Shopping for Ornaments at the "Ornament of All Galilee"

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Shopping for Ornaments at the "Ornament of All Galilee" Zippori National Park in Israel and the Global Phenomenon of Heritage Tourism
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Avron, Lisa
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: Tourism
Zippori National Park
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Zippori National Park, located in Israel's lower Galilee, is transitioning into a commercialized representation of its history to cater to the interests of heritage tourists. This marketable presentation rests on the foundation of diminished nationalist endeavors and identity politics. Zippori National Park's presentation is now shifting its focus towards its Roman and Byzantine eras and these eras' impressive features, excavated during the 1980s, in order to become a major tourist attraction within Israel. The process of commercialization has lead to the creation of a simplified presentation, which includes an entertaining theme, that of "The Ornament of All Galilee." This thesis focuses on the site's recently standardized gift shop which accommodates tourism interests in offering the comforting act of shopping and souvenirs that allow visitors to create images of Zippori's history. The dynamics at Zippori are exemplary of the larger processes of globalization intersecting with heritage tourism.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lisa Avron
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 A9
System ID: NCFE004046:00001

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Shopping for Ornaments at the "Ornament of All Galilee" Zippori National Park in Israel and the Global Phenomenon of Heritage Tourism
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Avron, Lisa
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2009
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: Tourism
Zippori National Park
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Zippori National Park, located in Israel's lower Galilee, is transitioning into a commercialized representation of its history to cater to the interests of heritage tourists. This marketable presentation rests on the foundation of diminished nationalist endeavors and identity politics. Zippori National Park's presentation is now shifting its focus towards its Roman and Byzantine eras and these eras' impressive features, excavated during the 1980s, in order to become a major tourist attraction within Israel. The process of commercialization has lead to the creation of a simplified presentation, which includes an entertaining theme, that of "The Ornament of All Galilee." This thesis focuses on the site's recently standardized gift shop which accommodates tourism interests in offering the comforting act of shopping and souvenirs that allow visitors to create images of Zippori's history. The dynamics at Zippori are exemplary of the larger processes of globalization intersecting with heritage tourism.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lisa Avron
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2009
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Baram, Uzi

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2009 A9
System ID: NCFE004046:00001

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


SHOPPING FOR ORNAMENTS AT THE “ORNAMENT OF ALL GALI LEE”: ZIPPORI NATIONAL PARK IN ISRAEL AND THE GLOBAL PHEN OMENON OF HERITAGE TOURISM BY LISA AVRON A Thesis Submitted to the Division of Social Sciences New College of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree


Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology Under the sponsorship of Dr. Uzi Baram Sarasota, Florida May, 2009


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to thank my mother for being my guiding light and for always telling me that I can accomplish absolutely anything. I owe everything to her. I would like to thank Dr. Uzi Baram for guiding me through the thesis process and for sharing his insightful perspective within every course I have t aken with him. As I grew intellectually over the last four years, Uzi was endlessly encouraging, helped shape me into a critical thinker, and has greatly inspired my anthropological interests. I would like to thank Dr. Susan Marks for inspiring my confidence and for tirelessly engaging me through numerous writing projects within her courses. Her courses have taught me to understa nd the past in invaluable new ways and to always have a clear, contestable thesis statement. I would like to thank Dr. Tony Andrews for advising me for my first three years at New College He encouraged me to take my academic life by the reigns. I would like to thank Joel Bauman fo r encouraging and advising me to push forward with my field work at Zippori National Park I would like to thank the family who I stayed with for their tremendous hospitality and in sight concerning the archaeological park. I want to thank all of my amazing friends who have not only helped me through the thesis process, but who have helped me grow ove r the last four years of my life. Thank you, Kacie for listening and caring. You will always be my favorite roommate. Thank you, Alexa for being my Mos Def in every way. Thank you Jessica Ca rdot, Nik Drellow, and Sarah Newberry: for always being there, for watches, for dancing, f or sailing, for everything. Thank you, Tierney,


Jessica Anne Wheeler, Ben Brown, and Katie for your endless support and late night food runs. And finally, thank you, Loren, Miranda, and all of the Lost Boys for reminding me to let loose. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii. TABLE OF CONTENTS iii. LIST OF FIGURES iv. ABSTRACT v. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 6 CHAPTER II: THE POLITICS OF THE PAST AND HERITAGE T OURISM AT ISRAEL’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARKS 12 CHAPTER III: THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ZIPPORI/SEPPHORIS 36




LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1.1 The Mona Lisa of the Galilee mosaic panel 4 Figure 2.1 Beit She’an Nights 27 Figure 3.1 Bet Netofa Valley 35 Figure 3.2 Portion of the triclinium mosaic 38 Figure 3.3 Portion of the Nile Festival mosaic 42 Figure 3.4 Portion of the Synagogue mosaic 43 Figure 3.5 St. Anne Crusader Church 45 Figure 3.6 The Citadel 47 Figure 3.7 The village of Saffuriyeh in 1948 49 Figure 4.1 An aerial view of Zippori National Park 54 Figure 4.2 Inside the ancient water cistern 56 Figure 4.3 An illustrated ibex at Zippori National Park 57 Figure 4.4 The Nile Festival pavilion 58


Figure 4.5 The House of Dionysus 59 Figure 4.6 The interior of the House of Dionysus 61 Figure 4.7 Display featuring excavations at Zippori /Sepphoris 63 Figure 4.8 The interior of the Synagogue pavilion 64 Figure 4.9 The synagogue’s outdoor porch 64 Figure 4.10 The Roman Amphitheater at Zippori Natio nal Park 65 Figure 4.11 One sign indicating the Muslim Cemetery 66


7 SHOPPING FOR ORNAMENTS AT THE “ORNAMENT OF ALL GALILEE”: ZIPPORI NATIONAL PARK IN ISRAEL AND THE G LOBAL PHENOMENON OF HERITAGE TOURISM Lisa Avron New College of Florida, 2009 ABSTRACT Zippori National Park, located in Israel’s lower Ga lilee, is transitioning into a commercialized representation of its history to cat er to the interests of heritage tourists. This marketable presentation rests on the foundatio n of diminished nationalist endeavors and identity politics. Zippori National Park’s pres entation is now shifting its focus towards its Roman and Byzantine eras and these eras ’ impressive features, excavated during the 1980s, in order to become a major touris t attraction within Israel. The process of commercialization has lead to the creation of a simplified presentation, which includes an entertaining theme, that of “The Ornament of All Galilee.” This thesis focuses on the site’s recently standardized gift shop which accomm odates tourism interests in offering the comforting act of shopping and souvenirs that a llow visitors to create images of Zippori’s history. The dynamics at Zippori are exem plary of the larger processes of globalization intersecting with heritage tourism. Signature


8 ___________________________ Professor Uzi Baram Social Sciences CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Descending Masada’s infamous snake trail was surrea l and, far more difficult than I had expected. I paused twice to rest my legs and sit on the wide sandy steps, which lead hundreds of tourists up and down the eastern slope of this plateau each day. With the blistering high noon sun of the Judean Desert above me, I touched solid ground and hustled toward the tremendous air-conditioned gift shop. The store was swarming with fellow tourists of various nationalities, all of wh om were attentively gazing upon the shelves packed with toys, jewelry, and t-shirts. I approached the refreshment counter to purchase a bottle of water, eager to practice my ba sic Hebrew language skills, only to find my wallet empty. The woman behind the counter warned me that the bus available to take me back to my hostel in Ein Gedi only took cas h and that there were no ATMs at Masada. I stepped out of line and wondered how I wa s going to make it home. Overhearing my dilemma, a customer offered the poss ibility that the gift shop may provide cash back when purchasing an item, a co mmon enough service in the suburban United States, so I frantically took the s uggestion. Now, with Masada’s entire


9 store before me, I would have to pick an item worth y enough of purchasing on my shoestring budget in order to get the 17 shekels I woul d need to get home. It was at this moment, when I was forced to more thoroughly engage with the act of shopping for souvenirs that I began questioning the mounds of st uff offered by the store: the hundreds of postcards next to Dead Sea skin products next to replica first century oil lamps. With a closer look at these products, I noticed that many of them shared no relevance to what is ostensibly one of the greatest symbols for modern I sraeli heritage. I thought of the site’s overall presentation, which included a movie, a tra m ride, an audio tour, and now a shopping experience. From this perspective Masada b egan to look, not just like a sacred site, but an attraction -or a theme park. As I lo oked through these souvenirs, a kind man interrupted my search and offered to pay for my bus ride home. On the ride back to my hostel, I reflected upon my observations, jotting d own the items I had seen and the people I had met. The experience at this larger site would aid in my ethnographic exploration of the much smaller Zippori National Park. This lesser known archaeological park would then become the focus of my thesis research. Due to intensified globalization and the internatio nal economic dependence on the travel industry, heritage tourism has influenced hi storic sites the world over, exemplified by the exotic images created of the ancient Maya (A rdren 2004), the performances of American heritage at Colonial Williamsburg (Gable a nd Handler 1997), and the influence of the Western imagination on the pyramids of Egypt (Wynn 2007). More and more, scholars understand sites, such as Zippori, as repr esentative of the diverse ways that the past is used today. Their ethnographic explorations of archaeological sites illuminate how


10 these social arenas are effectively becoming theme parks where the creation of national heritages and their political endeavors become a se condary concern to attraction and consequentially their harmful implications are less overt (e.g. Baram and Rowan 2004). This thesis builds upon these case studies and expo unds upon the globalized processes of heritage tourism using of Zippori Nati onal Park, an archaeological site and national forest located in Israel’s lower Galilee. I explored the site over the course of a month during the summer of 2008, and also interview ed some of the managers at Zippori including the general manager, Igal, the manager of the gift shop Reuven, and the tour guide coordinator Sharon. I found that Zippori is a n art gallery, an active synagogue, a place of religious and secular pilgrimage, a fun pl ace to shop and picnic, but not a site that challenges visitors with critical interpretati ons of its archaeological material. Instead of presenting a more complex image, I argue Zippori National Park has a selective representation of its history to cater to the deman ds of heritage tourism. In the process of accommodating heritage tourism Zippori National Par k offers a simplified, themed presentation and a standardized gift shop, both whi ch serve to turn the past into a commodity. In the course of catering to the interests of the t ourist industry, Zippori’s presentation focuses on the Roman/Byzantine periods and offers a fetishized, or objectoriented, approach to impress and delight. The mosa ics, specifically The Mona Lisa of the Galilee (depicted in Figure 1.1) are the main attractions of the tour, focusing attention on spectacle rather than the historically significant. These objects communicate the overall theme that the park constructs: that of Zippori bei ng what ancient historian Flavius


11 Josephus called “The Ornament of all Galilee” ( Jewish Antiquities 18.2.1 see Feldman 1965). This image is now used by the Israel Nature and National Park Protection Authority (INNPPA). Zippori’s gift shop also reflects this image. After touring the site, visitors are welcomed to enjoy the comforts of shopping within t he generic store, the features of which have been standardized throughout the INNPPA stores. Through shopping, tourists may also create connections or images of Zippori Na tional Park. Due to archaeology’s active role in defining the mo dern state of Israel’s heritage and national identity during the twentieth century, the transition from nationalist to marketing purposes present today at its archaeologi cal sites has become an interesting Figure 1.1 The Mona Lisa of the Galilee mosaic panel (Photograph by author).


12 and complex process. For his dissertation in anthro pology at the New School of Social Research, Joel Bauman conducted an ethnography on Z ippori in order to “illustrate the larger, and often fragmented and conflicted, proces s of constructing an Israeli heritage and vision of place” (Bauman 2004:206). As he concl udes in “Tourism, the Ideology of Design, and the Nationalized Past in Zippori/Seppho ris, an Israeli National Park,” Zippori’s design was a selective and exclusive proc ess, formed for Jewish, Christian, and Isreali heritage interests. His revealing interview s with INNPPA employees demonstrates a complex national park, overtly expressing concern for captivating foreign and international tourist interests, while also struggl ing to define a larger Israeli heritage and identity (212). His informants describe Zippori’s presentation as “ neutral,” while Bauman found the struggle of asserting Jewishness still evidentl y embedded in the park “through practices that are political and economic as well a s semiotic and discursive” (Bauman 2004:225). In reference to the selectivity of the site’s presentation, Bauman states that “the ad hoc process of decision making and the fact that what is presented is only what is available through excavations allow these people to deny any ulterior motives for exhibiting specific stories. Their authority derive s from the ground itself, not the state” (218). He concludes that despite its active attempt s to attract tourists, “the tenuous invention of territorial and historical legitimacy was, and continues to be, available for examination at Zippori National Park,” as demonstra ted by the site’s attempt at erasing the remnants of the Arab village of Saffuriyeh from the landscape (209, 212).


13 I found the neutrality that Bauman illustrated to s till be a faade at this archaeological theme park; I explore this faade wi thin the process of commercialization. The politics of the past play a major role in the e xclusion of histories in site’s presentation, but this current design is also exclu sive to Zippori’s emphasis on ancient time periods in order to shelter audiences from unc omfortable topics or topics deemed irrelevant to heritage interests. Palestinian popul ations complicate the attempts to create an attractive design of Israel’s archaeological par ks. Michelle Campos states that “the memories of Palestinian citizens of Israel remain [ …] marginalized in the Israeli public sphere. Since they ipso facto contradict the domina nt Israeli-Jewish collective memory, they are assumed to be both hostile and incorrect” (Campos 2007:58). Beginning in 1949, the state of Israel built national forests to cover Palestinian landscapes: In addition to making claims about Israeli Jewish i dentity and citizenship, Israeli national parks and heritage sites are a sig nificant force among the multitude of practices and structures involved in t he process of both physical and symbolic displacement of Palestinians in Israel: from actual physical expropriation of land, to symbolic conques t during walking hikes, to excavating under them and removing the layers of their history, to planting trees to obscure remains of their villages towns, and history (Bauman 2004:209). The village of Saffuriyeh, once an Arab community w here Zippori National Park stands today, was destroyed after the War of 1948, and its people relocated to the nearby city of Nazareth. A chain-link fence was built to discourag e locals from that predominantly Arab city from visiting, though the remains of the forme r village’s schoolhouse and cemetery are apparent within Zippori’s current presentation (Bauman 2004:207).


14 Within chapter two of this thesis, I use the schol arship of heritage studies, marketing heritage, and heritage tourism to lay out the dynamic processes of collective remembering, the politics of the past, and the inte ractions with global tourism apparent at Israel’s archaeological parks. In chapter three, I give a brief chronology of the archaeology at Zippori/Sepphoris and an overview of the site’s history. In chapter four, I detail my tour of Zippori National Park, and in cha pter five I analyze Zippori, including that tour and the gift shop in light of my previous discussion of heritage scholarship and my ethnographic exploration of the site. Throughout these chapters, I present the shifting dynamics present at Zippori National Park and the l arger processes of globalization intersecting with heritage tourism. CHAPTER II: THE POLITICS OF THE PAST AND HERITAGE T OURISM AT ISRAEL’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL PARKS In this chapter I use scholarship that studies heri tage and its recent intersection with tourism to expound upon the ways people identi fy with and use the past at archaeological parks. I attempt to lay out the way in which representations of these


15 significant social arenas selectively make use of h istory and have recently seen the acute influence by the marketability of the past. In the process of creating commercial presentations, minority heritage at these sites can be overlooked, denying them recognition, which is of socio-political importance I found nationalist endeavors that exclude minority versions of history shifting to ac commodate the interests of heritage tourists within Israel’s archaeological parks. In o rder to illustrate this transition, and provide some background for my case study, I offer a brief history of archaeology in Israel. Archaeology in Israel In 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte lead Western historians to Palestine to suite his colonialist and culturally imperialist interests. N apoleon's brief invasion of Palestine impressed romantic Orientalist tales of the Middle East upon the imaginations of Western scholars during the nineteenth century. The Holy La nd was seen as an ancient vessel of material evidence to prove the historicity of bibli cal narratives and assert the origin of Western civilization (Baram 2007:16). Artifacts wer e taken during Bonaparte’s conquests and distributed as gifts to other European powers. The interest of validating Jewish and Christian bib lical narratives increased during the British Mandate, which began in 1921. Neil Silb erman (2001) describes archaeology in contested cities, such as Jerusalem, as still mo stly a Western endeavor during the early twentieth century, stating that, “for generations of Western scholars,[…] the real Jerusalem was buried or concealed beneath the moder n city -and it was their pious and


16 scholarly duty to bring that truer, holier Jerusale m to light” (Silberman 2001:492). These archaeologists paid no mind to the people of the co ntemporaneous era, which contributed to the perspective that the last 500 years of the l and’s history was a dark period and of no significant cultural value. “The Arab residents of the country were seen, not as independent peoples who had undergone long and comp lex historical development, but rather as quaint fossils of biblical customs and li fe ways” (493). Even the Jewish population of Jerusalem of this time period were mi sconstrued as living antiquity and spoken of as “Pharisees” (493). By the 1940s, the Holy Land’s archaeological record had already become an “immeasurable national asset” for the establishment of the future state (Kletter 2006:1). Beginning in 1947, senior Jewish archaeologists met to discuss the formation of the future state of Israel’s own department to protect historically significant antiquities and sites, as well as to carry out and license excavati ons (1). These scholars included professors from Hebrew University and the committee of the Israel Exploration Society. Archaeological endeavors in Israel, during and afte r these decades, are recognized for distorted findings to suit a narrative of redemptio n (Bauman 2004, Ben-Yehuda 2002). To aid in the creation of Jewish-Israeli national i dentity, these archaeologists collapsed centuries of history to coalesce the past and the p resent. In the process, archaeology in Israel “became understood as a means to expand Isra elis’ experience with territory and history” (Baram and Rowan 2004:11). The 1950s and 60s saw the continuation of Israeli n ationalist archaeology, which continued to construct narratives that would speak to Jewish heritage. Israeli


17 archaeologists became particularly influential in f orging national identity, and in creating a grand, linear historical narrative for Jewish-Isr aelis. For example, the media painted a heroic portrait of Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yad in who delivered romantic and dramatic interpretations that captured the attention of the world (Ben-Yehuda 2002). However, the state of Israel was not alone in bending or forthri ghtly fabricating history and using archaeology for nationalist ventures: When a society undergoes rapid developments […] its need to restructure the past is as great as its desire to set its futur e agenda. […] These ‘invented traditions’ are particularly significant for the legitimation of the emergent social and political order, and their succ ess depends, to a large measure, on their ability to reconstruct an accepta ble view of the past (Zerubavel 1994:105-106). The creation of linear narrative aids in constructi ng a cohesive national heritage. In light of archaeology’s prominent role in creating this na rrative sites such as Masada, have become established as commemorative landscapes of I sraeli collective memory. Within Israel, establishing these sites of a colle ctive heritage is complicated by mass international immigration, the remains of Pale stinian occupation, and the tensions created by the current conflict: In Israel, constituting an identity and a shared co llective existence through the heritage industry occurs between two separate p oles: the struggle over the exact historical and cultural content of the ‘J ewishness’ of the Israeli state and the struggle with the presence of Palesti nians-within borders of modern society as citizens and with the presence of their remains within the landscapes of ruins and memories. These two dia logues are expressed in particularly explicit terms in Israeli national parks, which are among the institutions where versions of history and heritage are selected, institutionalized, displayed, and popularized (Baum an 2004:207).


18 The nationalist archaeological practices within Isr ael have been widely criticized (e.g. Benvenisti 2000, Ben-Yehuda 2002), but they a re still employed to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as primordial, making it difficult to bring modern historical processes and complexities into the academic and po litical discourse (Baram 2007:19). Presentations at archaeological parks continue to i dentify time periods using ethnicities. They divide eras into boxes and ascribe ownership t o these portions of history, though Israel’s past landscape is layered and connected. Remaining from the simplified presentations is a past of Canaanites and Israelite s, Hellenistic and Hasmonean, and crusaders and Muslims, binary oppositions that can make the contemporary IsraeliPalestinian conflict seem inevitable" (19). Archaeology’s salience within Israel has significan tly influenced the country’s national heritage and the way this heritage has bee n imprinted onto public landscapes (Shackel 2003). Its immensity and accessibility is evident in the old cities, such as those within Jerusalem and Akko. The aged archways and cr usader walls have been integrated into modern restaurants and businesses, many of whi ch focus on catering to tourists’ interests. In this way, archaeology’s development has also created a major asset for Israel’s heritage tourist industry, in supporting h eritage claims to the Holy Land and dramatic narratives by buttressing them with archae ological authority and historical fact. Heritage and History: Terms that aid in understandi ng how the past is used presently


19 Archaeological parks in Israel long t o recreate the past to make history feel more present; this was a dynamic I observed in my travel s during the summer of 2008 to famous as well as not-so-famous sites. The presenta tions at these sites attempt to make, for instance, King David’s conquering of Jerusalem 3,000 years ago feel like, not just yesterday, but today, making the ancient past acces sible for tourists. Archaeological undertakings provide the authoritative weight of ac ademia and the guise of purely objective interpretation within site presentations to allow for this recreation and to authenticate heritage interests. David Lowenthal (1985, 1998), a sch olar of heritage studies that I cite frequently throughout this thesis, states, that, “d ubious owing to its very absence, inaccessible yet intimately known, the character of the past depends on how and how muchit is consciously apprehended”; this is to sa y that heritage breathes life into flat history, as it is the active apprehension and utili ty for collective identities to create, and recreate, the character of the past (Lowenthal 1985 :192). The attributes of liveliness and presentness, identified with heritage, marks its ma jor difference with the term “history.” Though often confused and sometimes used interchang eably, these terms, “heritage” and “history,” can have distinctly different purposes. Their representations at archaeological parks imbue a landscape with meaningful symbolism a nd have the ability to reflect present socio-political dynamics (Shackel 2003). An alyzing the implementation of “history” and “heritage” at archaeological sites le nds tangibility to this discourse on the past and allows one to understand their importance for both scholars and the public.


20 Explicating how heritage interests may use history will help further illuminate the construction of Zippori’s current presentation. Lowenthal explains that history, in its purest form can be no more than idealized as true and impartial: “The exemplary history that critics contrast with the defects of heritage is the authentic actual past rather than h istorians’ descriptions of that past. But the actual past is beyond retrieval” (Lowenthal 199 8:106). Yael Zerubavel (1994), a folklorist, similarly explains the idealized empiri cal foundations of history in a discourse between two different cultural representations of t he past, that of “history” and that of “legend.” “While ‘history’ relates to the record of actual occurrences that took place in the past, ‘legend’ implies a fictitious tale, the p roduct of folk imagination” (Zerubavel 1994:105). History becomes validated through instit utionalization and common recognition such as that within museums and during national holidays (Lowenthal 1986:197). While “true history, in this view, is no t to be made but found,” heritage is explicitly constructed (Lowenthal 1998:107). Material culture is used within heritage to make hi story concrete and to build narratives, selectively allowing room for fabricati on. “Heritage must feel durable, yet be pliable,” and, in order to accomplish this goal, us es history for its “factual” stability and “legend” to accommodate collective memories (Lowent hal 1998:171). In this way, heritage is “serviceable” and may “fly in the face of known fact” (147). Contestation of commemorative sites results from the cultural ambig uity regarding the conception of history, and the struggle between, and with, the tw o forms (Zerubavel 1994:105). In their creation, representations of heritage allow for his torical revisions:


21 Three modes of revision stand out. One is to update the past by garbing its scenes and actors in present-day guise. A second is to highlight and enhance aspects of the past now felt admirable. A t hird is to expunge what seems shameful or harmful by consigning it to ridic ule or oblivion. These processes repay separate scrutiny, yet they are oft en concurrent: a presentminded view of the past is bound to celebrate and f orget selectively (emphasis added, Lowenthal 1998:148). It is what is done with the constructed, or revised interpretations within contemporary social arenas that give power to the past (Silberma n 1989). At Zippori, the selective use of the site’s history is used to perpetuate the cla im that its presentation is essentially neutral, though I suggest its overall theme present s a single, dominant version. The tension between versions of hist ory creates conflict between, what Paul Shackel, calls “official” and “vernacular” historie s (Shackel 2003:11). Presentations at archaeological parks or timelines given within tour ist brochures are examples of the implementation of official history, or the institut ionalization of a version of history chosen to represent a particular place by a dominan t group (11). Collective remembering strengthens the truth value of a dominant history, as sharing and validating memories sharpens them and promotes their recollection (Lowe nthal 1985:196). Therefore, official histories are considered more legitimate than those that are marginalized. Vernacular, or minority, histories are those that differentiate fr om and may threaten the officially established versions. Therefore, they can be margin alized by a dominant strain. In Memory in Black and White Paul Shackel (2003) develops how these versions co ntend for space within social arenas for recognition and validation. He states,


22 competing groups battle ceaselessly to create and c ontrol the collective national memory of revered sacred sites and objects Different group agendas often clash, causing the established collec tive memories to be continuously in flux. Some subordinate groups can s ubvert the dominant memory, other groups compromise and become part of a multivocal history, while others fail completely to have their story remembered by the wider society. The tensions between and within grou ps who struggle for control over the collective public memory is ongoin g since the political stakes are high (Shackel 2003:14). Within the context of this thesis, these terms can help define how dominant representations of the archaeological parks I will describe are implemented and how recognizing vernacular interpretations of history i nvoke tensions. Recognizing these tensions also aids in asserting the importance of m ulti-vocality. Anthropologists (e.g. Bauman) are bringing multi-vo cality into the discourse on the importance of being remembered (Bauman 2004, Li ttle 2007, Shackel 2003). In Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters, Barbara Little (2007) describes the political and social importance of recognition. She elucidates how dominant ideological frameworks marginalize minority versions of history limiting their access to their past and, therefore, their political abilities. Little understands the recognition of muted groups as having positive effects for challenging concepts that are imbedded in dominant ideologies. Multi-vocality can question concepts such as race, gender, and other n otions that have become subject to the realm of, what she calls, “cultural common sense” ( 2007:67):


23 The importance of truthful history cannot be overes timated. Such truthfulness at best can strive toward an approxima tion and must acknowledge the ambiguities and tensions that abide in histories that seek to include everyone’s pasts and the meanings of tho se pasts. Such a multivocal history may not always sound harmonious, but it is realistic and it acknowledges the worthiness of all people’s lives ( Little 2007:149). Dominant representations that exclude minority heri tage have the ability to subvert the worthiness of minority stakeholders. As civic recog nition helps legitimate a narrative, presence within public memory acknowledges the vali dity of a minority group’s heritage and allows them access to the power of the past. Ho wever, this power, such as the power to claim precedence, threatens dominant groups, and is often the cause for denying minorities such access. “Being First” The positive aspects and meaningfulness of heritage can not be understated. Heritage allows people a medium with which to under stand themselves, individually and collectively. As Lowenthal states, “the earliest so urces of self, of society, or of the species promise to reveal our place in the scheme o f things” (Lowenthal 1998:179). Using claims to precedence to connect on a personal level with something grandly continuous and much larger than oneself is importan t for people across the globe. The further one can reach back into a continuum, the mo re privilege or prestige one can find, which incites competitions that perpetuate structur al and physical violence.


24 Lowenthal states, “everyone eagerly insists their l ineages, languages, fossils, even rocks are previous to those of others. But why do w e care? What makes priority crucial?” (Lowenthal 1998:173). Within The Heritage the Crusade and the Spoils of History he illustrates a few answers to these questions. For i nstance, he states “being ancient makes things precious by their proximity to the dawn of t ime, to the earliest beginnings,” and that “sheer inaccessibility adds to the mystique of the very ancient” (176,17). This is to say that if something has lasted and stood the test of time, its strength and ancientness should be recognized and praised. Lowenthal also as serts that “precedence evokes pride and proves title. To be first in a place warrants p ossession; to antedate others’ origins or exploits shows superiority” (174). Precedence gives authenticity and ownership as it speaks to a person or a particular culture’s histor ical longevity, which is usually presented as an unbroken chain, strewn back to a group’s orig in. The significance of being first when political stak es are high may involve the right to live on a contended landscape such as Isra el. Young nations often use methods of claiming authenticity and origin, relying heavily o n archaeological data to plant roots and validate themselves. For instance, Lowenthal descri bes, ancestral antecedents inspire patriotic rites… most markedly in Israel. Finding papyri missives from Bar Kokhba, fabled lea der of the Jewish uprising against the Romans in A.D. 120, in a Judea n desert cave in 1960, General Yigael Yadin told President Ben Zvi before the assembled cabinet: ‘Mr. President of the State of Israel, I h ave the honor to present to you letters dispatched by the last president of the State of Israel 1800 years ago’” (Lowenthal 1998:177).


25 In The Past is a Foreign Country Lowenthal lays out how the rise of the United Sta tes began with a clean slate rhetoric that held a “prog ressive” mentality and did not necessitate the need for deeper historical roots (L owenthal 1985). From the founding of the State of Israel, its leaders and new settlers h ave taken the opposite route by digging up all historical or material evidence in support o f a Jewish ownership of the land. During this process, the Palestinian minority began to res pond with similar claims, searching for historical narratives that could justify their belo nging. This resulted in tensions created by the political clash of official and vernacular hist ories and dissonance among their contradictory claims. The right to ownership of the past has been demonstrated within some of Israel’s most violent moments. The ongoing debate over Jerusalem’s origins is exem plary of claims to being first, in as much as these claims are created through sele ctive representations of history. Arguments over the city’s origins have influenced b oth geopolitical and social boundaries and have resulted in the expulsion of Palestinian f amilies from the neighboring village of Silwan. In Silwan, a neighborhood in Jerusalem, primacy tak es a powerful political role in the creation of the archaeological theme park I’r D avid, or the City of David. The current representation of I’r David is sponsored by the Jew ish Elad the City of David Foundation. The presentation claims that Jerusalem, the contest ed city of today, was founded with King David’s conquest over the Jebusites 3,000 year s ago. Thus, the presentation credits the city’s origins with the ancient Jewish king. I took a guided tour, which also included a 3-D film explaining the ways that archaeology has b rought the biblical narratives of


26 Jerusalem’s earliest histories to life. With a Hebr ew bible in one hand and a microphone in the other, the tour guide walked our gourp along a path thought to be the passageway that David’s men used to enter the city: that of th e “wet path” of Hezekieh’s tunnel. The presentation focused on David’s conquest, using art ifacts hanging in glass cases to verify the biblical narratives, ultimately constructing th e understanding that Jerusalem’s origins belong to Jewish-Israeli heritage. These claims have been taken as challenges to Pales tinian archaeologists and historians, who promptly responded with archaeologi cal evidence of their own. In his article “Jerusalem in History: Notes on the origin of the city and its tradition of tolerance,” K.J. Asali (2004) criticizes the 1994 I sraeli Ministry of Tourism for attempting to celebrate Jerusalem’s 3,000 birthday. Asali understands the city’s original foundations as having been built by the Jebusites, one of several ethnic groups who once lived in the region during the Early Bronze Age, 5, 000 years ago. Asali states that the earliest name, “Urusalem,” is rooted in Amoritic an d may stem from the Canaanite and Amorite god Salem, or Shalem, Uru simply meaning “f ounded by” (Asali 2004). Asali also claims that “the Arabs of Jerusalem, as those of all of Palestine, are in the majority of descendants of those who lived in the country si nce time immemorial” (Asali 2004). He goes on to emphasize the minority status of Jews and Christians for the hundreds of years during Muslim rule over the region. What is important to understand within these dialog ues is not the claimed empirical truth of one argument over another, but t he significant emphasis that each version of history puts on precedence. Both these o fficial and vernacular historical


27 presentations make unique claims as to who laid the foundation for present day Jerusalem, legitimating ownership the right to a he ritage landscape. Archaeological evidence is sought out and manipulated as a resourc e of authority, the material record of the ancient city being used to buttress each claim. The history of Jebusite occupation is ignored on one hand and emphasized on the other. Th e possibility of multi-vocality or recognition within the official representation of t he ancient city’s history is complicated by this incongruence. Merely recognizing the import ance of Jebusite, Canaanite, and Amorite footprints within Jerusalem’s origins under mines the precedence claims that this Zionist-influenced presentation is making. Both sides of this argument use the same rhetoric t o validate their heritage and claim ownership of Jerusalem. The socio-political i mplications of these conflicting discourses are made apparent by the pressure being placed on the Arab village of Silwan to relocate. Because of its proximity to I'r David, archaeological excavations are threatening to further displace residents. To conte st those claims, alternative tours are given routinely in Arabic, Hebrew, and English by R afi Greenberg, a professor of archaeology at Hebrew University. His goals include giving tourists a more textured understanding of the city’s history and spreading a wareness of the social and political consequences that I’r David holds for the Palestini an minority. Heritage Tourism in Israel


28 The complexity of representation that emerges from competing claims and the politicized past are further complicated by the glo bal force of tourism. As I have emphasized throughout this chapter, heritage aids i n identity formation and community bonding-it allows the past to come alive and to a ssert claims to landscapes. The dynamics of heritage encourage myriad ways for peop le to engage with their own and others’ heritage. One of the most popular, and prof itable, ways that people experience pasts is through tourism. In the following section I describe heritage tourism, some of its powerful effects on the presentation of archaeologi cal sites, and the profitability of the past for Israel. Hoffman et al. (2002:30) define heritage tourism as “travel to archaeological and historical sites, parks, museums, and places of tra ditional or ethnic significance. It also includes travel to foreign countries to experience different cultures and explore their prehistoric and historic roots” (qouted in Baram an d Rowan 2004:8). Heritage tourism has become an international industry, building and helping to maintain economic structure for numerous countries throughout the wor ld, and Israel is no exception. In fact, the abundance and accessibility of the region’s arc haeological record, historic sites, and the global connections to its landscapes, both past and present, are main attractions for tourism. Worldwide interest in heritage tourism, en couraged by globalization and good marketing has increased tourists’ numbers consequen tially affecting the representations of these sites’ histories (Baram and Rowan 2004). Tourism within the Holy Land began as early as the sixteenth century with the concept of the “Grand Tour” (Baram and Rowan 2004:9 ). The “Grand Tour” was a form


29 of travel for the young Western European elite via similar routes, as they explored what was seen as Europe’s founding civilizations and imp ortant Christian pilgrimage sites; these heritage sites are found abundantly within Pa lestine. Increased interest in gaining a more worldly knowledge, as well as social esteem, a nd the progressive ease of travel further encouraged elite Western visitors during th e eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As Uzi Baram and Yorke Rowan lay out, “the Grand To ur represents the intersection of travel and education…Accounts of those travels, the records of experiences and observations, were popular…Yehoshua Ben-Arieh (1989 ) notes that in the 1800s there were nearly 1,600 books published on travel to Pale stine; by 1877 there were more than 3,500” (9). Some living in the Holy Land understood the potential profitability of these pilgrimages. Merchants began marketing to tourists’ interests, and guides were readily available to navigate tourists through heritage hot spots on a specific route: to Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, Nazareth, etc. These roads would becom e significant marks on “maps of collective memory” (Ebron 2000:912). David Roberts’ (1796-1864) artwork is exemplary of the images of the Holy Land that these early travelers and entrepreneurs brough t home with them. Roberts painted Orientalist depictions of Palestine that enticed We sterns to visit the Holy Land. Roberts was an artist who took his own Grand Tour of the Ho ly Land, attempting to follow in Moses’ footsteps by walking the supposed path of Ex odus. During his travels he painted images of otherness. He portrayed the Arab populati on in his artwork with great detail, but focused his efforts mostly on the grand landsca pes of what would become major heritage sites. His paintings contributed to the hy pe of the Grand Tour, to the Western


30 imagination of the Holy Land’s mystique and what wa s seen as the people held in history’s grasp. His images, now more than a centu ry old, grace the covers of recent books about the Middle East, demonstrating how his representations of Palestine are still attractive for those wanting cultural knowledge of the region. They also illustrate how effective images of the Holy Land translate into in creasing travel to Palestine for heritage tourism. Images of the modern state of Israel’s attractions portrayed on websites and in brochures, have proven equally enticing. Bauman wri tes, “during the past decade, Israel’s per capita income from tourism ranked eleventh high est in the world. Whereas revenue from tourism in 1993 was an estimated $2.5 billion, it reached an apogee of approximately $4.3 billion in 2000 (Israel Bureau o f Statistics 1993, 2000)” (Bauman 2004:208). He further describes how the Israeli gov ernment of the early 1990s set “increasing tourism” as a national priority: “Impro vement of tourist sites and infrastructure was heavily funded as public works p rojects within the green line Israel” (210). In Marketing Heritage Uzi Baram and Yorke Rowan describe the marketing o f heritage as identifying “the active construction of the past toward specific purposes as their goal” (Baram and Rowan 2004:5). Going beyond nationalist endeavors, organizations, such as the INNPPA, select particula r historical narratives to construct marketable presentations that speak to more interna tional heritage tourist interests. Edutainment is one of these interests. As the interplay of edu cation and leisure travel, edutainment combines the power and social polish of understanding histories and cultures


31 with tourists’ demands to be entertained. Therefore edutainment necessitates the creation of a comfortable, pleasant, and exciting experience that will allow the visitor to leave a site feeling cultured, entertained, and connected. The archaeological parks I describe, including Zippori, use themes that speak to concept ions of particular historical time periods and archaeological features that tie togeth er an attractive image. In her ethnography Pyramids and Nightclubs L.L. Wynn (2007) uses the anthropological study of tourism to combine ideas o f consumption with those of travel and cross-cultural contact, in order to better unde rstand the power relations within tourism (Wynn 2007:21). She describes the tourist i ndustry as creating a complex map of economic and cultural power relations in which tour ism influences a form of selfreflexivity on Egypt, encouraging the production of multiple representations that speak to a national heritage and to Western tourist interest s (212, 213). In the process of creating these images, archaeological parks cater to conveni ent versions of history that are more economically beneficial. These representations go o n to affect how Egyptians may see their heritage. She states, the Western tourist imagination of Egypt as an anci ent and pharaonic land has a much broader impact in the long term, inasmuc h as the Egyptian government mandates lessons on the pharaonic past i n government schools and uses pharaonic history in discourses on national history and unity, and tries to evict villagers in Giza (2007:2 12). Wynn’s analysis is useful in understanding how the economic benefits of the heritage tourist industry affect the choices being made with in archaeological parks’ presentations.


32 Within Israel, images of history are constructed fo r the purpose of consumption, while also influencing and complicating the image of Isra eli identity. The construction of heritage becomes an important element for further u nderstanding the construction of historical representations and the consequences of sharing them through tourism. The globalization of heritages creates a relationsh ip among identity formation, global politics, and the culture of capitalism (Ebr on 2000:910). Lowenthal states, “history is for all, heritage for ourselves alone […] Herita ge reverts to tribal rules that makes each past an exclusive, secret possession. Created to ge nerate and protect group interest, it benefits us only if withheld from others” (Lowentha l 1998:128). The globalization of heritage threatens exposure and international propr ietorship of another’s authenticity. The conception of a world heritage, one promoted by org anizations such as UNESCO, threatens the boundaries that encircle the private possession of heritage and further encourage tourism. Seeking authentic experiences, tourists long for ac cess behind the curtains. Though “the backstage can never be found, because o nce the tourist sets eyes on it, it is no longer the genuine backstage,” tourist locales a re marketed as such (Wynn 2007:15). In the process of editing theme parks into appealin g forms, “the dividing line between the genuine and the spurious [becomes] the realm of the social-commercial, where often what is spurious may become genuine and vice versa” (Russel Handsman in Baram and Rowan 2004:8).


33 In “Tourists as Pilgrims: commercial fashioning of transatlantic,” Paula A. Ebron lays out how heritage tours mobilize “familiar imag es, symbols, narratives, and artifacts to stage events that could function as a transforma tive personal experience” to serve the purposes of a commercial campaign (2000:911). She d escribes taking part in a McDonalds-sponsored “return to Africa” tour, offeri ng African Americans a chance to reconnect with their historical roots: In the context of the tour, transnational trends an d ideas about culture and identity converged with the strategies of multinati onal capitalists, the dreams of diasporic communities, and the income-gen erating plans of African national governments to produce Africa as a commodified cultural object of global significance. In this process, Afr ica became sacred and commercial, authentic and spectacular (2000:912). She lays out the “transnational imagination,” one t hat allows the tourist to transplant the images and expectations created within their own co untry about a particular place and then live out these expectations across that landsc ape through tourism. Ebron describes powerful heritage sites as invigorating discussions of “the passion and terror of the global spread of ‘long distance nationalisms’” (2000:911). While touring Israel the implementation of transnational imagination of the Holy Land can create long distance connections with the country’s past landscapes for religious pilgrims, as well as secular tourists. Ebron’s heritage tour demonstrates the pr ocess of creating pilgrims out of tourists, as a commercialized, and in this case, co rporate, institution is mediating historical connections to the landscapes of Africa. The commodification of heritage


34 interests at Israeli’s archaeological sites similar ly attracts pilgrims and tourists-aspilgrims. Today, Israel’s Ministry of Tourism projects images of the Holy Land, including the illustration of an ancient land, a rugged terra in, and a fun beach get away, that appeal to particular classes and heritage. fo cuses on sites of Jewish and Christian pilgrimage and great archaeological projects concer ning the ancient past related to these heritage interests. More general interests are addr essed and represented with photographs of the more modern cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa -images of people strolling along the beaches and boardwalks -to demonstrate an ideal v acation environment. Photographs of gift shops with the heading “Discover Israel” simil arly lure travelers ( “Home Page,” accessed 20 February 2009). The Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority’s website, which advertises an cient archaeological sites and their surrounding natural parks, features mixed illustrat ions of ancient material culture and nature ( “Home Page,” accessed 20 Febr uary 2009). For instance, the link that leads to a section called “The Holy Land” is r epresented by a fragmented illustration of the Mona Lisa of the Galilee and when one scrolls over her face, the illustrati on becomes whole. Other websites advertise for Israel’ s beautiful natural landscapes, attracting visitors interested in ecotourism. When enticing visitors, the Israel’s Ministry of To urism and its associated institutions construct an attractive image of archa eology, selectively using icons, such as the Mona Lisa of the Galilee to market to tourists (Baram and Rowan 2004:10). The increased spending on creating themes for archaeolo gical sites has become apparent at


35 many of these parks in Israel. To encourage tourism both new and returning, the INNPPA has been focusing its funding on constructin g appealing archaeological sites such as those at Beit She’an and Masada. Beit She’an is a large, beautiful, and historically layered attraction, which has been reconstructed to fit its Roman or Talmudic per iod history. The town is built entirely around its namesake, the town itself receiving litt le visitation for any other purpose. Tourism fuels the Beit She’an’s economy and in reco gnition of this, the Israel Ministry of Tourism, in cooperation with other institutions suc h as the INNPPA, recently invested 3 million dollars in creating “Beth She’anAt Night. ” Promoted as a multi-sensory experience, “Beit She’anAt Night” (depicted in Fi gure 2.1) uses multi-colored lighting to accent certain features, and speakers placed str ategically along the walking path to tell stories and give visitors a feel for the site’s ear ly Common Era centuries: The unique multimedia experience, projected on Beit She’an’s ancient walls, offers you a lively visit to this thriving h istoric metropolis, where you’ll witness events that happened here thousands of years ago…Shean Nights is yet another aspect of the extensive excav ation, conservation, reconstruction and development in Beit She’an Natio nal Park over the past two decades, work in which NIS 210 million has been invested by the Tourism MinistryThe Israel Governement Tourist Co rporation, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Beit She’an Municipality and the Jewish National Fund (S hean Nights brochure, ILANIT Design 2008). Similarly, a “Light and Sound” show at Masada adver tised in the “Israel: World Heritage Sites” brochure, offered by the Ministry o f Tourism, informs the potential


36 tourist that “from March to October […] a special l ight and sound show takes place at the Masada National Park. It tells the story of the las t days of the Masada defenders. The mountain’s western face provides the backdrop t o the impressive show.” When Masada’s cable car was installed in response to dem ands of creating easy access to the top of the plateau, it turned the once challenging rite of passage into an easy ride up to the popular site. In Mount Sinai, Joseph J. Hobbs explains the outrage expressed by a local monastic order towards the proposition of an aerial tramway that could potentially lead 900 tourists up to the top of Mt. Sinai every day ( Hobbs 1995:289). The monks at the mountain claim that the cable car adds to the secul arization and destruction of a holy site. The tram ride up the mountain ruins what his inform ants call the “objective” of “sweating it” on the difficult trail to the top (291). Intere sting additions to the landscape and large Figure 2.1 Beit She’an lit up for its night time en tertainment (Photograph by 2009: “Beit Shean (at night)” acce ssed 20 February 2009).


37 investments, these cable cars demonstrate how the c ommercialization of heritage reshapes meanings for archaeological sites today. A t Masada, the significance of the individual’s trek matters less than the mass-produc ed experience that gives direct access to the attraction and the gift shop. It is also important to note the meaningful connect ions to the infamous snake trail revered by organizations such as Taglit, or Birth R ight Israel, an international organization sponsored by private philanthropists t hat allows young Jewish adults to experience Israel in a free ten-day guided trip (Bi “About Us,” accessed 21 April 2009). The pride of climbing the enormous plateau for thes e tourists may be strengthened when juxtaposed to the cable car ride. Now that one need not actually climb Masada, when troops of tourists make the choice to take the more intense route up the snake trail, usually as early as 4:00 a.m. in order to catch the sunrise, the significance of the site may be reaffirmed, or accentuated. I found evidence of this in Masada’s gift shop, as shirts and souvenir books exclaim in big bold le tters “I climbed Masada.” These items are also inherently stating, “I did not take the ca ble car ride,” or the easy way. These cable cars and tshirts are exemplary of the compl exities present in the interplay between the creation of meaningful experiences and marketab le themed attractions within heritage tourism. The climb itself, or “sweating it,” can be both an appealing aspect to the site for tourists and may also reaffirm meaningful connectio ns. While at Masada I took advantage of both options; I took the 10 minute cab le car ride up along with a band of tourists and latter, wrapped a bandana around my he ad to take the long hike down by myself.


38 I’r David’s presentation has also been affected by this process of commercialization. The archaeological theme park’s 3-D film, its subsequent theater, elegant courtyard, and guided tours demonstrate a g reat deal of investment in beautifying archaeology in order to create an “impressive show. ” As I will describe in my fourth and fifth chapters, Zippori has become part of this pro cess of commercializing, especially within its gift shop. If the black market for antiquities demonstrates th e longing for and prestige of the ancient past, then gift shopping allows tourists to legally purchase objects representative of the past, such as replicas, that connect them wi th Israel. Gift shops are social spaces where new meanings and connections to a past may be forged and accessed in a convenient and profitable way. In this section, I explain the various ways heritages and messages can be mediated through the comforting act of shopping at gift shops and how these stores take part in the commercialization of the Holy Land (Gazin-Schwartz 2004). The items available cater to the visitors’ desires, which may include wanting to purchase meaningful objects. Israel’s Ministry of T ourism website describes shopping in Israel as more than hunting for souvenirs. Their we bsite claims that tourists can “Discover Israel” through shopping for products sta ting, shopping in Israel is more than acquiring things; i t becomes the best way to think about your loved ones and friends at home, because you’ll be bringing them (and yourself) a bag, bottle, or box symbolizing the wonders you experienced…Some of the most meaningful mementos are waiting for you at Israel’s holy places in Galilee and Jerusalem…And what better way to remember…Judaica centers than to adorn a Sabbath and holiday table at home with a hand-embroidered C hallah-or matzah


39 cover (lightweight and easy to pack!) ( 2005: “Discover Israel: Unique Purchases in Israel” accessed 21 Mar ch 2009). The website goes on to describe the high quality of Israel’s Dead Sea products and jewelry, encouraging tourists to “find something fo r everyone and have fun while you’re doing it” ( 2005: “Discover Israel: Uni que Purchases in Israel” accessed 21 March 2009). The website uses the secular and relig ious Holy Land experience to urge visitors to take advantage of the authentic materia l culture that one may only purchase from Israel. Masada is a tremendously popular archaeological sit e in Israel, known today mostly as a powerful modern Jewish symbol and a “mu st-see” UNESCO world heritage site. A great deal of the attraction at Masada is n ot just the mystique of the ancient, but what Lowenthal calls, “the modern passion play of n ational rebirth” (Lowenthal 1998:164). Masada’s dramatic presentation and corre lating gift shop markets this attraction. There were products in the expansive gi ft shop with a general appeal not relevant to the site itself; many of these objects, such as Ein Gedi body products and hats with the INNPPA logo, could be found at any standar dized gift shop in Israel. However, certain items were blatantly marketed for Jewish vi sitors and tourists looking for a political message to take home. One t-shirt in particular had the words “Masada sha ll not fall again” printed across the front. Another T-shirt listed the names of “nations and empires that have tried to destroy the Jewish People” and listed there stat uses as “gone” (Iran’s status


40 “humorously” marked last with a question mark). The se items allow tourists to purchase the current dramatic interpretation of Masada’s pas t and connect them with Israel’s modern political tensions, ultimately making a comm odity of the “modern passion play of national rebirth.” Summary Israel’s entanglement with archaeology, the polit ics of the past, and the country’s more recent engagement with heritage tourism reveal how the tourist industry has influenced archaeological representations, shifting these representations from more nationalistic purposes to easily consumable present ations. As I suggest with I’r David and Masada, the passion plays caused by the politic s of the past are still apparent; however, the connections with their histories are b eing commodified through entertaining presentations and gift shops. I continue my explora tion in chapter three with my case study of Zippori National Park and its relationship to these processes.


41 CHAPTER III: THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORY OF ZIPPORI/SEPPHORIS In this chapter, I briefly describe the history of archaeology at Zippori National Park and the excavations whose results have aided i n the site’s current presentation. I then offer a chronology and historical outline that detail the site’s major time periods. Multiple books span the history and findings of the ancient city of Zippori/Sepphoris (Levine and Weiss 1997, Nagy, Meyers, Meyers, and W eiss 1996, Weiss 2005); therefore, my overview for the purposes of this the sis will be concise. The sources that I cite frequently to construct this timeline are the particular excavation reports that I refer to, but I also rely heavily on Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents of Culture a catalogue that has compiled a historical overview using the v ariety of archaeologists and historians that have worked at Zippori. Also, Uzi Baram provid ed much of the background and insights for the section on the Ottoman period. In engaging with Zippori’s historical layers, I hop e to illuminate the contrasting nature of the site’s current simplistic and exclusi ve presentation with its rich history. As the scholarship that I use fluctuates between using the Hebrew name, Zippori, and its English version, Sepphoris, I refer to the ancient city using both names.


42 A Brief History of Excavations In 1931, during the British Mandate, Leroy Waterman (18751972) led the first excavation at Sepphoris under the auspice of Univer sity of Michigan. He and his team produced a preliminary report concerning the archae ological work done around the Citadel, what he identified as a Christian Basilica and the Roman theater. As discussed in chapter two, much of the Western a rchaeological endeavors of this time period were focused on proving biblical n arratives that suited heritage interests. Waterman seemed originally inspired by the possibil ity of a strong early Christian presence at the village of Saffuriyeh. The assertio n that this was a Christian Baslilic in his report was founded primarily on the presence of a “ baptismal sink” (Waterman 1937). Waterman has been accused of jumping to conclusions concerning his interpretation of the basilica. Recent scholarship has reinterpreted the feature as either a public basilica, which is a Roman public building, or an elaborate v illa estimated to cover 479 square meters (Strange, Longstaff, and Groh 2006:32, Stran ge 1996:71). During his excavations, Waterman employed men from the village of Saffuriyeh. Over the course of the excavation “the staff found fairly comfortable quarters in a rented Arab house on the edge of the village. Work was car ried on entirely by local workmen under the direction of an Egyptian foreman” (Waterm an 1937:vii). School sessions were still taking place within the Citadel and that mean t excavations could not take place until the beginning of summer vacation, lasting until the end of August. He acknowledges “the district government officials of Nazareth and to Sh eikh Saleh of Saffuriyye for preserving


43 excellent order in a turbulent community, and for k indly and efficient administrative cooperation in all matters pertaining to the villag ers” (1937:vii). Here, one can assume that Waterman is referring to the tensions increase d by the colonial presence during the British Mandatory Period of the early twentieth cen tury, which I discuss later in this chapter. The next major excavations at Zippori came over fif ty years later with the University of South Florida (USF), led by James Str ange and assisted by T.R.W. Longstaff and Dennis E. Groh. These excavations las ted from 1983 to 1989. Two of the USF team’s objectives were to discern an estimate o f the shape and size of the ancient city, and to identify the origins of Zippori’s Cita del and reconstruct the sequence of events surrounding the structure. USF was joined by the Joint Sepphoris Expedition (J SE) in 1984, consisting of the combined efforts of archaeologists from Duke Un iversity and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The JSE team was lead by Eric Meyers and Carol Meyers from Duke and by Ehud Netzer and Z. Weiss from the Hebrew Univers ity, along with multiple contributions from other scholars. The intersection of these two major projects in the 1980s and 90s led to the remarkable findings of Zip pori’s famous mosaics. The main goals for the five major campaigns conducted by the JSE was excavating, interpreting, and preserving these mosaic floors. I will describe some of their findings below, as their interpretations serve as the center piece for the p resentation at the archaeological theme park today and, thus, necessitate some description of their placement within Zippori’s history.


44 Earliest Occupations of the Lower Galilee While the majority of Israel’s most northern region is mountainous, the topography of the lower Galilee consists of rolling hills and large valleys with some extensive plain areas. The earliest settling in the lower Galilee region, beginning in the fifth-millennium-B.C.E., or Chalcolithic era, inclu ded a number of different settlements dotting the area around the hills and valleys (Meye rs 1996:15). “The subregion’s landforms and water supply were conducive to agricu ltural development and thus to establishment of small village settlements and even some larger walled cities […]” (15). The archaeological finds at Ein Zippori, or Spring of Zippori, included a series of luxury wares dated to the Late Bronze age phases I and II, suggesting continued settlement by rural elites (17). As agrarian settlements rarely have fine material culture, this period’s archaeological record is particularly interesting. Determining the ethnicity of these settlers based on these recovered artifacts is diff icult, but these farmers are assumed to be Canaanites until the central state formation, begin ning in the eleventh century, which is considered Israelite. At around sixth century B.C.E during the Persian era, if not before, a permanent settlement on the hilltop, rising 115 m eters above the Bet Netofa Valley (a modern depiction presented in Figure 3.1), the lowe st levels of the ancient city of Zippori began (Meyers 1996:16, Meyers 1992:321). A large a mount of Persian period pottery and sumptuary objects found in the context of this time period reflects the presence of sizeable Persian political elite (Meyers 1996:16).


45 The Roman Period and Hellenistic Influence Zippori’s useful, sustainable, and beautiful locale was noted by the Hasmoneans, or Jewish rulers, during the first century B.C.E. a nd then within the first century C.E. by ancient historian Flavius Josephus in his works Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War According to the historical record, Herod capture s Sepphoris from the last Hasmonean ruler, Antigonus. Beginning in 4 B.C.E. Herod’s son, Herod Antipas, rules over Galilee, and recognizes the hilltop for its mi litary potential. He fortifies Sepphoris, and renames it Autocratoris. “The name Autocratoris alludes to either the sovereign emperor Augustus or to the independent status of th e city,” also indicating that, according to Josephus, the city was quite a reputable fortres s (Miller 1996:22). Antipas is credited Figure 3.1 A view from Zippori’s hilltop onto the s urrounding Bet Netofa Valley (Photography by 2005: accessed 20 April 2009).


46 for turning the contested city into what Josephus c alls “the Ornament of all Galilee” (22). Standing near the ancient main east-west highway th at linked Akko (Ptolemais) to Tiberias and close to the north-south junction, Sep phoris’ location enabled it to serve as a major center of trade and commerce and the capital for all regions of the Galilee as early as the first century B.C.E. (Meyers 1992:321, Weiss and Netzer 1994:7). While tensions raged across first century Israel due to the Roman conquest and the consequential Jewish Revolt, Sepphoris remained a peaceful -though not homogenously so -city as its citizens chose not t o fight in the great revolt. Josephus also looked upon the Jewish population of Sepphoris in h igh regard for their demonstrations of peaceful relations with the Romans, such as in 6 7/68 C.E. when coins for the city were minted with the title “Eirenopolis,” or “City of Pe ace” (Miller 1996:22). However, according to Waterman, Sepphoris’ decision to side with the Roman Empire may have been based on whether or not the ancient city could have survived a siege. Sepphoris had two main sources for water, one located 2.5kms to t he south at the Spring of Zippori and the second, a group of springs, located about 6km e ast of the city (Meyers 1992:321). In light of this, Waterman suggests that withstanding a siege would have been difficult and proposes that these external water sources may be t he cause for the peaceful acceptance of Roman rule (Waterman 1937). Sepphoreans were repaid for their loyalty to the R omans by replacing Tiberias as the most prominent and prestigious city of Galilee during Roman occupation (Miller 1996:23). The city was renamed Diocaesarea by the R oman officials at around 130 C.E.:


47 Changing the city name to ‘Diocaesarea’ thus appear s to correspond with the broader political aims of the Roman Empire, whi ch attempted to attain greater control of the local community by construct ing buildings, installing local Roman administrators, and by gener ally adopting a more visible presence (Meyers, Netzer, and Meyers 1992:1 3). This name would remain within official documents re ferring to the city until the end of Roman presence. In this era the city was inhabited by many aristocr atic Jews of a priestly background. Eric Meyers (1992) suggests that its “s uccess in accommodating an unusually high degree of Hellenization in the secon d to fourth centuries C.E., could well reflect the inclusion of many rich landowners and o ther notables in its population” (Meyers 1992:322). This intense Hellenization of th e ancient city was uncovered mostly during the USF and JSE seasons when they found the elaborate mosaic floors from the early Common Era. One of the most popular floorings they uncovered was the Dionysus mosaic, or the triclinium floor (a portion depicted in Figure 3.2).


48 The triclinium mosaic floor, uncovered in 1987, was constructed w ithin the early third century C.E. for a private residence of a po werful community figure (Meyers, Meyers, Netzer, and Weiss 1996:111). The mosaic con sists of numerous panels of meticulous art work illustrating a variety of scene s, while the plain white panels of the triclinium served as a lounging area for residents and their guests. The panels surrounding the sitting areas depict a drinking competition bet ween Dionysus and Herakles (Latin name for Hercules), where the former dominates. Dio nysus is then honored with a procession, depicted in a series of panels adjacent to the competition. The internationally renowned mosaic panel featuring the Mona Lisa of the Galilee has been interpreted as Figure 3.2 The Procession for Dionysus (Photograph by author).


49 Aphrodite, Greco/Roman goddess of love, due to a sm aller image beside her head of a naked youth with a bow and arrow, possibly depictin g Cupid (113). This impressive finding testifies to the strong Hellenistic influen ce of Zippori during the Roman era. An intense amount of urban planning and constructio n took place during this period, including the development of the Roman amph itheater, which Waterman and his team uncovered in his 1931 season. Measuring a diam eter of 37 meters, Waterman’s report estimates that the Roman amphitheater was or iginally capable of seating 3,000 to 4,000 people. The stage, most likely a wooden struc ture, measured 31 by 6 meters with “rich architectural decorations adorn[ing] the wall s” of the orchestra (Strange, Longstaff, and Groh 2006:32). This period of expansion saw the increase in residences as well as the construction of new roads stretching out to the agr icultural facilities on the outskirts of the city; thus, demonstrating a growing population and a stable, perhaps prosperous, economy (Miller 1996:24). The remains of an oil pre ss and metal working area suggested that the new major civic center bustled with shops and local merchants (Weiss and Netzer 1996:81). During the late Roman and early Byzantine eras, the region also began to feel a strong rabbinic presence, becoming a noted center f or Jewish learning. The archaeological evidence speaks to the increased pre sence of prominent rabbis; the USF and JSE discovered a building in the residential qu arter housing either private or public bathing facilities during this Roman/Mishnic period (Weiss and Netzer 1996:30). The famous Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, or Judah the Patriarch is credited with compiling and


50 codifying the Mishnah while living at Zippori durin g this period. Jacob Neusner (1988), a prominent scholar of the Hebrew canon, describes th e Mishnah as a six-part code of descriptive rules formulated tow ard the end of the second century A.D. by a small number of Jewish sag es and put forth as the constitution of Judaism under the sponsorship o f Judah the Patriarch, the head of the Jewish community of Palestine at th e end of that century. The Mishnah is important because it forms the found ation for the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds. It therefore st ands alongside the Hebrew Bible as the holy book upon which the Judais m of the past nineteen hundred years is constructed (Neusner 198 8:xv). As a principle component to the canon of Judaism, t he Mishnah’s hypothesized compilation at Zippori is telling of the park’s con temporary significance for Jews the world over. Greatly influenced by the presence and accomplishme nts of Rabbi Yehuda, the city’s reputation continued as a major center for J ewish learning of ancient Palestine. The development of multiple rabbinic schools, the stron g economy tied to the lush agricultural landscape, its strategic location, and fortification, were all attractive aspects of 3rd century Sepphoris (Miller 1996:24). “One third-cen tury rabbi was said to have commented that the milk and honey of Sepphoris ‘flo wed for sixteen square miles’” (24). This impressive image of the ancient city continued on into the Byzantine era. The Byzantine Period Major architectural changes and renovations during the beginning of the Byzantine era were a consequence of the damage caus ed by the Earthquake of 363 C.E.


51 The devastating quake left much of Sepphoris, or at least its large features, destroyed. It is assumed that it was this natural catastrophe tha t lead to the destruction and additional layering over Dionysus mosaic (Freyne 1996:81). The Nile Festival mosaic celebrating the prosperity brought on by the rise of the Nile, and its surrounding mosaic flooring, were built during the early Byzantine on the east s ide of the cardo or one of the main arteries within the city (82). An inscription credi ts the artists Patricius and his father-inlaw Procopius for the elaborate mosaics in this pub lic building (82). Sean Freyne (1996) states that, the room with the Nile festival floor and the basil ical hall shared a common drainage system. These details suggest that ceremonies in which water was thrown over the participants, or on the f loors, took place here. These ceremonies might have been related to the Mai uma, festivities in which the harvest and water played a key role” (Fre yne 1996:83). The Nile Festival’s central location within the cit y, the building’s size, and its elaborate mosaic panels has lead to the conclusion that it perhaps served as a municipal basilica during early Byzantine period (Weiss and N etzer 1996:127). The mosaics are impressive and expressive features that represent a combination of ethnic influence for Roman-Byzantine art (127). Though the entire floor of the building was once covered with mosaic, the large portions uncovered by JSE we re severely damaged. Its largest mosaic (depicted in Figure 3.3), said to be Nilotic in character by Zeev Weiss and Ehud Netzer, celebrates the health and prosperity grante d by the Nile River. A female figure stands out on the top left corner, personifying Egy pt as a land of abundance, while below her, horsemen deliver good news to Alexandria and t igers dominate their prey (129).


52 Several other panels depict mixed images of hunting and warfare, such as “Amazonian” women on the hunt and a popular panel of a Roman so lider holding a spear. These mosaics are also exemplary of the strong Hellenisti c influence within the ancient city. Though Talmudic sources tell of ancient Zippori hav ing eighteen synagogues during the lifespan of Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi, JSE ha s uncovered and interpreted only one ancient synagogue mosaic flooring thus far. Thi s synagogue floor has been dated to the fifth century C.E., a few hundred years after t he time of the great Jewish Patriarch. Figure 3.3 The Nile Festival mosaic: the river’s si gnificant height being marked and the celebrations that ensued. (Photograph by A accessed 20 April 2009).


53 The synagogue mosaic was discovered by chance in th e Hebrew University’s summer excavation of 1993. “What started out as an unpromi sing area yielded one of the most significant finds for the study of ancient Jewish a rt and archaeology, since the discovery of the Dura Europos synagogue in Syria seventy year s ago” (Weiss 2005:xiii). Sitting on the north end of the acropolis, the synagogue mosai c at Zippori has received a good deal of recognition for its detail and its interesting d epiction of the Zodiac (depicted in Figure 3.4). A dedicatory inscription written in Aramaic r ests on the north end of the building. The seven strips that compose the mosaic speak to a variety of themes found commonly in Jewish art of ancient Israel (Weiss and Netzer 1 996:133). However, the zodiac’s twelve signs are uniquely Sepphorian (137). Weiss’s The Sepphoris Synagogue describes the mosaic in great detail and offers multiple inte resting modes of interpretation (see Weiss’s 2005 The Sepphoris


54 Synagogue). The Byzantine era ushered in another diverse elemen t to the already pluralistic city. Early Christian settlement within the first o r second century C.E. in Galilee is difficult to discern through the historical record, but strong architectural evidence speaks to the first Christian presence in the region to be the mid 4th century C.E. (Freyne 1996:70). The city was mentioned in a command deliv ered from Constantine to build “churches of Christ in the cities and villages of t he Jews” including “Diocaesarea, also called Sepphoris” (Panarion 30.II.0-10 cited in Fre yne 1996:70). This notice is most likely referencing a Byzantine church, built in lat e fifth or early sixth century C.E., found Figure 3.4 The unique zodiac of the synagogue mosai c floor at Zippori (Photography by Liran 2005: accessed 20 April 2009).


55 along the decumanus An inscription was found in the church dedicated to a bishop named Eutropius. Another church was built in the he art of the city during this period indicating a steep increase in Christian activity i n the city during the Byzantine era (84). A synagogue was also built within the residential a rea during this time period on the outskirts of the city. “In both Roman and Byzantine Sepphoris large and ornate mansions were built close to simple homes […] Moreover, a cl ear and rigid division of the city into neighborhoods according to social, religious, or ec onomic status cannot be discerned” (85). The Christian and Jewish presence within the Galilee continued during the Muslim conquest of 634-40 C.E., evidenced by the continued construction of churches and synagogues (71). The Early Arab Period The first half of the seventh century ushered in a period of ongoing warfare between Persia and Byzantium, beginning the Early A rab period (Ward1996:91). The elaborate material culture and the rapid expansion of the Roman and Byzantine period came to a halt and according to Seth Ward, “it neve r appears to have regained its former population size or standard of living” (91). Though major construction ended, Arab literary sour ces from this time period still reference Sepphoris as a prominent city in the Gali lee, mentioned along with Akko and Tyre. These sources describe how a Jewish girl was taken as a slave from “the city of unbelievers,” referencing the inhabitants of Seppho ris at this time (Ward 1996:92). However, this does not indicate that Jews were the predominant population of the city.


56 These sources lack information speaking to any subs tantial Muslim community despite that Sepphoris was taken by force during the conque st of the newly formed Islamic movement in 635 C.E. (92). The city’s importance in the Galilee and large population, further dwindled, becoming more of a small town or village (92). The Crusader Period In 1099 C.E. the Crusaders conquered Sepphoris in t heir series of victories across the Holy Land and renamed it Le Sephorie. The Crusa ders established themselves at Le Sephorie. In the Byzantine era Sepphoris was claime d to be the Virgin Mary’s birth place and home to her parents. In recognition of this Chr istian history the Crusaders constructed a church, the Church of St. Anne (shown in Figure 3.5) located on the west end of the site below the summit, which also served pilgrims. The church was large in relation to the small village that Sepphoris had be come. Many sources speak of Sepphoris’ population as very small during this tur bulent era, specifically telling of the diminished Jewish community. There is even some evi dence to suggest that the Crusader church was built over the remains of an earlier syn agogue. It is presumed that Zippori’s Church of St. Anne wa s destroyed along with the Church of Annunciation in Nazareth when Baybars con quered Galilee, (Folda 1996:101106). Currently, the remains of the church and its small surrounding property belong to a Franciscan order that has opened up its chapel door s once more for pilgrims and tourists.


57 The Ottoman Period to the Present Seth Ward (1996) states that “Galilee was far remo ved from the political and intellectual centers, especially after 750 C.E., an d literary evidence specific to Sepphoris is scant […] Although there is some archaeological evidence for continued occupation of the site during the Arab period, much of it is ambi guous or unpublished” (Ward 1996:93). Despite the lack of interpretation I will attempt t o lay out the chronology of the Ottoman period and its effects on the small town of Saffuri yeh. In 1516 the Ottoman Empire conquered and incorpora ted Palestine into its vast dominion. After the crusades the multi-religious c haracter of the area had faded, replaced by a growing Islamic influence: Figure 3.5 St. Anne Crusader period church (Photogr aph by accessed 20 April 2009).


58 In the century following the Ottoman conquest […] a t least a dozen individuals who were born in or lived in Sepphoris are known from Islamic biographical literature. This may reflect t he large increase in Islamic education in Syria and Palestine under the Mamluks and Ottomans” (1996:96). These individuals are noted by contemporary Palesti nian remembrance groups: Saffurriyaa was […] the hometown of the Islamic sch olar Abu al-Baqa' alSaffuri (d. 1625), who was very influential and bec ame a judge in Safad, and also Saffuriyya was the hometown of Ahmad al-Sh arif also known by al-Saffuri al-Dimashqi (d. 1633), who was a judg e and poet (, accessed 1 April 2009). By 1740 the hilltop of Zippori was once again recog nized for its strategic location. During the time period, governor Zahir al -Umar al-Zaydani of Akko fortified the village’s Citadel. Greco/Roman sarcophagi were placed at two of the building’s corners and a second story was built. Waterman repo rts an inscription dedicated by Abdul Jamid under the auspices of the contemporaneous gov ernor. Waterman describes an inscription that “boldly states” that “he built the place for educational purposes during his master’s reign” (1937:2). The inscription was place d above the main entrance of the building. This structure (depicted in Figure 3.6.) was then continuously used as a school until 1948.


59 Currently, there is debate among Zippori’s scholars concerning the structure’s origins and function. Both the Waterman and USF rep orts state that the Citadel has foundations that reach farther back then the 12th century as an older rabbinic source speaks to a “castle” standing on the summit of Sepp horis. Based on some of Waterman’s and his own findings, Strange reports “some sort of military presence at Sepphoris, perhaps” as early as the Byzantine period based on the pottery that he found (Strange, Longstaff, and Groh 2006:44, 51, Waterman 1937). Th e USF team also found a consistent and substantial layer of plaster (20-23 cm. thick) dating to the mid fourth century on the northwest side of the feature. The r eport raises the possibility that this plaster is indicative of a working surface for when the building was under construction (2006:54). However, Strange concludes that the buil ding’s measurements (ca. 15 m. on Figure 3.6 The plaque, now absent, once hung in the empty square above the entrance of Zippori’s citadel (Photograph by author ).


60 each side) affirm that the current structure standi ng is not an Ottoman period building or citadel, but built by the Crusaders as a Tower (Str ange, Longstaff, and Groh 2006:64). The interpretation of the second story of the build ing being a 19th century construction correlates with other reports. Though Strange’s findings may point to the foundati ons of a Byzantine period castle on the hilltop, the structure standing today can also be interpreted as a building from the Ottoman era. This is indicated by the Otto man period dedication that once hung above the doorframe, the building’s noted importanc e for the local polity of Akko, and its apparent use as a school indicates that the current structure was mostly built and functioned during the Ottoman period (Baram persona l communication 8 April 2009). Though the lower Galilee may have been far removed from political and intellectual centers, the region maintained a thriv ing cotton industry during the 1700 and 1800s, reaching an apex from 1851-1856 when it ente red into the larger global capitalist system. The Civil War in the United States severely limited America’s ability to export, which caused this cotton boom in Palestine. Immedia tely following the war’s conclusion, the cotton industry collapsed and Palestine witness ed one of its most epic economic downfalls. The first Aliyah, or settlement of Jewish Russian and Romanian immigrants into farming communities in Palestine, began in 1882. Th e mass immigration and establishment, the Zionist ideology of redemption, coupled with the presence of aggressive colonial powers, severely increased tens ions among the various communities


61 present in Palestine. A series of Arab revolts foll owing the second and third periods of Aliyah and the establishment of the British Mandate in 1922 intensified the conflict. The USF excavation team interviewed a man who had lived in Saffuriyeh (depicted in Figure 3.7) during the early twentieth century. Strange br iefly describes this interview and how the British had left their mark on Saffuriyeh: As we stood at the top of the hill he, [the informa nt], recalled that during the Second World War British forces had maintained a lookout station in the vicinity where we were excavating. The modern d ebris [at first thought to be a re-digging of an older pit] was therefore i dentified as a British dump from the 1940’s, a conclusion confirmed by a s urface find, a brass button decorated with the British Crown and Rope, b earing the name of the South Stafford Regiment (Strange, Longstaff, an d Groh 2006:53). Figure 3.7 Photograph of the village Saffuriyeh I t aken in the early twentieth century. The Citadel st ands on prominently on the summit (Photography from umich.e du 1997: “Overview of Site” accessed 20 April 2009)


62 1948 marked the end of the British Mandate and the beginning of the modern state of Israel. The title of “al-Nakba” or “the Ca tastrophe,” is used by Palestinians to mark this time period. The 1948 war saw the exodus of a large majority of Palestinian Arabs into neighboring countries and the destructio n of hundreds of Arab towns and villages, one of these villages being Saffuriyeh. W ard claims that Saffuriyeh had about 3,000 residents in 1948, while Eric Meyers (1992) s tates that they had about 13,000 (Ward 1996:96, Meyers 1992:321). The people of the village were mostly relocated to Nazareth. That same year, the 4,000 acre man-made forest fina nced by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) was laid out around the site, covering t he remains of the Saffuriyeh village (Netzer and Shalev 1996:144). The few remaining fea tures of the village include the Citadel or elementary school, the cemetery, and wha t was once identified as a shrine along the southern road for an unknown local sage, which now functions as a synagogue (, accessed 1 April 2009). I was unable to visit the Saffuriyeh community in N azareth, but websites such as express the significance of Zippori’s landscape and features for the diasporic community of Palestinians. The on line community shares their collective memories, including where their homes we re built, treasured landmarks, the village clans, and prominent religious figures from the area of the lower Galilee. Slideshows and various pictures organized on this w ebsite depict the school house, or Citadel, and the cemetery, as they were “then,” and how they are now. The black and white montage of smiling faces mixed with images of Zippori’s features illustrates that


63 very recently this land was occupied by a rich cult ure and that these peoples still associate themselves with this landscape. Furthermo re, according to Zippori’s general manager, a protest is held once a year at moshav Zippori, the Jewish farming collective that surrounds the archaeological site, by the Pale stinians of Nazareth who sometimes blockade the roads and, in procession, walk through the moshav to visit the cemetery. The protest is a clear demonstration of the signifi cance of the national park for the local community: an important claim to the landscape abse nt from Zippori’s current representation. Moshav Zippori was constructed alongside the National Par k. Bauman describes the creation of the current moshav as a contentious process stating that, “immigrants from Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey were pressured to set tle there” by the new state and struggled to make ends meet (Bauman 2004:212). Toda y, moshav Zippori is a Jewish farming community located next to the predominantly Palestinian city of Nazereth. The community members of the moshav regularly volunteer during summer excavation periods conducted by Hebrew University. These excav ations and the subsequent recreation of the ancient city of Zippori, which I describe in the following chapter, have drawn a great deal of tourism to the landscape. In response, some of the families on the moshav have undertaken economic endeavors to accommodate and attract tourists, such as the creation of a bed and breakfast ( “Zippori Village Country Cottages” accessed 3 May 2009). Summary


64 Zippori’s interesting mixture of historical and ma terial remains from the Roman/Byzantine time periods has created strong con nections to Western religious and secular heritage. These connections have been evide nt since the pilgrimages of the Crusades, remained within Zippori’s first excavatio ns with Waterman’s interests, and continue on today. The large amounts of impressive features from these time periods uncovered by JSE have commanded the attention of th e international public and scholarly community, alike. As I will describe in the followi ng chapters, much of the site’s rich history is edited down or simplified for the enjoym ent of tourists, to allow these visitors to construct meaningful connections, which suit the ir own heritage interests.


65 CHAPTER IV: TOURING ZIPPORI NATIONAL PARK According to scholars Ehud Netzer and Binyamin Shal ev, one of the main objectives from the outset of the intersected 1980s excavations was to turn Sepphoris, into a park for tourists (Netzer and Shalev 1996:14 3). The University of South Florida (USF) excavations, the Joint Sepphoris Expedition ( JSE), and Israel’s Ministry of Tourism combined their efforts in “The Zippori Proj ect” to make the site into, as Netzer and Shalev express, “a major tourist attraction” (1 44). The impressive features revealed over the course of the USF and JSE excavations beca me the focus of Zippori’s presentation for the public. Netzer and Shalev stat e that the “discovery in the 1987 season of the magnificent mansion with the Dionysus mosaic which features the beautiful woman who has since come to be known as the Mona Li sa of Galilee, was a major breakthrough in the development of the site” (143).


66 Zippori’s transition into an archaeological park ai ded with the preservation of the larger mosaics, the construction of the House of Di onysus, and the restoration of the Crusader/Ottoman citadel into a modern information center. Funds were also focused on the maintenance of other Roman/Byzantine features o f the park, such as its impressive water cistern and roman theater (Netzer and Shalev 1996:144). In order to enhance the visitor’s appreciation and place emphasis on the hi storical value of the site, educational and cultural programs were created, such as “Zippor i Live.” In this program, troops of actors are hired through the INNPPA to perform thro ughout the archaeological park, creating “an authentic reproduction of ancient city [life] of Sepphoris from the year 200 C.E.” (145, 146). Future excavations hoped to surfa ce original roads and entrances to the ancient city in order to further reconstruct Seppho ris authentically for visitors (146). Zippori National Park, (shown in Figure 4.1) offici ally opened to the public in October of 1992. From the beginning, it was seen as an overwhelming success, with its impressive mosaics and entertaining educational pro grams. Netzer and Shelev state: “Given its rich archaeological potential, and assis ted by continued development, Sepphoris is certain to become one of the most-visi ted sites in Israel, where it will, once again, live up to its ancient designation as the ‘O rnament of all Galilee’” (Netzer and Shalev 1996:146). In the next section, I will provi de a tour of the park cased on my field


67 in the summer of 2008. The Tour With a digital camera, a few bottles of water, and a backpack I went to see the Galilee’s prized ancient city. My journey began wit h a public bus ride from my hostel in Nazareth to the entrance of the moshav Moshav Zippori, a beautiful farming community with a friendly spirit and the archaeological site at its heart, are located about six kilometers away from downtown Nazareth. It was eas y to identify the national park, not only by the brown road sign that spelled out its na me in English and Hebrew, but also by Figure 4.1 An aerial view of Zippori National Park, a few of its main features highlighted (Photograph by accessed 20 April 20 09).


68 the lush green forest that stands on the dusty land scape. I walked up the snaking road towards the park. It was a hard trek that I attempt ed to avoid with hitch hiking, but failed. As I came to know, the road towards moshav Zippori is speckled with colorful modest homes spaced in between huge cow sheds and seasonal gardens; however, the road towards Zippori National Park offered little too lo ok at but some tall grass rolling in the breeze. I approached the main gate weary from my long journ ey, but excited nonetheless. I paid 23 shekels and received a green brochure tit led “Zippori National Park” with The Mona Lisa of the Galilee ’s face gracing its cover. The brochure offered a m ap and some historical descriptions that allowed me to guide my self around the park. I opened the pamphlet and directed myself towards t he entrance of the ancient water cistern located near the main gate. I was gre eted by an illustrated display meant to teach visitors how the large cistern worked for the ancient city. I played with this demonstration for a few minutes, learning the mecha nism of the ancient cistern. I then proceed to the stairs, where I descended into the e normous underground cavern. The tall rock walls of the ancient cistern (shown in Figure 4.2) towered over me as I followed the designated touring path. After snapping a few photo s, I exited and continued on towards the rest of the site.


69 After walking another half kilometer I reached the main cluster of tan buildings, consisting of various offices and the gift shop. I was welcomed into the store by the cool air conditioning and a wooden cutout of an ibex wit h a backpack, an image located throughout the site (one depicted in Figure 4.3). A s I examined the books, various toys, and racks of Israeli wine, I noticed a room filled with seating surrounding a television that had paused on a DVD menu screen. I asked the e mployee behind the service counter to press play, and sat in the mini-theater cooling off. The film, circa 1990s, introduces the visitor to Zippori National Park, taking them throu gh some of the history of the site. Figure 4.2 Inside the ancient water cistern (Photograph by author)


70 It does not offer a full chronology, but first focu ses on the Roman influence of the early centuries. The main actress wraps herself in a sheet, places a wreath made of small olive branches around her head, and pretends to sip a goblet of wine. She states that the Jews and Romans of the city practiced “mutual toler ance.” She also tells the viewer not to be fooled by the pagan exterior of the city, as sch olars do not rule out the possibility that some of the buildings, which include the large mosa ics, could have been owned by prominent Jews. The narrator then describes the ear ly Judaic influence at Zippori, particularly significant for the presence of Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi. She quotes rabbis of the Roman or Byzantine eras, warning Jews of attend ing Roman performances at theaters, such as the one found at Zippori, as thes e theaters demonstrated the key moral Figure 4.3 A computer generated figure present at m ost INNPPA parks (Photograph by author).


71 and cultural differences between Jews and pagans. T he last 30 seconds of the eight minute film describes the Crusader and Ottoman peri ods, listing off the variety of names given to the site over the course of centuries, inc luding Le Sephorie and Safurriyeh. The movie then ends on the note that, despite these lat er names, the site has been restored with its original, Zippori, and is once again “the Ornament of all Galilee.” Exiting the gift shop I walked west, past a few pic nic benches, heading towards the decumanus, one of the two main roads of the ancient city uncov ered thus far. At the beginning of the road, I noticed a small white sign that named and pointed the directions to both the Citadel and the Synagogue. I began to n otice that these signs were located throughout the park, printed both in English and He brew. Following these signs, I step across the large stones of the decumanus The street itself had no description or interpretation. Facing a crossroads, I turned left and walked about 20 yards over the dusty stones of the cardo, or the other ancient street, towards the elegant op en air structure that houses the Nile Festival Mosaic (shown below in Fig ure 4.4).


72 Numerous interpretive hangings guided me through th e artwork and explained each section of the extensive mosaic and how these mosai cs were constructed. The interpretive illustrations focused on the potential story that t he mosaic may tell, such as its description of the horseman riding away to Alexandria to give t he good news of a plentiful harvest. I followed the wooden path around the rest of the flo oring. I snapped photos of the amazing geometrical patterns and the “Amazon women” on the hunt. Railings and other preventative measures, including a security guard ( who was a little weary of my lone presence), were taken to make sure that tourists di d not step on the mosaic flooring or cross the fence into the nearby farmyard. Figure 4.4 The Nile Festival pavilion, view from th e cardo (Photograph by author).


73 Moving away from the Nile Festival mosaic, I climbe d up the rocky hill towards the House of Dionysus, the building which houses th e triclinium floor, and the Citadel, or information center. Both were impressive features o n the relatively vacant hilltop. Anxious to see the Middle Eastern Mona Lisa, I visi ted the House of Dionysus first (depicted in Figure 4.5). In some ways, the building was attempting to recrea te the ancient mansions appearance with, for instance, the hanging garden a dorning its front entrance. When I entered the building, I first noticed the dim light ing. Large, detailed illustrations hung on the wall to the right of the doorway, depicting wha t the house might have looked like at in the second century. Looking to the left within t he dark room, I saw that the building was sectioned off into two walkways, one on the gro und floor and one above the Dionysus mosaic. The bottom path led to a Roman bat hroom. The Greek term for “to health,” was written in mosaic tiles to wish good f ortune upon the reader. The second Figure 4.5 The House of Dionysus and its hanging ga rden (Photograph by author).


74 floor walkway allowed for an above view of the famo us mosaic floor. I rested on benches that were placed for visitors to admire the gorgeou s craftsmanship of The Mona Lisa of the Galilee A spotlight rested on the intricately laid cerami cs and glass shading her face. The rest of the mosaic was equally as impressive, d epicting the drinking competition between Dionysus and Hercules, and the celebratory procession following Dionysus’s victory. Black railings wrapped around this second floor walk way (shown in Figure 4.6) kept visitors at a safe distance, but allowed them to pace around to see each panel. Similar to the Nile Festival House, several interpr etive signs were placed on the railings to guide the visitor through the artwork and descri bed the story in each scene. After a short walk from this air conditioned buildi ng, I entered the naturally cool walls of the Citadel’s first floor. The room stood empty and the original windows served as the only lighting. There were no interpretative signs, aside from one at the entry way, which stated that the building was first constructe d in the Crusader period and later became a schoolhouse. Part of the short description stated that, “in the 18th century the building was renovated by Dahr El-Omar, the Bedouin Ruler of the Galilee. At the end of the Ottoman period it was rebuilt for use as a scho olhouse and was renovated again during the British Mandate.”


75 Upon climbing the stairs, I entered into “informati on center” and faced a series of standing glass pieces that read like a dismembered jig-saw puzzle. A detailed timeline mentioned the numerous ethnic groups, and their ass ociated time periods, while glass display cases held material and information relevan t to the Mishnaic period of the site. One glass panel bore the face of The Mona Lisa of the Galilee and told the story of a rabbi being scolded by his peers for bathing next t o pagan artistry. According to the panel, the rabbi retorted “I did not come to Aphrod ite, but she to me.” Figure 4.6 The interior of the “house of Dionysus, (to the left) the sitting steps overlooking the mosaic floor. A spotlight is placed on the Mona Lis a’s face(Photograph by author).


76 Walking to the far left corner of the information c enter, I found a display including dirty buckets, shovels, and a sifter alon g with photos of students and volunteers digging the site during the 1980s and 90s (shown in Figure 4.7). Upon further exploration, I entered a small room dedicated to th e multiple excavations conducted at Zippori, beginning with the University of Michigan in the 1930s, up to the combined efforts of Hebrew University, USF, and Duke. Small amounts of material evidence from the earliest excavations sat on display along with pages from Leroy Waterman’s journal. The room presented Zippori’s archaeological project s chronologically with photographs of volunteers and employees from each excavation pe riod. A photograph from the 1930s excavations showed a few dozen men from the village of Saffuriyeh standing next to Waterman, their shovels prepared for digging. Next to this photo, young international students smile in a group huddle. This information center was frequently toured, but visitors mainly enjoyed climbing the steep stairs of the building to reach its roof top and take in the spectacular view of the Bet Netofa Valley. The signs on the roo f used cardinal directions and landmarks to orient the visitor to the region from this bird’s eye view.


77 s As the sun moved slowly over the yellow, rolling hi lls of the lower Galilee, I descended from the top of the hill to the ancient s ynagogue below, located on to the north of the summit. Upon entering the building (its inte rior depicted in Figure 4.8) the spotlights above clicked on to shine down on the el aborate mosaic. The tall glass windows that led to an outdoor porch (depicted in F igure 4.9) also let in natural light. Similar to the other large pavilions, interpretativ e panels lined the walls and railings to describe the significance of each piece of the mosa ic. The Zodiac portion called the most attention for its context, uniqueness, and wholenes s. I walked around the mosaic to sit Figure 4.7 The display on second floor of the Citad el, featuring excavation tools and photos from the digs (Photograph by author).


78 and admire it from a raised portion of the room. Pl astic chairs sat stacked in a corner for the special occasions of a Bar/Bat Mitzvahs. Figure 4.8 The interior of the synagogue pavilion, with (to the right) interpretive signs along the railing lining the wooden platform (Photograph by the author).


79 I exited the synagogue pavilion and stepped across the original stone path just outside the building that led back up the hillside towards the amphitheater (shown in Figure 4.10). When I faced the public seating area of the structure, it was clear that there were two amphitheaters present: one ancient theater tucked away, but still visible, and another modern theater, complete with a wooden stag e, built in the early 1990s for visitors to enjoy musical performances. Plastic cha irs stood in rows in the front to provide extra seating. Figure 4.9 The porch surrounding the synagogue, ove rlooking the Bet Netofa Valley (Photograph by the author).


80 Walking the lesser known dirt paths on the northern hillside, I admired a large cactus grove. Rubble strewn all along this portion of the hill speckled the brush with broken pieces of white stone. A small blue sign sto od to designate the area “A Moslem Cemetery.” I noticed another one of these small sig ns on my way back towards the welcoming area of the site standing about 40 steps in front of the House of Dionysus (depicted in Figure 4.11). Figure 4.10 A view of Zippori’s amphitheater from t he modern wooden stage. The black chairs once served as extra seating for musical per formances (Photograph by Liran 2007: 27 April 2009).


81 As with many other features of Zippori National Par k, such as the first floor of the Citadel and the main streets, the cemetery has no d escription, pictures, or evaluative information. With the long walk back to the public bus stop ahea d of me, I saved just enough time for the latter portion of site tours: the gift shop. I reentered the well lit store to examine the few tall shelves loaded with books on w ine, insect watching, women in the ancient world, and even cookbooks. Only a single bo ok was present that discussed Zippori, called Zippori and Sepphoris Many books focused on the Jewish heritage across Figure 4.11 One of two signs indicating that a “Mos lem Cemetery” lies just behind it (Photograph by the author).


82 Israel’s landscape, such as Touching the Stones of our Heritage The Holy Land in Maps and Israel: Then and Now While the majority of the shop contained items no t specific to the site or to any particular heritage, items inclu ding Swiss army knives, snow globes, paper weights, and water-proof watches, other items such as small menorahs, IDF tshirts, “I heart Israel” shirts, and Israeli flags were geared towards visitors of Jewish heritage or visitors interested in taking a piece o f contemporary Israel home with them. The great amount of stuff that covered the other sh elves lining the walls of the gift shop was striking. Souvenirs included shot glasses, stuf fed animals, frisbees, Israeli olive oil, toy insects, pens, scented candles, and personal ca re products from Ein Gedi. I spoke with the site manager, Igal, and I asked wh o controlled the inventory for the gift shops. He told me that it was under the au spices of the INNPPA, more particularly, the regional sector. Igal told me tha t those responsible for ordering out more inventories first took into account whatever sold t he best. When I asked him what item sold the most in the Zippori’s store he said that t he do-it-yourself mosaic making kits called “Stone by Stone” were bestsellers. These mos aic kits sat in a display case near the front counter. The description on the box detailed how one may follow the instructional guide to “piece together history” by placing togeth er colorful pieces of ceramic to create a picture. When I spoke to the gift shop’s manger, Reuven, he described how a local man came up with the concept of the mosaic making kit, and began selling them at Zippori. The kits were so successful that he began marketing them on a larger scale and, now, they are almost standard at INNPPA gift shops access Isr ael. The ones at Zippori’s store were of animals and geometrical shapes that could be fou nd within its archaeological site.


83 Another item called “Tracing the Past” was placed i n the mosaic kit display. These items allowed the purchaser to create “a replication by p ainting the relief of the original mosaic.” The “Tracing the Past” illustration in thi s store was marketed with The Mona Lisa of the Galilee ’s face on the cover. After each of my experiences of touring Zippori in this format, watching fellow tourists, and taking inventory of the items at the gift shop, I began to understand how Zippori National Park was engaging the interests of heritage tourists. In the following chapter, I apply the scholarship that led to these conclusions in an analysis of both the tour and the gift shop, while also discussing the i mplications of the site’s transition into an archaeological theme park.


84 CHAPTER V: HERITAGE TOURISM AND SHOPPING AT ZIPPORI NATIONAL PARK Paul Shackel (2003) contends that national parks in the United States use “landscapes, monuments, and structures to tell the story of nation building to millions of visitors every year” (Shackel 2003:2). He describes how particular representations of histories are impressed upon parks in order to tell these stories of national heritage. In 1949, the new state of Israel constructed national parks over the remnants of Palestinian occupants to imprint a narrative of Jewish redempti on onto the country’s landscape. This narrative attempted to connect Israel’s ancient pas t with the modern state by beautifying the landscape with forests and ultimately affirming the land as previously uninhabited (Benvinisti 2000). This process of forestation beg an the creation of Zippori National Park. In attempting to create a space that asserted Israeli national identity, the village of


85 Saffuriyeh was bulldozed, its occupants were reloca ted, and the forest and Jewish moshav were built on the remains of the village (Bauman 20 04:212). Currently, Zippori exemplifies a shift from using I srael’s land and archaeological sites to support a more nationalistic telling of hi story to its use as an attraction for local and global heritage tourists. In this chapter I des cribe some forms of heritage tourism present at Zippori National Park and analyze the si te’s presentation, including the tour and gift shop, in light of my previous discussion o f the selective representations of history that cater to the interests and marketabili ty of heritage tourism. Similar to Ebron’s description of Africa’s marketability, I find Zippo ri contributing to Israel’s continued development into a “commodified cultural object of global significance,” becoming “sacred and commercial, authentic and spectacular” (Ebron 2000:912; Bauman 2004). Heritage Tourism at Zippori National Park One prevalent example of the presence of heritage ecotourism, or heritage tourism that also focuses on Israel’s natural terra in at Zippori is the “Jesus Trail.” The Jesus Trail consists of a 60 km 3 day tour of Chris tian heritage sites in the Galilee, where one may literally walk in the footsteps of Jesus. T he first stop of the tour is Zippori’s archaeological park. The ancient city is often cite d as having potential significance in Jesus’ life, based on Zippori being a large first c entury urban center in close proximity to Nazareth. It is hypothesized that when Jesus was a young man he found work at Sepphoris, sometime before 20 C.E., when the city w as being fortified by Herod Anitpas.


86 However, these claims are unsubstantiated as no his toric or archaeological evidence supports Jesus’ presence in the ancient city (Sande rs 1996:75). The Jesus Trail is advertised not only for religiou s pilgrims, but also secular tourists. An Associated Press video advertisement, found on the Jesus Trail website, states that the hike is not necessarily “for follow ers of Christ as the scenery and natural beauty along the trail attract all-comers” (Jesustr 2009: “AP Video Feature” accessed 23 April 2009). The tour is now receiving international recognition and growing in popularity as a result: One year ago, the Jesus Trail, a Galilee pilgrimage hiking route, consisted of little more than a track of GPS points an d an idea. Now, just one year later, the Society for the Protection of Natur e in Israel (SPNI) is marking the trail with painted blazes, hundreds of diverse hikers have come to hike the trail, and locals are launching business initiatives in preparation for an increase in hikers (emphasis add ed, 2009: “Blazing the Jesus Trail: Marked Pilgrimage R oute Brings Hikers to the Galilee” accessed 23 April 2009). This trail shows how heritage tours use Zippori’s a ncient history to create meaningful connections to the landscape, while also offering t he attractions of scenic views and history for both religious and secular tourists. Jewish celebrations at Zippori demonstrate another facet of heritage tourist interest. While sitting in one of the office buildi ngs with Sharon, the tour guide manager for Zippori, we discussed how local Israeli familie s would picnic at the site from September to December in celebration of the autumn Jewish holidays. Igal also described how Israeli families would visit the site to picnic or plan parties on Passover. I asked


87 Sharon why they would choose to celebrate at Zippor i, to which she replied, “it’s something different.” She told me that parents were trying to build their children’s interest in their Jewish heritage by using these ce lebrations at the site as new and entertaining ways to educate them on the Mishnaic p eriod. Igal described to me more of the international tou rist interest in having Bar/Bat Mitzvahs at Zippori. He informed me that at least 5 0,000 people visited Zippori National Park per year, and that 40 percent of these were ov erseas tourists. He said that it is mostly Americans that come for celebrations. He est imated at least 50 parties reserved the site for the summer of 2008 and stated that the y occurred in this frequency each year. I asked him why he thought there were so many celeb rations at the site, to which he replied, “the site doesn’t advertise in a newspaper to [get people to] make [a] party. People who have visited the park see it, and like i t.” He described the site’s handsome mosaics, beautiful setting in the lower Galilee, an d the themed theatrical performances as predominant attractions. These Bar/Bat Mitzvah cere monies use the synagogue pavilion, conducting the ritual around the ancient mosaic flo or. The girl or boy reads portions of the Torah and comments on its significance to a con gregation of people, and then the outdoor porch is used for a reception. These celebrations and hiking tours exemplify Zippo ri’s transition into a significant place for heritage tourism. They demons trate a spectrum of ways that visitors actively engage with religious, as well as secular, heritage interests at the site. The revenues brought in by the large amounts of parties from U.S. visitors and the launching of business initiatives for the Jesus Trail are tel ling of the economic benefits for the site


88 and the region. Zippori’s current presentation illu strates the site’s recognition and response to these interests and benefits. Constructing a Theme for Zippori When I asked Igal what message he thought the site was meant to convey, he replied stating, “we are the biggest, nicest mosaic s in Israel! Yes, you can find [at] other places [an ancient] synagogue, but [ours] is what t he tourists come for. Archaeology is the second reason why people visit.” Turning a crit ical eye on my tour reveals how the global and local interest in connecting with Zippor i’s ancient time periods encourages editing of the site’s rich historical content into a more simplistic, commercial presentation. Sarah Hagan, a designer for the INNPP A, describes her job to Bauman as an effort to “soften” and “recover from the mass am ounts of dry information” apparent at archaeological sites and to display what is “most d ramatic, or what is more complete” (Bauman 2004:214). Zippori focuses on the Roman/Byz antine eras, and the theme of “The Ornament of all Galilee” takes priority within the presentation. It creates a “must see” show, similar to the spectacles at Masada and Beit She’an. Though the site does not have a light show, its presentation uses what Igal called “the biggest and nicest mosaics” to create a unified concept that is both relevant t o heritage interests and impressive. To recreate the Ornament of all Galilee considerabl e funding was placed for preserving, interpreting, and building pavilions fo r the popular Roman/Byzantine features, including the mosaics featured in the Nil e Festival House, the House of Dionysus, and the synagogue. The shade and air cond itioning granted by each of these


89 buildings warrants recognition. They give visitors more time to linger and enjoy the information provided about the feature and allow fo r an overall more comfortable, pleasurable experience: aspects of touring that vis itors have come to expect (GazinSchartz 2004:93). In addition, the railings and sec urity guard are indicative of the site’s considerable concern for protecting the material cu lture from the potentially harmful effects of mass tourism. The ancient amphitheater, first partly uncovered by Waterman, is now almost hidden in an effort to recreate what it may have looked like during the Roman/Byzantine periods. Tourists may see the top o f the original carved stone steps, made dark and grimy over the centuries, but the maj ority of the “Roman theater” is brightly washed new stone facing a modern stage. Fo r years, this theater was used to entertain tourists with modern musical performances (Sharon personal communication July 2008). The forms of edutainment available at the site also emphasize Zippori’s Roman/Byzantine periods. The film played in the gif t shop’s mini-theater details the ancient city at its apex, using only its last 30 se conds to sketch out the subsequent eras. Large groups of tourists or parties may hire out an acting troop to perform the Jewish and pagan history from the early centuries of the Commo n Era. These actors adorn themselves in 1st century garb and act out the hypothesized lifestyl es, occupations, and social positions of the pluralistic city of Sepphor is (Sharon personal communication July 2008). One actress even plays the mysterious Mona Lisa of the Galilee a character that represents Zippori’s most famous mosaic panel.


90 The Mona Lisa of the Galilee embodies the theme of a beautiful, artistic, and affluent ancient city, and as the representative of the site, is key to understanding how Zippori is marketing itself. Mark Gottdiener descri bes the contemporary process of theming as the melding of social stages, or social “milieus,” with commercial images associated with popular media (Gottdiener 1997:6). He lays out how this recent intersection, of the symbolic and the profitable, u ses symbols of powerful cultural capital to make alluring attractions of these social milieu s (5, 15). Zippori is exemplary of this theming process, using the mysterious and popular c haracter of the original Mona Lisa to imbue the mosaic panel with the symbolic capital of a pop-culture icon. This image persists, though scholars have interpreted this mos aic panel to be a depiction of Aphrodite, evidenced by Cupid floating near her fac e. This Greco-Roman goddess may be found abundantly within the archaeological recor d of the ancient world, but Aphrodite’s comparison to the Renaissance period pa inting makes the image unique. It attracts visitors to see, not just another depictio n of the mythical goddess, but the likeness of an international icon. In this way, the historic reality of the mosaic becomes secondary to making the image more familiar and accessible to a wider audience. The Mona Lisa of the Galilee has become Zippori’s brand, and is emblematic of ar chaeology’s prominent relationship with popular culture (Holtorf 2007). S he is the representative for Zippori on the majority of books and websites (i.e. INNPPA). H er face has been etched onto serving platters and divided among mosaic kit pieces. Her a ppearance on gift shop material culture, her face staring up from the cover of the site’s brochure, and her international recognition, all play into the marketable aspects o f the archaeological theme park. The


91 Mona Lisa of the Galilee her name and use as a brand, illustrates Zippori’ s engagement with globalization through the tourist industry. Zippori’s emphasis on the large and popular mosaics also demonstrates how the ancient and simply impressive are favored aspects a t archaeological parks. Mosaics that could potentially highlight Zippori’s theme are lef t out in favor of a more simplified presentation. The sign noting the Orpheus mosaic, l ocated along the cardo describes the process by which this large feature was uncovered, discarded, and then recently resurfaced with funding provided in honor of a girl ’s Bat Mitzvah. Igal and Sharon described to me how large tour busses would, at tim es, not even enter the site, and pausing instead at the front gate only to view the water cistern. When I asked Sharon why they would do this she told me that the ancient cis tern is one of the most impressive in Israel and, due its recognition as such, has become part of the priority of particular tours. Within the site, the white signs and detailed inter pretations are tools that communicate to visitors which features are worthwhi le. In her chapter, “The Road to Ruins: accessing Islamic heritage in Jordan,” Erin Addison makes several important points concerning the use of signs to demarcate and reinforce the importance of an archaeological park. She states, “signs and roads a re inputs provided by the government to encourage access to sites -they are the sin qu a non of tourist infrastructure, and as such they indicate the value of the site as perceiv ed by the state” (Addison 2004:231). She understands these signs to “[provide] a quantif iable indicator of government inputs into tourists sites” (235). Addison describes how t he signs for Islamic sites in Jordan are tucked away or nonexistent, belittling their import ance and demonstrating how funding


92 and promotion of foreign Jewish and Christian touri sts’ interests has taken priority within the predominantly Islamic country. Though Addison uses road signs and available road access across the state of Jordan to build her argu ment, I suggest the issue of signage at Zippori is an appropriate example of how a theme ma y be tied together using signs and effectively undermine other histories present in th e landscape. The white signs at Zippori point visitors to the key Roman/Byzantine period at tractions, indicating their importance or their “must see” quality (Addison 2004). At historic sites in Israel, “the places and histor ies invoked create a discourse for the landscape as Jewish with the activities of Roma ns, Crusaders, or Arabs at various points in the past injecting themselves into the do minant narrative rather than being part of it” (Baram and Rowan 2004:13). Similarly, Zippo ri’s presentation treats the Citadel and the Muslim cemetery as interjections within a l arger historic narrative dominated by the more popular time periods. The insufficient rec ognition of these features undermines their significance, as well as the more modern time periods that they represent. The interpretative sign at the entrance of the Citadel’ s first floor is the most detailed information given throughout the entire site concer ning Saffuriyeh’s historic presence. A crescent symbol in the brochure’s map key is used t o indicate the Muslim cemetery, but the cemetery has no interpretation and is paired wi th symbols that point out Zippori’s natural features, such as cacti and pine trees. Bau man describes how visitors […] follow a path through a pleasant and a ppealing cactus garden, where on the left is a sign that reads Moslem Cemet ery. The park’s strategically planted pine forest, however, prevent s many visitors from noticing that they are walking among the remains of the Muslim


93 Palestinian town of Saffouriye, once one of the lar gest towns in the entire Galilee (Bauman 2004:212). The inadequate recognition of the Arab village aids in avoiding any uncomfortable or complex tensions created when recognizing minority histories within an official presentation. The little recognition given only ser ves to legitimate the site’s current design as neutral and as equally representing all f acets of its history. This lack of representation demonstrates how, in engaging with t he tourist industry, Zippori’s history is revised to emphasize a relevant and comfortable appearance. Zippori’s Standardized Gift Shop and the Commodific ation of the Past The current gift shop at Zippori National Park furt her demonstrates the intersection of archaeological sites with the comme rcial sphere. The marketing of mass produced items, such as toys and shot glasses, are a product of the INNPPA’s standardizing their stores in the year 2000. Recove ring from what Bauman’s informant described as “the mass amounts of dry information” necessitates the creation of entertaining activities such as shopping (Bauman 20 04:212). However, as described in chapter two, gift shops may also allow tourists to legally take home a piece of the site to remind them of their experience, demonstrate a sens e of worldliness, and may also connect them with a personal heritage. In this way, Zippori’s store uses the past as a commodity.


94 Amy Gazin-Schwartz’s (2004) short ethnographies on the gift shops at Stonehenge and Avebury exemplify how it is the act of shopping itself, not the creation of historical connections that are the purposes of these stores. She understands gift shops as part of the attraction at archaeological sites t hat facilitate the kind of pleasurable experience that visitors want. She states that shop ping places tourists in a more familiar world, a world that in many ways [is] constructed by comme rce and consumerism […] In the gift shop [of an archaeological site], a n unfamiliar and distant idea of the past is mediated and made familiar thro ugh the ubiquitous and immediately gratifying process of selecting objects for purchase (GavinSchwartz 2004:100). She further posits that “the particular historical context of their purchase does not seem as meaningful as the cultural and personal experiences of shopping. Shopping is the point of buying souvenirs, not remembering or constructing a n idea of history” (2004:100). Gazin-Schartz’s analysis is helpful when considerin g Zippori’s gift shop. The gift shop at the archaeological site was once o wned and operated by a family that lives on the nearby moshav This shop was operating at the time when Joel Bau man was conducting his research. I lived for a short pe riod with the former owners and asked them to describe the store. They depicted the shop as a caf that sold local crafts related to the site, and they described the items in the ne w gift shop as “silly trinkets.” Homogenizing the stores of Israel’s popular archaeo logical sites brought together souvenirs that uniquely represent each park, allowi ng visitors further purchasing


95 opportunities. For instance, Zippori’s brand, The Mona Lisa of the Galilee could be found on expensive pieces of dcor at Masada’s gift shop and at the Israel Museum’s store. Similarly, one could find Dead Sea mud masks and miniature ceramic jar replicas “from” Qumran within Zippori’s store. Standardization also brought a tremendous amount of what the previous gift shop owners called silly trinkets into Zippori’s gift sh op. The store’s manager, Reuven, expressed the limitations of standardizing, saying that the Zippori’s current store contained about 70 percent toys and 30 percent item s that concerned the site. “It should be the other way around!” he said, “the gift shop a nd the site should go together, not one without the other.” Reuven described how with certa in visitors, such as Americans, an item’s relevance to the site did not matter: “They come and buy [a] mountain of things; toys, ice cream, books.” Reuven said that the beac h ping-pong set collecting dust on one of the store’s shelves sold successfully at other l ocations, but stated that at Zippori “they will sit here another year because at other sites t here is a beach. Here at Zippori, there is no beach!” Gazin-Schwartz states that though shopping is the p urpose of these stores, messages and images of the site itself can be creat ed and taken away: Versions of the historical past are linked to the p resent through shopping, and mementoes purchased represent what the tourist/ shopper takes away from her experience of the site. Historical accurac y is not the primary item for sale in either shop. Rather, it is an idea of h istory, presented in multiple media. The tourist will chose the media that he or she can afford, and the image that is most meaningful or representative of his or her own experience. Shopping, rather than creating a ‘top-d own’ idea of the past, allows visitors to craft their own images. However, the different shops


96 offer different ranges of possible images or limits I think it would be difficult to come away from Avebury with a percepti on other than of the continuity of a particular kind of idealized rural lifestyle, one that we can participate in by buying some of these objects (Gaz in-Schartz 2004:101). While Reuven stated that 30 percent of the gift sho p contained relevant items, I would lower the figure to about 10 percent. The few items for sale relating to Zippori’s history exhibit how the store is marketing to tourists inte rested in taking home a piece of the archaeological site. The do-it-yourself mosaic kits and the “Tracing the Past” paint set -bestselling products -are items that tourists may purchase to create ideas of Zippori’s history, or images representative of their connecti ons to the site’s past. These toys are hand-on allowing the purchaser to interact with the artistic aspect of the ancient city of Sepphoris, through painting or assembling a mosaic. Understanding which products were significant enough to be bought on a large scale by visitors reveals at least a portion of the historical image that visitor’s take away from Zippori. The fact that these toys are best sellers may indicate that the theme, that of Zippor i as the Ornament of all Galilee is being successfully communicated and marketed. Thus, Zippo ri’s history is turned into a commodity. Conclusion In this thesis, I have attempted to use scholarship in heritage and heritage tourism studies, along with my own ethnographic findings, t o suggest that the selective use of history can create presentations that accommodate t he heritage tourism industry, using Zippori National Park as one example of a global ph enomenon. I attempted to lay out


97 how international interest in touring Israel and th e evident economic benefits for the country are transforming archaeological sites into commercial theme parks: in their technologies for edutainment (new gift shops, light shows, movies, air conditioning, branding etc.) and their simplified messages. Overa ll, they construct presentations that facilitate tourism. The INNPPA has standardized their gift shops to cre ate a uniform experience that places visitors in a familiar world of shopping to provide an entertaining outlet. The historically relevant items, such as the mosaic kit s and the paint set, allow visitors to purchase products representative of Zippori and enh ance the site’s theme. The tour’s particular emphasis on the Roman/Byzantine period l ets visitors walk through the ancient city and view its version of the Mona Lisa. Within this presentation, the socio-historical texture of Zippori is ignored in favor of a marketa ble theme that speaks to its ancient history. Though the chronology in chapter three is brief, it s details help illuminate some of the historical depth lacking in this archaeological attraction. Zippori’s current presentation leaves out the occupation of rural eli tes prior to the Roman period, the site’s description within the literature of the Early Arab era, details concerning the Crusader period, and, more immediately, the modern era that includes the presence of the village of Saffuriyeh. Representations of archaeological sites can not include every history, but it is important, as Barbara Little (2007) explains, to re cognize, remember, and include minority voices. Little describes the possibility o f dissonance or lack of harmony within multi-vocal representations, but affirms the import ance of respecting minority history and


98 heritage nonetheless. Zippori’s current presentatio n lacks sufficient recognition of its Arab minority heritage, a heritage proclaimed throu gh annual protests, visits to the Muslim cemetery, and organizations such as Palestin e Remembered. Zippori’s construction as a theme park continues to gloss over these social and political complexities. The forest and the moshav were constructed for nationalist purposes, and within Zippori’s transition to commer cialization, Bauman understood the attempts at creating a homogenized Jewish-Israeli i dentity still prevalent within the site. I found that the current presentation continues the p erspective of Zippori as “neutral,” or as presenting only what is objectively derived from th e ground and what tourists want. The politics of the past create tensions that make constructing an inclusive presentation at the site challenging. Further resea rch into making a socially inclusive site could focus on overcoming these difficulties, and i mplementing a more complex presentation that would more thoroughly engage with the Arab minority claims to Zippori. A more expansive ethnographic project coul d focus on exploring these historical connections and minority versions of the site’s his tory. The complex process of commercialism apparent in Israel’s archaeological p arks affects representations of Israel’s own histories and heritage. Therefore, it would also be interesting to further explore how these presentations are continuing to a ffect the ways Israelis understand and use the landscapes of their past. These further exp lorations would help to illustrate the dynamics of representations of archaeological sites and the ways that they engage with the globalized force of heritage tourism.

PAGE 100


PAGE 101

100 APPENDIX A: MAP OF ANCIENT PALESTINE Figure A.1. A map of ancient Palestine noting Sepph oris’ convenient locale (Figureby Nagy, Meyers, Meyers, and Weiss 1996:10).

PAGE 102


PAGE 103

102 Figure B.1. Chronology of Israel’s periods (Figure in Nagy, Meyers, Meyers, and Weiss 1996:11).

PAGE 104

103 APPENDIX C: SITE PLACE OF EXCAVATIONS AT SEPPHORIS Figure C.1. Site plan of excavations of the northea stern portion of Zippori for the USF and JSE teams of the 1980s and 90s (Figure by Nagy, Meyers, Meyer s, and Weiss 1996:14).

PAGE 105


PAGE 106

105 BIBLIOGRAPHY Addison, Erin 2004 The Roads to Ruin: accessing Islamic heritage in Jordan. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Pa st. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 229-248. Walnut Creek, Californ ia,: AltaMira Press. Ardren, Traci 2004 Where Are the Maya in Ancient Maya Archaeologi cal Tourism? Advertising and the Appropriation of Culture. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 103-114. Walnut Creek, California,: AltaMi ra Press. Asali, K.J. 1994 “Jerusalem in history: notes on the origins o f the city and its tradition of tolerance.” In Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ), Vol. 16. Baram, Uzi 2007 Filling a Gap in the Chronology. In Reproaching Borders : New Perspectives on the Study of Israel-Palestine. Mark LeVine and S andra M. Sufian Lanham, eds. Pp. 15-40. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Baram, Uzi and Yorke Rowan Figure C.2. Site plan for USF northwestern portion of the site (Figure by Nagy, Meyers, Meyers, and Weiss 1996:13).

PAGE 107

106 2004 Archaeology after Nationalism: Globalization and the Consumption of the Past. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumptio n of the Past. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 3-23. Walnut Creek California: AltaMira Press. Bauman, Joel 2004 Tourism, the Ideology of Design, and the Natio nalized Past in Zippori/Sepphoris, and Israeli National Park. In Marketing Heritage. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram eds. Pp. 205-228. California: A ltaMira. Benvenisti, Meron 2000 Sacred Landscapes The Buried History of the H oly Land since 1948. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ben-Yehuda, Nachman 2002 Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth o f Masada. Amherst, N.Y.: Humanity Books. BibleWalks 2009 “Beit Shean (at night).” Online, available at accessed 20 February 2009. BibleWalks 2007 “Sepphoristhe great city of the lower Galil ee.” Online, available at accessed 20 April 2009.

PAGE 108

107 Birthrightisrael 2009 “About Us.” Online, available at ename=about_main accessed 21 April 2009. Blogspot Online, available at accessed 20 April 2009. Campos, Michelle 2007 Remembering Jewish-Arab Contact and Conflict. In Reproaching Borders : New Perspectives on the Study of Israel-Palestine. Mark LeVine and Sandra M. Sufian Lanham, eds. Pp. 41-65. MD: Rowman & Littlef ield Publishers. Ebron, Paula 1999 “Tourists as Pilgrims: Commercial Fashioning o f Transatlantic Politics.” American Ethnologist 25(4):910-932. Feldman, Louis 1965 Jewish Antiquities. Loeb classical library, 45 6. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Folda, Jaroslav 1996 The Crusader Period and the Church of Saint A nne at Sepphoris. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 101-107. N.C.: Nor th Carolina Museum of Art. Freyne, Sean

PAGE 109

108 1996 Christianity in Sepphoris and in Galilee. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, a nd Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 6779. N.C.: North Carolina M useum of Art. Gazin-Schwartz, Amy 2004 Mementos of the Past: Material Culture of Tou rism at Stonehenge and Avebury. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumptio n of the Past. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 93-102. Cali fornia: AltaMira Press. GoIsrael 2005 “Discover Israel: Unique Purchases in Israel. ” Online, available at tion/Discover+Israel/Unique +purchases+in+Israel.htm accessed 20 April 2009. GoIsrael 2005 “Home Page.” Online, available at accessed 20 February 2009. Gottdiener, Mark 1997 The theming of America: Dreams, visions, and commercial spaces. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. Handler, Richard and Eric Gable 1997 The New History in an Old Museum: Creating th e past at Colonial Williamsburg. Durham: Duke University Press. Hobbs, J. J. 1995 Mount Sinai. Austin, Texas: University of Texa s Press. Holtorf, Cornelius 2007 Archaeology is a brand: the meaning of archae ology in contemporary popular culture. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

PAGE 110

109 JesusTrail 2009 “Blazing the Jesus Trail: Marked Pilgrimage R oute Brings Hikers to the Galilee.” Online, available at accessed 23 April 2009. Kletter, Raz 2006 Just Past?: the making of Israeli archaeology London: Equinox. Liran, Tuvia 2007 Bible Walks. “Sepphoristhe great city of th e lower Galilee.” Online, available at accessed 20 Feburary 2009. Little, J. Barbra 2007 Historical Archaeology: Why the Past Matters. California: Left Coast Press, Inc. Little, J. Barbra 2004 Is the Medium the Message? The Art of Interpre ting Archaeology in U.S. National Parks. In Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Yorke M. Rowan and Uzi Baram, eds. Pp. 269-28 6. California: AltaMira Press. Lowenthal, David 1998 The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History 1 pbk. ed. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Lowenthal, David 1985 The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge Cambr idgeshire; New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyers, Carol 1996 Sepphoris and Lower Galilee : Earliest Times through the Persian Period. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 15-19. N.C .: North Carolina Museum of Art. Meyers, Eric 1992 Roman Sepphoris in Light of New Archaeological Evidence and Research. In

PAGE 111

110 The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Lee I. Levine. New Y ork; Cambridge, Mass.: Jewish Theological Seminary of America; Distributed by Har vard University Press. Meyers, Eric M., Carol L. Meyers, and Ehud Netzer 1992 Sepphoris. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Miller, Stuart S. 1996 Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris : The Histori cal Evidence. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 21-27. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Nagy, R.M., Carol Meyers, Eric Meyers, and Zeev Wei ss 1996 Sepphoris in Galilee: Crosscurrents culture. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Netzer, Ehud and Binyamin Shalev 1996 Zippori National Park. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zee v Weiss, eds. Pp. 143-147. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Neusner, Jacob 1988 The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven: Yal e University Press. PalestineRemembered 2006 “Welcome to Saffuriyya District of Nazareth.” Online, available at yya/index.html accessed 1 April 2009. “Home Page.” Online, available at accessed 20 February 2009. Rowan, Yorke and Uzi Baram, editors. 2004 Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consu mption of the Past. Walnut Creek, Calif,: AltaMira Press.

PAGE 112

111 Sanders, E.P. 1996 Jesus’ Relation to Sepphoris. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, an d Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 75-77. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Shackel, Paul A. 2003 Memory in Black and White : Race, Commemoratio n, and the Post-Bellum Landscape. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Silberman, Neil 2001 "If I Forget Thee, O Jerusalem: Arcahaeology, Religious Commemoration and Nationalism in a Disputed City.” In Nations and Nationalisms 7(4):487-507. Silberman, Neil 1989 Between past and present: Archaeology, Ideolo gy, and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: Henry Holt and Compan y. Strange, James F., Thomas R. W. Longstaff, and Denn is Groh 2006 Excavations at Sepphoris. Brill reference lib rary of Judaism, V. 22. Leiden: Brill. 1997 “Overview of Site.” Online, available at html accessed 20 April 2009. Ward, Seth 1996 Sepphoris in the Arab Period. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, a nd Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 91-99. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Waterman, Leroy

PAGE 113

112 1937 Preliminary report of the University of Michi gan excavations at Sepphoris, Palestine. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Webshots 2005 “05 November 2005: Zippori National Park.” On line, available at 6lvDqXa accessed 20 April 2009. Weiss, Zeev and Ehud Netzer 2005 The Sepphoris synagogue: deciphering an ancie nt message through its arcaheological and socio-historical contexts. Jerus alem: Israel Exploration Society. Weiss, Zeev and Ehud Netzer 1996 Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Archaeol ogical Evidence. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, and Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 29-37. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Weiss, Zeev and Ehud Netzer 1996 Sepphoris during the Byzantine Period. In Sepphoris in Galilee : Crosscurrents of Culure Nagy R. Martin, Coral L. Meyers, Eric M. Meyers, a nd Zeev Weiss, eds. Pp. 81-89. N.C.: North Carolina Museum of Art. Wynn, L. L. 2007 Pyramids & Nightclubs : A Travel Ethnography o f Arab and Western Imaginations of Egypt, from King Tut and a Colony o f Atlantis to Rumors of Sex Orgies, Urban Legends about a Marauding Prince, and Blonde Belly Dancers. 1st ed. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Zerubavel, Yael 1994 The Historic, the Legendary, and the Incredib le: Invented Tradition and Collective Memory in Israel. In Commemorations: the politics of national identity J.R. Gillis Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University P ress.

PAGE 114

113 “Zippori Village Country Cottages.” Online, availa ble at accessed 3 May 2009.

PAGE 115


PAGE 116


PAGE 117


PAGE 118


PAGE 119