The PUSH project has opened new horizons in old friendships. At the outset of the research, it became evident that the simplest and most obvious language was open for deliberation. The original use of the heading Our Shared Heritage was debated during the first months. How could the use of the word Shared have meaning in the current political context? Could the use of Our imply a consciousness more idyllic than real? Was the neutral Common better suited to the situation?
The first symposium discussed these definitions under the guidance of Professor Simon Goldhill, resolving the matter with analogies to the Tragedy of Antigone, showing the use of the terminology of Shared in literature no way signified an acceptance, but more often indicated the recognition of the "other". The argument was convincing. And with the knowledge that the Greek language was dominant in our region for over 800 years, we all agreed that we could live with Our Shared Heritage.
The format of the Shared
Heritage
The team then grappled with many issues before arriving at
this seemingly simple and seamless booklet.
The sites were initially grouped under a series of
headings, first and foremost, historical and chronological.
The second proposal suggested that a geographical division
might be more prudent, while the thematic studies of the
Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Convention, ICOMOS
and IUCN, became the consensus after further consideration
of the personalities of the region.
The eleven relevant ICOMOS themes
developed by our friend Professor Henry Cleere seemed too
fine and many times inappropriate to our local context. A
mixture between the periods often complicated matters – for
instance, the grouping of the Herodian and Ummayad palaces
into one typological narrative was a bold proposition but
also contentious.
Even the grouping of the periods presented difficulties and
the combination of historical periods raised issues as the
need for separating Hellenistic and Roman influences. The
meaning and implication of the term Mediaeval was also
questioned raising the polemics of Crusader, Frankish and
Mameluke descriptions of the architecture of the region.
And did the Bronze and Iron Ages each need their own
definition?
Finally after the first regional symposium and consultation
between the teams and our peer reviewers, under the
direction of Neil Silberman, the publication emerged as a
format with six thematic chapter headings:
The Natural Environment
Rural and Urban Life
Agricultural and Industrial Innovations
Coexisting Religious Traditions
Cultural Landscapes
Itineraries
As the texts were written by the teams, edited, rewritten
and peer reviewed by our local colleagues, and on seeing
the publication emerge there was a general accolade that a
break-through had been made. While accepting the format,
new problems arose and other subjects and narratives were
deemed necessary. But for that we are hoping to expand on
PUSH II.
Regional
terminology
The problem of geo-historical terminology is particularly
serious, since no single geographical name applies to all
periods and to the same extent of land including the area
of modern Israel, Palestine, and Jordan. All our reviewers
commented on the need to insist on historic and geographic
accuracy.
We have used the general term "our region" when referring
to the whole area of our contemporary shared heritage.
The team also felt that the use of "Holy Land" would
be a further generic term to be applied judiciously.
Specific references will be made concerning names that can
be matched with historical periods or geographical terms
such as Retenu, Canaan, Philistia, Israel, Judah, Judea,
Samaria, Jordan, Palaestina, Filastin or Outremer. These
will refer specifically and precisely to the political unit
to which a site belonged at a particular time. Where
these names have been used, the local term in Arabic or
Hebrew has been applied, while the English has acknowledged
alternative names if they exist in different forms.
More general terms such as Levant, Land of Israel,
ash-Sham, Palestine, have been avoided unless there is a
specific and documented use of the term in a historical
sense. Basically, this has been decided on a case-by-case
basis recognizing the "other".
Determining the
sites
The identification of the sites and the merging of them
into common narratives were thwart with difficulties. They
demanded the acceptance of change and dialogue, accepting
that sites regarded as important in one context could be of
lesser meaning in others. Some examples will enhance the
understanding and share with the reader the substance of
the process in finalizing the booklet.
The importance of the Byzantine Monasteries in the Judean
or Jerusalem Desert left out Israel, resulting in the
inclusion of the Churches at Shivta, while the copper mines
of Feinan and Timna left out the Palestinian territories
resulting in rethinking the heading as Mines and
Quarries.
The Israeli team thought of the Herodian legacies while the
Palestinian team had identified the importance of Salah
al-Din. Each personality had left indelible marks in all
three territories including the winter palaces of Herod and
the battles and fortresses of Salah al-Din. The original
sectarian proposals eventually gave way to looking at the
combined typology of palaces of the Herodian and Ummayad
periods, while Salah-a-Din was linked not to the famous
Battle of Hittin but to the tomb of the Rambam, as his
court physician. The importance of looking for a Christian
of the same period, brought us to rereading Runciman and
identified Lady Stephanie of Oultrejourdain, responsible
for the garrisons of Karak and Montreal, whose son Salah
al-Din returned even before the obstinate knights were
defeated. The Jordanian team felt that the lesser known
Stephanie, albeit a woman, should be exchanged for Richard
the Lion Heart who was enforced into a peace treaty with
Salah al-Din, thus ending the Third Crusade.
Prophets have been recognized in different places in
shrines and tombs. The Jordanian Mount Nebo and Palestinian
Nebi Musa; the Jordanian tomb of Yithro and the Israeli
Nebi Sheib blurred the narratives, creating a diachronic
chapter that not all team members were willing to accept.
This generated the chapter on judges, disciples and
companions, each accompanying the prophets of the three
religions in their birthplaces and places of growth.
The innovations of the region brought about the recognition
of the inception of writing, together with the lesser known
fact that the sugar cane industry developed from the
insatiable sweet tooth of Europeans from the twelfth
century onwards, with the Crusaders building a series of
factories near Acre, Jericho and Safi. Likewise the
innovations of the Byzantine mosaic craftsman crossed
cultural borders, with the intricate patterns of Byzantine
Madaba brought into the service of the Ummayad Caliphate,
having also shared motifs with the elaborate synagogue
floors at Bet Alfa, Tsippori and Baram.
The overlaying of history is seen in the recognition of the
cultural landscapes with their evolving indigenous
communities and Palestinian villages a phenomenon that goes
hand-in-hand with the multiple meanings of the venerated
tomb on the Mount of Olives where the Prophetess Hulda, St
Pelagia or Rabia might be buried – one tomb, but very
feminine.
In all these elements of heritage we faced a constant
challenge: Three sites with one narrative – one site
with three narratives. That has always been the very
essence of the PUSH project.
Translation
Common understanding is dependent on language and
translation; not just the technicalities, but also the
cultural meanings. The team realized that agreeing on the
translations was even more complex than agreeing on a
common English version and that there was a need to open a
parallel debate on the Hebrew and Arabic renditions to
convey the spirit of the issues raised in discussing the
English text. What we anticipated as a technical matter
became yet a further trialogue in the discussion of Our
Shared Heritage.
A commentary that was originally written in Hebrew or
Arabic was rendered into the English lingua franca
and hotly debated with resulting changes. In translating
the text back to the original language, questions arose
that would not have been so obvious in the first writing;
what did the writer mean? Was there a hidden agenda in his
or her words?
There is no use for the reader to compare the texts for
their literal lexicon meaning. That exercise will merely be
frustrating, while the connoisseur of cultural heritage, we
hope, will enjoy and even revel in the nuances that express
the spectrum of significance that each place and memory
bears.
Thus as in all the other challenges of sharing, we invite
the reader to share with us the lessons of heritage.