In a follow-up interview in Tuesday’s Haaretz newspaper, Benjamin Kedar, outgoing chairman of the IAA Board of Directors responds to this query, and weighs in on a host of other issues impacting archaeological thinking and practice in Israel (and Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem). He describes some of the political cross-currents he has encountered during his tenure and also comments on the proposed changes (see yesterday’s post) which, if enacted, will inevitably affect the makeup of Israel’s upper echelon of archaeological leadership and decision-making. Some excerpts:
Prof. Benjamin Z. Kedar has been chairman of the board of the Israel Antiquities Authority for 11 years. He is also the deputy chairman of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Kedar will leave his position at the authority at the end of July. Haaretz reported yesterday on an amendment to the Antiquities Authority Law, proposed by Culture and Sports Minister Limor Livnat, that would make it easier for her to find a replacement for Kedar. At present, the chairman of the Antiquities Authority board must belong to the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Livnat’s bill would require only that the chairman be a “leading scholar in the field of history or archaeology.”
Senior archaeologists criticized Livnat on Sunday, claiming that the purpose of the amendment was to enable her to appoint archaeologists who are identified with the right or who will toe the establishment line. Livnat’s critics say the bill reflects the anti-intellectual winds blowing through the government ministries. Kedar rejects this interpretation, but cautions against amending the law.
What do you think of Livnat’s proposed amendment?
“I was surprised by the proposed changes.” It is no coincidence that the law stipulates that the chairman of the board be a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and that the minister should make the appointment after consultations. The aim is to place at the head of the Israel Antiquities Authority a senior person in a professional field. It is also based on the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities Law which expressly states: ‘The objective of the academy is to gather members who are among the most distinguished scientists, residents of Israel … to advise the government on matters requiring science planning.’ The goal was to appoint as chairman of the Antiquities Authority someone deemed one of Israel’s outstanding scientists.
The first proposal when the Antiquities Authority was established was to have the president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities serve as chairman of the Antiquities Authority, that is to appoint the most senior of the senior scientists. That is why this proposal to expand the circle of potential candidates in effect damages the perception of the scientific and national standing of the Antiquities Authority. If its leader does not have to be one of the most distinguished scientists and it is possible to make do with someone else, this is damaging to the Antiquities Authority.”
What is your response to the argument that opponents of the change are basically trying to preserve their status in a closed club, a kind of old-boys’ network?
“Over the last few years, we have greatly expanded the academy’s work, both in the disciplines included and in the number of members. The gender ratio also changed so that it is not ‘an old-boys’ club’; it is expanding constantly. At the same time, we have maintained very strict criteria for entry into the academy and we are convinced that the people we have chosen are the very best.”
(…)
Over the last few years Israeli archaeology has become a flashpoint for political and scientific debates, including over the excavations in the City of David and on the Temple Mount. How would you summarize your tenure in this respect?
“This job is not always easy. The authority has been attacked on one hand for not doing enough to preserve the Temple Mount antiquities. On the other hand we were sharply attacked for supposedly being a tool in the hands of extreme nationalist groups. And on yet another hand, there is pressure not to build a road in a place with graves of Roman soldiers, because a group of fanatics thinks these are Jewish graves. There was also the decision by the attorney general to the effect that bones are not antiquities. Every place I go in the world people offer their condolences over this restriction on scientific research, especially at a time when there is talk of the possibility of studying ancient DNA. So there are countless problems. That’s why it is important for a senior academic, a member of the Academy of Sciences and Humanities, to be there to assess the situation and see how to preserve that which is most important and where it is possible to compromise.”
(…)
What changes did the Antiquities Authority undergo during your term as chairman?
“Israeli archaeology has undergone a very big change between the time of the Yishuv and the early days of the state and now. Once the field was limited to Jewish history, the question of settlement and matters relating to the first and second temples. In the 1950s and certainly in the 1960s, we switched to a much broader perspective. I still remember an article in the newspaper Davar titled “This is not Crusader land,” protesting the excavation and preservation of Crusader sites. Today it is clear that it is necessary to study all the eras. I learned, for example, that archaeologists do not get sufficient training on Islam, that we have no experts on the Ottoman era, so I pushed for supplementary training programs in these subjects.
(…)
Whoever succeeds you as chairman, what advice would you give him?
“Why ‘him,’ perhaps it will be ‘her’? I would say, you are taking on a very difficult job, one that will expose you to many challenges but which also give you the satisfaction of leading a very important body in the right direction scientifically.”
This story is by: Nir Hasson
Tom Powers -- VIEW FROM JERUSALEM 
I was just wondering about this because of that new City of David dig in Isreal. Why are they saying that it could be The City of David, but other people say that The City of David all ready exists?
Jessica, hi — I think you are referring to Dr Yossi Garfinkel’s ongoing dig at Khirbet Qeiyafa, which was featured in a recent CNN piece. That site very well could be an Israelite city – perhaps an important one – from the TIME of King David. Unfortunately, Prof. Garfinkel has sometimes hyped the finds there beyond what is appropriate, plus CNN, and perhaps other media, have applied the unfortunate tag “City of David”, which can only lead to confusion (like yours). The actual “City of David” mentioned in the Bible (except for one use of that exact term to refer to Bethlehem) is known with near certitude: It lies along a narrow ridge extending southeast from Jerusalem’s Old City, just outside the present-day city walls. -(tp)
Thank you Tom, but now I am gettin even more confused. I read some where this morning that The City of David is Jesus’s birth place. Is it not?
Yes! Maybe you read it in the Bible, in Luke 2:11, which refers to Bethlehem as the “city of David” (and I think this is the ONLY direct link between the TERM “City of David” and Bethlehem). But the Davidic connection is very strong, as the place of his family home (1 Sam 16:1; 17:12) and his anointing as king (1 Sam 16:4-13).
Nevertheless, “City of David” most often refers to the oldest settled part of Jerusalem, south of the Old City (2 Sam 5:7-8). The term is used in both ways.
CNN asks the question,” could these be the ruins of the biblical City Of David”? Go back and check it again.
I watched and read the bit from CNN. I’m sorry to have to say it, but they’re irresponsible idiots for ever injecting this term into the discussion of the Khirbet Qeiyafa site. There’s simply no basis for it. As you can see, it creates nothing but confusion.
Thank you.