what not to visit in Hebron

 

 

 

The Middle East is all about ancient civilisations : Jericho is the oldest continuously inhabited city, Palestine’s four thousand years of history involve diverse groups of invaders ; cultures and societies blend with and replace each other though the centuries.

 

 

 

You can understand that modern people, with contemporary problems, might get blasé.

 

I suppose I’m old fashioned that way...

 

 

 

I feel that the neglected ancient heart of Hebron is a cultural scandal,

 

I thought that the hill called Tel Rumeida might be another.

 

Make up your own minds….

 

I hiked up a steep road in the drenching rain because I had read that « Tel Rumeida » or « Tel Hebron » is where the oldest traces of human activity are to be found in Al-Khalil. Excavations have unearthed remains from the Chalcolithic period.

 

The Tel or hill has a vantage point over the present-day city ; some traditions claim it as the site of the graves of Isaiah and Ruth.

 

This religious significance designates it as a site of pilgrimage.

 

 

(Photo shows digs which brought to light Roman and Muslim artefacts. )

 

 

 

 

Archeological excavations of the ancient walls have a modern settlement construction built over them.

The building has a great vantage point over the city.

 

Interestingly, when the colony was established,  a significant part of the ancient Canaanite remains was destroyed. The priorities are clear!

 

Both the strategic position (the colonists generally choose high, dominant places to implant their settlements) and the religious importance make it an obvious choice for the localisation of a Zionist colony.

 

 

 

Violence against Palestinian inhabitants is a regular occurrence in the Tel Rumeida area.

Settlers and locals live cheek by jowl.

At the time of my visit Imad, notorious for having filmed the killing of a neighbour by IOF forces, was having his house raided again...

Since the publication of his video, he has been under constant harassment by the colonists.

 

(Photo: Hebron Hope Center poster. )

 

 

 

As my rather unattracive photos show, there is not much ancient history to be seen up here.

 

 

On the other hand, as an illustration of the techniques of occupation, the site is worthy of study.

 

(Photo taken just behind the graves, yes that's a watchtower directly above the shrine. )

 

The question I was asking myself here is : what makes us class something as being of historical interest, and why should we be interested in it?

 

 

 

The graves of Iaiah and Ruth are of dubious authenticity. I am not convinced that Biblical characters ever existed, at least not as the Torah describes them. Scholars say that it is not likely that this spot actually houses such graves.

 

 

 

 

However, as a non-religious person, I visit cathedrals and mosques in order to see traces of religious practice and to discover cultural manifestations of piety (artwork and archetecture).

 

For example, the question of the reality of Jesus’ birth does not remove the historical significance of Constantine’s Church of the Nativity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of the graves of Isaiah and Ruth, there is no historical tradition of piety and pilgrimage which teaches us about Jewish practice through the ages.

 

 

In modern Israel and Palestine, archaeology is a weapon in colonisation and « land grab »

 

The Israeli parks authority take over historical Palestinian sites in order to « preserve » them.

 

An easy argument in favour of Israeli appropriation of historical sites is that of the Jordanian precedent of destroying and rendering inaccessible Palestinian heritage.

 

The ancient quarters in front of the Ibrahimi mosque were razed during Jordanian mandate, the Haram as-Sharif /Temple Mount in al-Quds was closed to Jewish visitors...

 

This supposedly justifies this mess on Tel Rumeida....

 

 

In the present state of affairs, to claim that vestiges should be preserved, or be presented as historical sites worthy of study and pilgrimage, might be to play into the hands of the colonists.

 

Current settler demands involve linking the colony on Tel Rumeida with the settlement in the very centre of Hebron and turning it into a  historical park.
So hey, are we talking about neglect, maybe desecration, of a historical or sacred site? Or misuse of an archeological site for political purposes?

I confess that all I got out of my day's soaking was an exercise in historical epistemology.