Customer Reviews

Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

As an avid amateur archeologist, I read this book to gain insight into the current situation of unearthing the past in Palestine. The author presented several intriguing ideas, such as the desire of immigrants who never had any contact with this "new-old land" to establish a legitimacy entitling them to be part of the region. Such insights as the naming of Tel Aviv (from Arabic words for "mound" and "spring") and the excavations of the Temple site shed light on the process of the creation of the myth of a new nation. Indeed, the immigrants, mainly from Central and Eastern Europe, had been schooled in the process of using the past to justify their nationhood. I highly recommend this text for anyone interested in a new and daring view of the material. There are some critics who have launched a campaign to discredit the author because of her temerity in analyzing most objectively the politics of mythification via archeology. No one should be discouraged from reading "Facts on the Ground" by such obvious would-be-silencers of what they consider to be a taboo topic.

Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition by Yael Zerubavel discusses the construction of memory and the invention of traditions in Mandatory Palestine and in the State of Israel. The book describes some unusual Israeli or Zionist practices associated with Masada and Bar Kochba archeological excavations.

Rather like Nadia Abu el Haj in Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society, Zerubavel describes the use of archeology and other scholarship to construct Zionist national identity.

Other scholars have investigated the political use of archeology in various contexts. Not only Max Weinreich and Eric Hobsbawm provide similar analysis in their published works, but Constructing "Korean" Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories by Hyung Il Pai addresses precisely that same issues with regard to the development of Korean national consciousness.

Even though Abu el Haj focuses more narrowly on professional archeologists whereas Zerubavel looks at Israeli society as a whole, both authors make similar points in their books, and Zerubavel provides support for some of the claims for which Nadia Abu el Haj has been most criticized.

Zerubavel received the 1996 Salo Baron Prize of the American Academy for Jewish Research for her work while Nadia Abu el Haj is the target of an international campaign to drive her out of Columbia/Barnard. The difference in the responses evoked by the two authors merits a scholarly study in itself.

The politicization of archaeology--like every other discipline--is not new and El-Haj makes a thoroughly professional and expert comment on the political uses and abuses of Israeli archaeology. Highly recommended!

Scholarly, unbiased, thoughtful argument touching on a highly explosive, emotionally charged issue, nationhood. Insightful and courageous thinking. Explores how groups come to define themselves and suggests how distinctions and divisions among "tribes" of humans are created and promoted. Very interesting!

El-Haj's thesis is on the mark. The ways in which nation states reformulate their own archaeological record and national landscape to generate a primordial national identity is a process we can observe in many parts of the planet. The fact that she examines Israel where the current political climate is tense to say the least, makes her an easy target for writers who instinctually back Israel and support outsiders' "imperial"
interests in the region.

The previous critique (below) seems critical of Anthropology as an entire discipline. The writer is correct to point out that El-Haj is indebted to Anderson, Said and even Thomas Kuhn, but I am not quite sure why this is damning, as these writers are in many ways foundational to the very study of anthropology and history of science--they question inherent power structures in state, labor class and scientific institutions and dissect how power structures mask and reformulate what we percieve to be "Truth".

Anthropology is certainly well suited to "building and interpreting social and intellectual history" as the previous critic claims it is not. This is called historical anthropology and is well-outlined in the "Journal of Ethnohistory" published out of Wisconsin.

Admittedly, 'Facts on the Ground' could be written better, and towards the middle of the book you feel like throwing it down because El-Haj repeats herself for the length of about three chapters. There is a feeling that the book was meant to be a journal article that was expanded into a full length book in pursuit of a tenure track position.

But, most importantly, her content is on track. I recommend this book for those interested in the present Israel/Palestine conflict and are looking to search various sources (and biases) on the matter.

This is a subtle and brilliant analysis of the way that archaeology has been conscripted into the project of Israeli colonialism. It shows how archaeological sites and practices have helped to remake the modern landscape in ways that construct a highly politicized, essentialized, and exclusionary vision of identity rooted in place. It represents an exceptionally fine example of the conjuncture of Anthropology and Science Studies, and it is one of the very best treatments of the politics of archaeology known to me. It will, of course, be quite troubling to those who believe in the Zionist political project, as it exposes the artificiality of many of the claims that archaeology has been used to construct and naturalize (hence the inevitable negative reviews by political opponents). But the work is not at all polemical, and its thoughtful, measured analysis should be appreciated by most readers. It certainly demands to be read by anyone with a serious interest in the politics of the Middle East, colonialism and postcolonial studies, the history and sociology of archaeology, or science studies in general. It should be mandatory reading for university syllabi dealing with these issues.

This is an amazing book that should be taught in every relevant course! As an archaeologist, I found it impeccably researched, well-written and indispensable. A must-read for those who are committed to rigorous scholarship as opposed to political agendas. What is most remarkable about this eye-opening book is the disciplined and highly sophisticated methodology in utilizing original sources in order to interrogate the construction of historical identity. The author masterfully examines the process of legitimization and transformation of land attachment into an ideological or religious attachment. This book will be required reading for my graduate and also advanced undergraduate students.

Finally got through this after many months of stopping and starting. It's quite tough and pretty dense in parts, being essentially a doctoral dissertation converted into book form. It is also extremely challenging to rank this work from a purely literary or even societal perspective, since the topic is so fraught with politics. El Haj is essentially making the case that Israeli archaeologists have systematically used their science as a means not so much of advancing the field as of fabricating a foundation for the history and present right to exist of the Jewish state. Needless to say, many are not comfortable with this assertion or the arguments she makes to support it. In fact, if you look at all of the other ratings on Amazon, what you find is a pretty much equal number of 1's (pro-Israelis who can't stand anything negative being said about Israel or Judaism) and 5's (pro-Arabs who think that anything that undermines Israel is just swell). All this said, it is certainly a thought provoking work and one that raises numerous valid issues to think about, irrespective of your politics or views on Middle-East affairs.

The best of the book is in the details and in the exposition of ethics archaeologists and anthropologists have to safeguard as professionals. The book is meant to convey that after the archaeologist/anthropologist removes the artifact from the ground, that artifact becomes evidence in the service of politics and/or religion. People with a quest (to build a state, to recover places of holiness, to connect the contemporary with the ancient) frame the artifact within an scenario whose subjectivity diverges from the disinterestedness that should imbue the methodology of scientists and social scientists.
I liked to read about a place across the world that I doubt I will visit. El-Haj has done a service for tourists with a description of museums, the variety of people who go through them, and the quandaries about who owns them and the controversies about how they were formed. The part about the uses of cartography by the British to define the borders of an area called Palestine sparked an interest. The activities of pro-Zionists, Ultra-Orthodox, Palestinians, British, and archaeologists are scrutinized without mercy in the book.

Oh yes, this book asks some interesting questions. But one has to be a little suspicious of its point of view.

Many of us know that Ed Said attacked the entire field of Oriental Studies as merely a political device to support colonialism. That certainly appeared dubious to those of us who saw scholars as people who were genuinely interested in learning about the subject. Now we see a similar set of questions about archaeology. And now it is Nadia Abu El-Haj who is wondering about the extent to which people use archaeology as a political device.

I suspect that almost all archaeologists are genuinely interested in their subject. I can't believe that many of them want to be archaeologists merely for political reasons. But that does leave unanswered the question of whether some archaeological research has become rather political in nature. And I can see why folks might want to ask such a question, given the way that some scholars have turned much of the work in Middle East Studies into rather useless political propaganda.

Some of the other reviewers of this book have dismissed this work as pure anti-Zionist political propaganda, not just because it attacks Israel but due to a paucity of scholarly material. They point out the author's lack of detailed discussions of what archaeology is and how it works. And while there is some material here about what Israeli archaeologists have been looking for, there isn't a detailed appraisal of what these archaeologists have indeed discovered. If there were, it would give us a better chance to determine if there has been something systematically wrong with what most of these archaeologists have been doing.

Plenty of people are interested in the past. That includes Israelis. After all, some Israelis can trace their ancestry back for many generations. They are aware that Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for quite a while, including the past three millennia. It is not surprising that many are interested in discovering what archaeology can tell them about that time period and that some are enthusiastic about participating. And it is not surprising that archaeologists have indeed discovered quite a bit.

It is a good idea to ask if archaeologists could do better work. But I don't think the author does a very convincing job here. Are Arab artifacts being overlooked? Are bulldozers being used that destroy the small and recent Arab artifacts but not the larger and older Hebrew ones? Those could be good questions, but I don't see much scholarly investigation into this.

El-Haj spends plenty of time discussing politics, but I don't see much scholarship in this. She complains about the use of Hebrew names, but I don't understand such a criticism. If there were a study of Germanic culture in Vienna, I'd hardly expect it to use the word "Becs" rather than "Wien" as the name of that city.

There are some interesting claims in this book. Obviously, I could not overlook the author's quote of Clermont-Ganneau, who said that the peasants in the Levant were "resigned Mussulmans" when the Muslims ruled, "bad Christians" when the Christians ruled, "mediocre Jews," and "fervent Pagans." That's music to my ears, but is it even true? Matter of fact, just how much continuity was there from one group to the next? And if it is true, why doesn't the author advocate a return to the Paganism that obviously is best suited to that area, rather than the monotheistic religions that appear to have developed in that region?

El-Haj says that "the struggle to realize a Jewish presence upon the land is perhaps best understood, quite literally, as having been a conflict over the problem of presence. Archaeology, for its part, developed into yet one more dimension and ongoing practice of kibbush (of conquest)." Goodness Gracious! She even sounds, quite literally, like Said!

The author explains early in the book that some folks see archaeology as a science while others see it as a social product. Well, I see it as a scholarly field, and I think that any other approach is unworthy of the name. If El-Haj wants to some up with some constructive criticism about what Israeli archaeologists are doing, it ought to be on that basis. And she hasn't done that. Instead, she's written a political manifesto in which scholarship is something of a side issue.