofJerusalem (1924; the Franciscan Biblical School).

So far, a variety of institutes have conducted surveys and excavations ofover four hundred ancient churches.2 There are two important observationsconcerning the history of these excavations. Firstly, the 1930s and the 1950sthrough the 1960s were very active periods for surveys of ancientchurches (Okada 2009, 142).3 During the 1930s, in addition to the foreigninstitutes mentioned above, the Department of Antiquity of the British Mandateeagerly worked all over the country. In contrast, there were few surveysconducted during the 1940s since the internal situation was unstable owing toconflicts among the Palestinians, Arabs, and Zionists that accompanied the birthof the new Israeli state. In the 1950s and 1960s, the foreign institutions resumedtheir archaeological surveys again; the government also launched into actionacross the country to salvage excavations, since the young nation needed todevelop its infrastructures and a basis of human science. In particular, the IsraelDepartment of Antiquity,4 established in 1948 under the Ministry of Labor andConstruction and later the Ministry of Education and Culture in 1955, took theinitiative to manage archaeological surveys all around Israel. Secondly, oneshould observed that the Franciscan Order is significant in terms of thearchaeological 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 N

umber of E

xcavations

151Vol. XLVII 2012


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 kibbutz (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 Jewish National Fund, 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

ORIENT152

diversity, the NPA mainly developed and administered parks that containedhistorical, archaeological, architectural, and natural assets designated for theeducational and recreational use of citizens and tourists. In 1998, the twoauthorities were merged to form the National Parks and Nature ReservesProtection Authority, which in 2009 was renamed the Israel Nature and ParksAuthority.

The INPA manages forty-three national parks and twenty-two naturereserves that are open to the public.8 These national parks and nature reservesinclude archaeological and historical national parks, nature and landscapenational parks and nature reserves, sites of national significance, parks orreserves combining archaeology with outstanding views, protected beaches, andwater resources. Thus, the Israel national parks and nature reserves plays anessential 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 thirteenthcentury (Custody of the Holy Land 1981, 10). They built or reconstructedchurches on the sites that were directly related to the New Testament (Meyers1997, 432-434). They began their archaeological activities as part of their dutyto pass on the Christian beliefs and missions of ancient times. They startedinvestigating and protecting holy sites, mostly those mentioned in the Bible.During the process of cleaning and reconstructing ancient churches, they cameacross archaeological remains and structures. The Franciscans began full-dressexcavations in the late nineteenth century, after the discovery of an ecclesialstructure with a beautiful mosaic floor in Bethlehem (Custody of the Holy Land1981, 75). In 1924, the Studium Biblicum Franciscaum (SBF) was established,which aimed to “specialize in the study of the Christian presence in the HolyLand witness in the Sanctuaries of the Late-Roman, Byzantine, and Crusaderperiod.”10 Father V. Corbo, B. Baggatti, and M. Piccirillo led archaeologicalresearch around Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and Israel; the SBF hascarried out archaeological research at more than 20 percent of all the churchsites in Israel (Okada 2009, 44). They also preserve, restore, and exhibit theirarchaeological finds for the public. For instance, in Capernaum, one of the mostpopular spots for Christian pilgrims, there is an exhibition of the ancientchurches commemorating St. Peter, which explains the transformation from aproto-type house church (domus-ecclesia) to a basilica (White 1990, 11-25;Piccirillo 2000, 52).

153Vol. XLVII 2012


III. Analysis

The purpose of this paper is to clarify how the non-Jewish heritage has beenconserved, restored and presented to the public in Israel. In order to do this, thischapter describes that the INPA and the Franciscan Order have carried out thepreservation, restoration and exhibition of ancient church sites.11 This paperemploys the following approach to clarify the difference between their policiesof heritage management of ancient churches.

1. Object of Study

In this article, two types ofsites are looked at: thechurch sites located inIsraeli national parks andnature reserves, and thosein the Franciscan facilities.The location of eachchurch site is shown infigure 1. Israel nationalparks and nature reserveswith church sites include①Hermon Stream NatureReserve (Banias); ②Gamla Nature Reserve; ③Kursi National Park; ④Zippori National Park; ⑤Beit She’an National Park;⑥ Beit She’arim NationalPark; ⑦ Caesarea NationalPark; ⑧Herodion NationalPark; ⑨Ashkelon NationalPark; ⑩ Beit Guvrin andTel Maresha NationalPark; ⑪Masada NationalPark; ⑫Mamshit National

Park; ⑬ Shivta National Park; and ⑭Avdat National Park.12 Those of theFranciscan 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;

Fig. 1 Church Site Locations

ORIENT154

[4] Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem;15 and [5] Church of the Nativityin 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 locatedseparately inside one national park, they are counted as “three.” This articledeals with twenty-three church sites from fourteen national parks and naturereserves. However, I count the number of church sites maintained by theFranciscan Order differently. Owing to religious tradition, Christian people tendto construct new churches immediately above holy places and ancient ecclesia.Therefore, each of the Franciscan facilities includes the remains of more thanone ancient church beneath it, and those multilayered remains are counted assingular in this analysis.

2. Method

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

3. Result 1: Church Sites in Israeli National Parks (table 2)

(1) Preservation: Among the twenty-three church sites, the circular church in ⑤Beit She’an has not been preserved, since it was removed in order to excavatethe strata beneath it. It is reported that this circular church, which was decoratedwith 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 ①Hermon Stream(Banias), ④ Zippori, and ⑨Ashkelon, mainly just the substructures of theancient churches are left. On the other hand, the rest of the churches are fairlywell preserved, with a part of superstructure, mosaic pavements andarchitectural decorations: especially sites in ③Kursi and ⑧Herodion retainwell-preserved mosaic floors.(2) Restoration: Except for ①Hermon Stream (Banias) and ⑤ Beit She’an,church sites have been restored to a certain extent. In ③Kursi, ④ Zippori, ⑦Caesarea, ⑧Herodion, and ⑪Masada, the mosaic floors have been elaborately

155Vol. XLVII 2012


restored using original tessera; the churches in ②Gamla, ③Kursi, ⑩ BeitGuvrin, ⑪Masada, ⑫Mamshit, ⑬ Shivta, and ⑭ Avdat are restoredsuperstructures of ancient churches with original pillars and parts of the wall, aswell as modern materials. However, the basilica church in ①Hermon Stream(Banias) has been hardly touched and has remained as it was excavated.(3) Public Exhibition: Generally speaking, there are several methods for publicexhibitions such as real object displays and explanatory exhibits. In this article,“public exhibition” implies that real objects are displayed with some restorationand concern for accessibility, and the safety of the visitors. In ⑤ Beit She’an,archaeologists had already removed remains of ancient church, three churchesfrom ⑧Herodion are not ready for display; other nineteen churches weredeveloped for public exhibitions. Maintenance at most of the church sitesenables visitors to step inside sites and see more closely except for ①HermonStream (Banias) and ④ Zippori. If there are notable and fragile remains, forexample mosaic floor, paintings, architectural decorations and interestinginstallation such as cistern, olive press, the INPA placed fences to keep visitorsout and protect antiquities.(4) Description of Ancient Churches in Brochures: In the case of most of thenational parks and nature reserves, brochures are given to visitors at theentrance.17 For this point, I consider if there is any description of ancient churchremains in those brochures. On the one hand, in the brochures of ①HermonStream (Banias), ②Gamla, ⑦ Caesarea, descriptions of church sites mentiononly their existence as parts of other remains in the parks and reserves; thebrochure of ⑥ Beit She’arim does not refer to the church site itself. The rest ofthe national parks and nature reserves, on the other hand, have introduaryaccounts that explain their historical background, dimension, and architecturalsignificance.(5) Captions for Church Sites: Here, a caption is material that indicates basicinformation such as the name and period of ancient churches that is printed on aboard and is attached or erected nearby the site. Usually, an exhibition issupposed to be accompanied by a caption and numerous ancient structures andinstallations in the national parks are furnished with them. In case of ancientchurch sites, there are captions placed at ①Hermon Stream (Banias), ②Gamla,③Kursi, ⑨Ashkelon, ⑩ Beit Guvrin, ⑪Masada, and ⑬ Shivta. The others donot provide any information on their sites.(6) Explanation Boards for Church Sites: Explanation boards include not onlybasic information about the displays, but also more detailed explanatorysentences, sometimes with illustrations and photos. Explanation boards with

ORIENT156

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

4. Result 2: Church Sites in the Franciscan Facilities (table 3)

The churches in the Franciscan facilities are memorial churches built tocommemorate biblical events, and owing to the Christian tradition of buildingnew memorial churches on old sites, the ancient sites at the Franciscan facilitiesinclude 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, thefourth-century church lies beneath a floor of the present structure. Therefore,methods employed by the Franciscans for conservation, restoration, and publicexhibition are different from those of the INPA. In addition, I will focus on

*1 NP=National Park, NR=Nature Reserves*2 The names of the churches are taken from Stern 1993, except for ②Gamla NR and ⑤ Beit

She’an NP. The name in ② is taken from the brochure description. That of ⑤ is taken fromMazar 2006.

Table 2 Church Sites in Israeli National Parks and Nature Reserves

157Vol. XLVII 2012


important remains in analyzing, since each Franciscan facility holds them todemonstrate the continuity of Christianity, such as the stone altar in [2] theChurch of the Multiplication, the grotto of the Annunciation in [3] the Church ofthe Annunciation and the Hill of Calvary in [4] the Church of the HolySepulcher.(1) Preservation: All strata identified through previous excavations have beenpreserved. While at [1] the St. Peter’s Memorial Church, [2] the Church of theMultiplication and [3] the Church of the Annunciation, the present buildingswere constructed immediately above their ancient remains, some of thestructures 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 andeven before.18 In such a unique utilization of historical buildings, the situationof preservation in each site is different, which affects methods of restoration andexhibition.(2) Restoration: Here, I will focus on present conditions of restoration not onlyin church sites but also their important remains. It is to be especially noted thatremains of ancient churches are restored as a part of present structures ratherthan artistic exhibitions. The mosaic floors at [2] the Church of theMultiplication and [5] the Church of the Nativity have been well restoredelaborately with original tesserae: in [2] the Church of the Nativity, this restoredmosaic makes up a part of the modern floor, and visitors are able to step onto theancient mosaic floor. In [3] the Church of the Annunciation, [4] the Church ofthe Holy Sepulcher and [5] the Church of the Nativity, the historical buildings,including pillars and substructures from the Crusader period, have been restoredusing reinforcement. However, the present [1] Church of St. Peter is acompletely new building constructed off the ground without reuse of ancientremains.(3) Public Exhibitions and Methods of Presentation: Since the Franciscanserected memorial churches over ancient ecclesia or holy places to protect andpass them on, several differences can be observed in public exhibitions of thesechurches, compared to the case studies of national parks. The church sites aredisplayed both inside and outside of the Franciscan facilities. They use threetypes of methods in presentation of ancient churches remains: glass covering,reuse, and adornment (figure 4). Glass covering is a method with covers ancientremains with glass so that visitors can see them through the top. Glass coveringcan be seen at [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, the fourth and fifth-centurychurch remains in [2] the Church of the Multiplication, and on the Hill ofCalvary at [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Reuse is a method where

ORIENT158

ancient church remains are preserved and reused as a part of the presentFranciscan 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 thepresent church. Figure 5 shows how the apse of the fourth century basilica isreused as a prayer bench (dotted line), and in figure 6, how the ancient grotto isutilized as the apse of the present chapel. Adornment has been applied to thestone altar of [2] the Church of the Multiplication, the tomb of Jesus at [4] theChurch 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 andeven structures.(4) Description of Ancient Churches in Brochures: While at national parks andnature reserves, visitors pay an entrance fee and get brochures with informationon the parks or reserves, the Franciscan facilities provide their official brochuresby 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 nationalparks and nature reserves provide, but more comprehensive booklets with thehistorical background of the area where the churches are located, related biblicalreferences, and detailed descriptions of the excavation with plans and photos.Three Franciscan facilities, [1] the St. Peter Memorial Church, [2] the Church ofthe Multiplication and [3] the Church of the Annunciation, provide their ownbrochures, and these contain detailed descriptions about the ancient church sitesalong with illustrations. There are no brochures at [4] the Church of the HolySepulchre 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. PeterMemorial Church, [2] the Church of the Multiplication, and the Hill of Calvaryat [4] the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. While [1] the St. Peter MemorialChurch provides a neat caption plate with its remains, the others have theinformation 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 isfurnished with a board with archaeological accounts and the ground plans ofancient 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 thechurch with illustrations and photos. The others do not have any explanationboards inside the facilities.

159Vol. XLVII 2012


*D

ash

appe

ared

in R

esto

rati

on m

eans

that

the

pres

ent a

utho

r is

not

abl

e to

iden

tify

whe

ther

the

rem

ains

hav

e be

en r

esto

red

orno

t.

Table 3 Church Sites in the Franciscan Facilities

ORIENT160

1 CE 4 CE 5 CE

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

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

161Vol. XLVII 2012


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

Glass Covering(St. Peter Memorial Church)

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

ORIENT162

Fig. 5 Utilizing the apse from the Byzantine period as thepresent chapel at the Church of the Annunciation

(Photo by the author)

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

N

163Vol. XLVII 2012


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

ORIENT164

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 Galilee (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

①Hermon Stream (Banias), ②Gamla, ③Kursi, ⑨Ashkelon and ⑪Masada,

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

165Vol. XLVII 2012


maintained church sites as evidence of their history and Christian faith. Forthem, it is important to utilize the multilayered remains as the living heritage oftheir religion. Therefore, the church sites in the Franciscan facilities tend to bepreserved 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 beenpreserved and exhibited to the public in the modern Israeli society. The resultsof this examination show that its heritage management is not monolithic, butrather, at least the two major agencies use different methods of preservation andmanagement for Christian church sites. Those differences in church sitemanagement stem not only from the nature of the sites themselves, but also fromthe 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 anobject of faith inherited from the past, while the INPA maintains them as a partof the history related to ancient cities.

Admittedly, it is difficult to compare two agencies that have completelydifferent attitudes toward church sites: nevertheless, it is worth considering thatdifferent methods are based on the values of each stakeholder in thearchaeological remains. Thus we can see that the cross-cultural landscape ofEretz Israel has been shaped by diverse methods of heritage management, whichare affected by various values and interpretations.

Such multiple expressions of ancient remains contribute to the generationof a historical landscape for its citizens, as well as for foreign tourists from allover the world. The microscopic viewpoint approach toward heritagemanagement adopted in this paper indicates not only that there is aninteractional relationship between archaeology, heritage, and the present society,but also that the unconscious values of archaeologists and agencies play asignificant role in providing the interpretation and generating the images ofIsrael’s history.

Notes1 In those days, the major holy places for the Jewish pilgrims were the Galilean cities of Safed and

Tiberias, and around Jerusalem. However, important Jewish sites such as the tomb of thepatriarch Abraham in Hebron, the matriarch Rachel in Bethlehem, and the Western Wall inJerusalem 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

ORIENT166

ICOMOS Israel and its involvement in the World Heritage Convention. Israel has ratified theconvention in 1999.

6 In the second chapter, it is stated that “When an antiquity is discovered or found in Israel afterthe coming into force of this Law, it shall within boundaries fixed by the Director become theproperty of the State.”

7 T. Kollek was the founder of the Israel Museum and mayor of Jerusalem from 1965 to 1993; Y.Yadin was the most influential Israeli archaeologist at that time; Y. Yanai was a commander ofthe Israel Defense Force.

8 These numbers indicate Israel national parks and nature reserves which require an admission feefrom visitors and were open to the public until 2010. The INPA runs other types of parks andreserves, 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 Haifa and the Western Galilee: theBiblical Tels-Megiddo, Hazor, Beer Sheva: the Incense Route-Desert Cities in the Negev:Masada: the Old City of Acre: the White City of Tel-Aviv-the Modern Movement. Some are innational parks such as Meggido, Hazor, Beer Sheva, Mamshit, Shivta, Avdat and MasadaNational Park. There are also quite a number of national parks and nature reserves listed asproperties submitted on the Tentative List.

10 http://198.62.75.4/www1/ofm/sbf/SBFarch.html11 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 (Samaria) National Park, it is not listed in

this paper since the author could not research its present condition. This national park has beenclosed because of security situation.

13 As for [1] St. Peter Memorial Church in Capernaum, this area has also been declared an Israelinational park. However, since the Franciscans have jurisdiction over it, it is classified into theFranciscan 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 theresince then. Therefore, [2] Church of the Multiplication is included in the Franciscan facilities inthis paper.

15 The Holy Sepulcher has private and communal areas. The former is given to sevencommunities 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, theArmenians, Greek Orthodox and Latin churches worked together for survey and restoration ofthe church in 1954: the Armenian Orthodox surveyed his own property in 1966 and from 1975to 1981.

16 In 1347, the Franciscan Order acquired a right to administer the church and have maintainedtheir 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 ableto get it on the INPA website.

18 In 1880, the Franciscans built the Church of St. Catherine on the north side of the church; theArmenian 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 nationalpark is defined as “an area serving or designated to serve for the countryside recreation of thepublic 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 installedto serve such purposes”(The National Parks, Nature Reserves, National Sites and MemorialSites Law, Israel 1998, Chap.1).

167Vol. XLVII 2012


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 BuiltHeritage 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’sTomb 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 ofIsrael, 1948-1967,” Israel Studies, Vol.13(3), 1-21.

Bauman, J. 1995 : “Designer Heritage: Israeli National Parks and the Politics of HistoricalRepresentation,” Middle East Report, No. 196, 20-23.

Bauman, J. 2004 : “Tourism, Design and the Past in Zippori / Sepphoris, 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 PrintingPress.

Elon, A. 1997 : “Politics and Archeology” in Silberman, N. A. and Small, D. B. The Archaeology

of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present, Sheffield: Sheffield University Press,35-47.

Glock, A. E. 1985 : “Tradition and Change in Two Archaeologies,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50,464-477.

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 ArchaeologicalSites 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 inPresenting 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 ExplorationSociety.

Meyers, E. M. 1997: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in Near East, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Okada, M. 2009: “The Preservation and Exhibition of Christian Church Sites in Israel: From theViewpoint 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

ORIENT168

Meborah, D. (eds.), Cradle of Christianity, Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Rosen, S. 1998 : “One Hundred Years after Petrie: Is Archaeological Education in IsraelStagnating?,” 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 theIsraeli 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 PopularInterest in Archaeology in Erets-Israel,” Cathedra, Vol. 44, 27-54.

Shavit, Y. 1997 : “Archaeology, Political, Culture and Culture in Israel,” in Silberman, N. A. andSmall, 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 ofArchaeological 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 Developmentof Israel,” Annals of Tourism Research Vol.5, 30-42.

Tsuk, T. 2004 : The First Step of the National Parks Authority (NPA), Jerusalem: National ParksAuthority [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 ofMasada,” Israel Affairs, Vol.1, 110-128.

the preservation and exhibition of christian church sites

Documents