Serial properties and heritage interpretation. Lessons from the Israeli Biblical Tels inscription

ABSTRACT

World Heritage serial properties are groupings of several heritage component parts that share common themes and values. This paper examines how these serial properties, as well as their individual component parts, are influenced by serial interpretive dynamic, and how this dynamic affects on-site interpretation. We demonstrate these issues through the Israeli serial property inscription of the Biblical Tels – Megiddo, Hazor, Beer-Sheba (2005). We chart the revisions along the inscription process to point out the presence of an interpretive dynamic. We describe interpretive dynamic as the effect of the justifications of the nomination over heritage significance and interpretation, both within the realm of World Heritage and in each heritage property locally. This paper concludes that interpretive dynamic is an inevitable part of the serial process. We argue that the dynamic represents a gap between the frequent use of series as an inscription catalyst and their essence as value-oriented constructs. Considering this, we criticise the overuse of serial inscriptions and call for a revised definition that re-addresses the important place of interpretation in this process.

KEYWORDS:

• World Heritage
• serial properties
• nomination
• interpretation
• Biblical Tels
• Tel Beer-Sheba

Introduction

The World Heritage Committee defines serial properties as an intentionally selected group of heritage properties that ‘… include(s) two or more component parts related by clearly defined links […] of Outstanding Universal Value’ (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2021). Serial properties have been inscribed on the World Heritage List since its inauguration in 1978 with the nomination of the Wieliczka and Bochnia Royal Salt Mines. The definition of serial properties mentioned above corresponds to the minor place they seem to occupy in the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Committee. Nevertheless, the World Heritage List attests to the continual and dramatic increase in the use of this construct. In 2021, serial properties accounted for a record rate of 59% of all inscriptions. Moreover, because series potentially contain dozens of component parts, their influence over the identification and perception of heritage may be broader than it initially seems.

This paper examines the influence of serial properties on the perception of heritage. It examines the interplay between the serial group, its component parts, and the way this heritage is interpreted. As heritage creation ‘is ultimately responsible to what the viewer sees, experiences, and can know about the past’ (Matero 2013, 155), this intentional creation must use interpretation to validate and disseminate its content to the public. In the case of serial properties, the paper points out the presence of an interpretive dynamic and describes it as the effect of the justifications of the nomination over heritage significance and interpretation, both within the realm of World Heritage and in each component part locally. The influence of interpretive dynamic on the perception of heritage clarifies why serial properties are not a mere technical solution for promoting more inscriptions, but a value-oriented construct that actively define values in its creation and dissemination. Moreover, the paper reinforces the approach set forth by Tilden (Tilden 1977) that interpretation of heritage does not aim to deliver facts but it is a tool to shape public perception of heritage.

Yet, a review of contemporary papers on serial properties shows a limited discussion on the dynamic between serial properties, heritage values, and interpretation. Recent papers mainly deal with monitoring and management issues (Adie and Amore 2020; Heim, Krott, and Böcher 2018; Ostendorp et al. 2016; Pickard 2016; Svels and Sande 2016; Vileikis 2016); their impact on the composition of the World Heritage List (Chalana and Sprague 2013; Willems and Comer 2011); and the way inscriptions influence the local population and its relation to the heritage (Akbar et al. 2020; Deacon, Wiltshire, and du Plessis 2018; Horowitz 2016; Nakano 2018; Polat and Tümer Yildiz 2019). Research tends to look at World Heritage serial properties as a fait accompli and does not discuss the effects of their unique features over heritage.

This paper addresses this gap as it evaluates serial properties as a distinct example of World Heritage interpretive dynamic and presents its effects on the content of the nomination, the sites, and their interpretation. Its novelty lies in the identification and analysis of valorisation gaps associated with nomination and interpretation of serial properties. The focus on cultural-oriented aspects does not diminish the influence of political and national agendas on the process, as our case study will clearly demonstrate. Nonetheless, since the influence of political and national agendas was discussed before both by the Committee (Jokilehto 2005; World Heritage Comittee 1994) and by researchers (Bertacchini et al. 2016; Meskell and Liuzza 2022), this paper describes less discussed cultural-oriented aspects.

The first section of this paper defines the role of interpretation in the heritage field and serial properties as an interpretive dynamic. The second section consists of a case study of the Israeli serial property Biblical Tels – Megiddo, Hazor, Beer-Sheba (2005). The discussion of the nomination process shows how the interplay between two heritage themes in the nomination influences its content as well as the values ascribed to the component parts. The third and last part of the paper focuses on the site of Tel Beer-Sheba from the nomination. It analyses public on-site interpretation as an interplay between the two distinct heritage frames of the thematical serial property and the existing heritage on-site.

The paper concludes that interpretive dynamic is an inevitable part of the serial process that clearly shapes public perception in accordance with World Heritage viewpoint and justifications. Serial interpretive dynamic is made up of two phases – the first is the iterative serial nomination process, and the second is on-site post-inscription. The discrepancies revealed through interpretive dynamic stem, in our opinion, from the gap between the frequent use of series as inscription catalyst and their essence as value-oriented constructs. This dynamic also reflects the influence of the Committee guidelines on the credibility of the inscribed heritage. Considering this, we criticise the overuse of serial inscriptions and call for a revised definition that re-addresses the important place of interpretation in this process.

Interpretation

Interpretation in the cultural heritage field

Interpretation is at the heart of many cultural processes, and is defined as ‘a proximate translation of the original intent implied’ (Gurevitz and Arav 2012, 1012). Interpretation shapes the shared meanings of collective cultural expressions such as objects, activities, sites, and ceremonies (Hall 2003; Regev 2011) by publicly affirming and disseminating their significance (Hall 2003; Silberman 2013; Tilkin 2016). Therefore, interpretation changes in accordance with the ever-changing spirit of the times (Silberman 2013), because it expresses a continuous negotiation between stakeholders and the public on the cultural importance of the heritage (Gurevitz and Arav 2012).

The US National Park Service was the first to use the term heritage interpretation in the 1940s. Heritage interpretation described the information and education amenities provided to visitors in order to inspire appreciation and protection of the heritage sites (Tilkin 2016). The contemporary meaning of the term was defined by American journalist and writer Freeman Tilden in his seminal text Interpreting our Heritage (1957) as ‘ … an educational activity which aims to reveal meanings and relationships […]. Interpretation is revelation of a larger truth that lies behind any statement of fact’ (Tilden 1977, 8). According to Ablett and Kay Dyer (2009), Tilden does not define interpretation as a tool to transfer information and facts but as a process which changes the mental praxis of the public through a holistic experience.

The World Heritage Committee and interpretation

Since its establishment, the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO (1972) has been the major institution in the field of global heritage. It is the implementation mechanism of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972). In 1978, the World Heritage Committee established the World Heritage List (hereinafter: ‘the List’), which is a global selection of heritage properties that meet its criteria for Outstanding Universal Value (Cameron and Rössler 2013; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023).¹ To bridge the gap between the Convention and the practical actions needed to maintain the List, the World Heritage Committee publishes the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereinafter: ‘Operational Guidelines’). Over the years, revisions in the Operational Guidelines and publications of charters and declarations reflect how World Heritage Committee agendas adjust themselves to the changing heritage mindset. The Operational Guidelines as well as some of the charters refer to the topic of interpretation, but their terminologies and objectives are inconsistent (Silberman 2013). While Operational Guidelines addresses interpretation as a technical service aspect such as signage, trails, and exhibitions (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023), various charters emphasise the social role of interpretation (for example ICOMOS 1990, 1999) or its major share in the establishment of heritage significance (for example Australia ICOMOS 2013; Council of Europe 2005) (Silberman 2013). Global communication developments in the last three decades have allowed faster dissemination of data and involvement of more stakeholders in the creation of heritage (Silberman 2013). These trends promoted a new discussion about heritage interpretation which resulted in The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Sites (ICOMOS 2008). This charter was the first to present explicit definitions for commonly used terms –

Interpretation refers to the full range of potential activities intended to heighten public awareness and enhance understanding of cultural heritage site. […]

Presentation more specifically denotes the carefully planned communication of interpretive content through the arrangement of interpretive information, physical access, and interpretive infrastructure at a cultural heritage site. (ICOMOS 2008, 2)

Consequently, heritage interpretation is not merely educational or informative. Interpretation defines narratives and values and is therefore a key factor in preservation and management, in which actions such as identification, preservation, and dissemination are effectively part of the process (Silberman 2013).

Serial properties as an interpretive dynamic

Serial properties are defined in paragraph 137 of the Operational Guidelines as follows –

137. Nominated serial property includes two or more component parts related by clearly defined links:

a) Component parts should reflect cultural, social or functional links over time […]

b) Each component part should contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value of the nominated property as a whole […]

and provided the series as a whole – and not necessarily its individual component parts – is of Outstanding Universal Value.

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023, 45)

The definition of serial properties appeared in the Operational Guidelines for the first time in 1980. Despite some elaboration over the years,² it retained its main features as a collection of several parts with cultural or functional affinity and a shared Outstanding Universal Value. A serial property is therefore a deliberate choice of components assigned together as part of a broader theme with unique qualities. This limited reference to serial properties corresponds to the minor place they seem to occupy in the Operational Guidelines. Nevertheless, the List attests to the continual and dramatic increase in the use of this construct with a record share in 2021 of twenty inscriptions out of the annual total of thirty-four (a record share of 59%). This increase suggests that serial properties are used by state parties as a practical solution to bypass the quantitative limitations of the List or to introduce a variety of new themes and sites. These practices obviously affect the composition of the List and the credibility of its heritage.

Insights into interpretation and its relation to heritage suggest that cultural serial properties present an interpretive dynamic. We define interpretive dynamic as the effect of the justifications of the nomination over heritage significance and interpretation, both within the realm of World Heritage and in each heritage property locally. We claim this dynamic is inevitable and takes place in every World Heritage nomination. However, since serial properties are composed of separate sites grouped together as one shared nomination, interpretive dynamic is even more prominent in series and their component parts. Interpretive dynamic results in an evident influence of serial justifications over the heritage narrative in the component parts. This means that serial properties reinterpret the heritage of the components according to the justifications of the nomination and shape the perception of the heritage through their interpretation.

Methodology- materials and methods

To explore the influence of serial properties on heritage, we have chosen to analyse the inscribed Israeli series (2005) Biblical Tels – Megiddo, Hazor, Beer-Sheba (hereinafter: ‘Biblical Tels’). The main constraints of presenting a single case study are its limited scale and context which, as Mualam and Barak suggest, might hinder generalisation and wide comparative conclusions (Mualam and Barak 2019). But as Lowenthal suggested even if ‘every legacy is distinctive’ (Lowenthal 2009, 249), it is still possible to map identical obstacles and influences. Therefore, since all World Heritage nominations follow the same process and criteria, it is possible to draw general conclusions about World Heritage nature and biases even from a single case study. Hence, we bring the Biblical Tels as a distinctive example of the influence of the serial interpretive dynamic on the perception of heritage. As Mérai et al. point out, the conclusions should encourage debate of the future of serial properties rather than a definitive solution (Mérai et al. 2022).

The analysis tracks the formation process of the Biblical Tels by its changes, and then follows the interpretation offered to visitors in one of the component parts. The formation process of the nomination is reconstructed from three main sources. The first is the final nomination dossier and ICOMOS evaluation report retrieved from the World Heritage List website.³ The second is the online database of the Israeli World Heritage Committee (hereinafter: ‘Israeli Committee’) which contains correspondence with the World Heritage Committee and ICOMOS, internal discussion summaries, and previous nomination dossier versions.⁴ Lastly, we have conducted interviews with the sites archaeologists, the Israeli Committee team coordinator, and the Israeli Committee scientific consultant archaeologist. The documents and interviews reconstruct the decision-making process and present the various versions of the nomination as a combined outcome of both Israeli Committee agendas and World Heritage Committee guidelines.

The three component parts in the Biblical Tels are managed archaeological national parks open to the public. To demonstrate the influence on their interpretation, we have analysed Tel Beer-Sheba. The analysis investigates the integration between data from the archaeological excavations and the serial justifications as they are interpreted on-site to visitors. The analysis compiles four sources of information: archaeological publications of the excavations, the justifications of the inscription, survey of the visiting route and interpretation on-site, and the information brochure for visitors. Figure 6 compiles the data from all four sources into the site ground plan and presents the interplay of archaeological data and serial justifications along the visiting circuit.

Case study – Biblical Tels – Megiddo, Hazor, Beer-Sheba

The Biblical Tels serial property consists of three archaeological sites – Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba – each located in a different part of the Israeli state, as seen in Figure 1. They were nominated as ‘representative(s) of tels that have substantial remains of cities with Biblical connections (that) [… .] also present some of the best examples in the Levant of elaborate, Iron Age, underground water collecting systems’ (ICOMOS 2005, 122). Namely, this nomination evolved from two different sets of justifications. One relates to the intangible cultural significance ascribed by Biblical citations, and the other to the tangible significance based on archaeological discoveries of ancient water collecting systems. This paper tracks their interplay and effect over the nomination justifications and on-site heritage interpretation.

Figure 1. Main tels in the Southern Levant region in the Iron Age period (1000–586 BCE). Coloured names indicate tels with ancient water collecting systems. Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba in light blue colour comprise the serial nomination.

Tels

The term Tel (plural tels/tells; borrowed from Hebrew and Arabic) means ‘mound’, and describes the Levant regional phenomenon of settlements accumulating in one spot, each on top of its former, creating an artificial hill (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003; Moore and Kelle 2011). Their creation indicates humans’ repetitive use of local benefits – such as water sources and proximity to main routes – to resettle the same places for consecutive eras (Reich 1995).

There are about two hundred tels in Israel, and hundreds more in the Levant region (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003). Figure 1 presents the spatial layout of the main Iron Age period (1000–586 BCE) excavated tels in the Southern Levant (presently Israel, West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan). As seen in Figure 2, tels were inhabited since the fifth or fourth millennium BCE until around the fourth century BCE.

Figure 2. Historical timeline (BCE) of the Levant with main biblical milestones (dates compiled from Cline 2009; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002; Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003; Moore and Kelle 2011).

Biblical tel

The term Biblical Tel was apparently coined by the Israeli Committee during the nomination process. In the nomination dossier itself, the term is used repeatedly without clear interpretation. A formal explanation appears, for the first time, only in the ICOMOS final evaluation report –

A considerable number of the tels are the remains of cities and settlements mentioned in the Old Testament bible […] They are therefore referred to as ‘Biblical’ Tels. The three nominated tels are put forward as representative of Biblical cites in Israel.

(ICOMOS 2005, 122)

The term leads to the nomination statement that ‘the tel is therefore the best representative of the Biblical epoch. And the major tels in Israel – with their impressive remains – are the cradle in which the world of the Bible was born’ (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003, 8). According to this statement, many tels in the region can be considered Biblical Tels, either through Biblical citations or human inhabitance in corresponding periods.

The Israeli Committee chair at the time wrote that ‘the Biblical Tels appeared in the tentative list since we all felt an affinity to the title as an expression of a historical key feature which should be proposed for nomination on behalf of the State of Israel’.⁵ This quote shows that the attribute Biblical expresses the well-known Israeli ambition to establish a bond between the Jewish population and the land as the place of their Biblical ancestors (Cline 2009; Feige and Zvy 2008; Kletter 2006; Silberman and Small 1997). This ambition was part of modern Israeli nation-building in the twentieth century. It presented the Hebrew written Bible and the places mentioned in it as the collective history, territory, and language of the emerging nation (Gurevitch 2007; Zrubavel 1995). To a large extent, contemporary Israeli motivations regarding local heritage continue along the same ideological line, as they prioritise Jewish and nation-related narratives (see for ex. Ben-Artzi 2018; Kisler 2022). The case study of the Biblical Tels demonstrates how this agenda influences the selection and promotion of heritage in the realm of the World Heritage Committee and List.

Moreover, stating that ‘The Biblical cities exerted a powerful influence on later history through the Biblical narrative’ (ICOMOS 2005, 128) echoes the important global cultural place of the Bible, and the public interest it evokes (Ben-Tor 1992; Moorey 1991). Thus, the use of the attribute Biblical signifies an explicit Jewish-Israeli affinity, while simultaneously expressing its global cultural significance, which merits inscription on the World Heritage List.

Biblical chronology and biblical archaeology

To discuss the cultural context of the term Biblical Tel, we must first address the modern research field of Biblical Archaeology. The Hebrew Bible (also known as the Old Testament) narrates the story of the People of Israel. As seen in Figure 2, historical and archaeological data frame the Biblical chain of events to the periods between the seventeenth and the sixth centuries BCE, corresponding to the archaeological periods from the Middle Bronze Age to the Persian Empire (dates compiled from Cline 2009; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002; Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003; Moore and Kelle 2011).

Biblical Archaeology developed in the twentieth century and combined excavations in the Levant (presently Middle East and Near East regions) with Biblical text criticism (Ben-Tor 1992; Moore and Kelle 2011; Moorey 1991). It attempted to correlate Biblical events with a scientific historical timeframe through archaeological discoveries. However, even a century of discoveries cannot corroborate the complete chain of Biblical events, especially those from the second millennium BCE (Cline 2009). As a result, Biblical Archaeology scholars differ in the credibility they attribute the Bible as an historical source (Moore and Kelle 2011). This continuing debate means that, even among the archaeologists involved in this nomination, there is no consensus on the correct interpretation and affinity of various archaeological discoveries to corresponding Biblical accounts (compare for ex. Ben-Tor 2000; Finkelstein 1999; Finkelstein and Silberman 2002; Herzog 2006).

Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba

Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba were excavated in the twentieth century and have become in recent decades national parks managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. The nomination elaborates on their significance in various cultural spheres based on archaeological and historical data. Similarly, it uses Biblical citations to present both Biblical significance and a cultural frame for diverse archaeological discoveries. The nomination presents these sites as similar representatives of the affinity between an archaeological tel and its Biblical referencing (ICOMOS 2005). However, Figure 3 indicates that each tel is distinct. Figure 3 compares their significance in relation to geographical location, historical events, archaeological discoveries, and Biblical citations. As it presents the main cultural significance of each tel, it also reveals the limited scope of Biblical affinity.

Figure 3. Comparison of Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba diverse cultural significance in relation to geographical location, historical events, archaeological discoveries, and biblical citations.

The Operational Guidelines state that serial component parts should possess substantial content to support the serial Outstanding Universal Values (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023, 45). However, though Megiddo, Hazor, and Beer-Sheba are cited in the Bible as the loci of various events, Figure 3 suggests that their Biblical importance is not pivotal compared to places like Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Only a handful of their citations may reflect historical significance,⁶ while most of them are laconic and do not convey the importance attributed to Biblical tels according to the nomination. As seen in Figure 3, Biblical affinity is only one of several justifications and is not the sole reasoning for cultural importance as the sites contain varied historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. Moreover, Figure 3 shows critical differences in the cultural significance of each tel since they differ in their inhabitance periods, inhabitants, and relation to historical episodes. Despite this, the nomination addresses the three similarly and focuses on the less solid and more interpretive Biblical realm as ‘the tels are considered to be of outstanding universal value for their association with Biblical history’ (ICOMOS 2005, 125). The following discussion presents the effects of this perspective on the interpretation of the related heritage.

Findings

The nomination process 2000–2005

The topic of The Biblical Tel appeared in the first Israeli tentative list (2000) and was one of the initial nominations promoted by the Israeli Committee in 2001 (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2000). Figure 4 reconstructs a timeline of the nomination and notes the revisions in the Outstanding Universal Values and the justifications brought forth. The timeline is based on the Israeli Committee’s working documents and the nomination dossier versions.

Figure 4. The biblical tels nomination timeline (2000–2005).

As mentioned above, the nomination involved two different sets of justifications – intangible significance of Biblical citations and tangible significance of ancient water collecting systems. The Israeli Committee issued three versions of the nomination dossier during the process (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2001, 2002, 2003). Changes between these versions reflect an interplay between Bible and archaeology as it is expressed in the nomination title, the relative recurrence of each topic, the description of the components, and Outstanding Universal Value justifications. For example, while the first two versions indicated only the water collecting systems as the nominated component parts, with the tels as their buffer zones,⁷ the third version expanded the component parts to include the entire excavated tels, with buffer zones around their foothills. This amendment to the physical definition of the component parts reflects a broader alteration of the cultural frame – from the tangible archaeological fragments of ancient water collecting systems to the sites’ intangible Biblical affinity. Figure 4 further shows how the changes along the process reflect the varied positions of the state party stakeholders, international World Heritage mechanism, and foreign advisors.

The successful inscription of the Biblical Tels was preceded by four years of discussions and three revised dossiers. Despite the final success, we claim that the changes result in credibility issues which relate to both Israeli Committee agendas and nomination procedures of the World Heritage Committee. Hence, we claim that while the archaeological justifications of the water collecting systems suited the heritage character of the three tels, their Biblical justification is less compelling, as their citations are sparse and many times laconic. In addition, as the Bible contains citations of a multitude of other sites, we speculate why the Israeli Committee retained the same three tels even though their Biblical justifications were not as cogent compared to other sites. The reason for this may be related to Operational Guidelines procedures. The Guidelines’ paragraph 63 clarifies that nominated properties must be registered on the tentative list beforehand and paragraph 137 indicates that serial component parts are not required to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value individually (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023, 27,45). Consequently, the Israeli Committee had to retain the same components from the tentative list and reinterpret them to fit changing serial Outstanding Universal Value.

Following Poshyanandana (Poshyanandana 2019) we classify thematical series like the Biblical Tels as being either evidence-based or interpretation-based ones. The difference between the classifications lies in the relation of the components to the series. While in evidence-based series the components are selected according to historical records and are therefore solid, in interpretation-based series, the components represent the selected phenomenon and thus are interchangeable. In the Biblical Tels we note that while the original choice of the water collecting systems created an evidence-based firm series, the promoted alternative of Biblical affinity turned it into an interpretation-based series which is more open to debate. Hence, justification choices influence the integrity of the series and its perception. Lastly, a map in the nomination dossiers of 2001 and 2002 (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2001, 2002) and a letter by the Israeli Committee from January 2005⁸ show that the combination of tels, water collecting systems, and Biblical citations is rare. It is attributed to only a handful of similar sites – five in Israel (Gerisa, Gezer, Bet-Shemesh, Lachish, and Arad), two in the West Bank (Gibeon and Kh. Bal’ameh), and two in Jordan (Tel es-Saidiyeh and Amman). Their geographical distribution (shown in Figure 1) along with no present Israeli on-site management (except in Arad) corroborates that the Israeli Committee did not in fact have other alternative tels to introduce and was therefore obliged to reinterpret the existing ones.

In conclusion, these issues demonstrate the direct influence of both World Heritage Committee procedures and state party goals on the credibility of the heritage inscribed. Moreover, our serial case study demonstrates how serial justifications are imposed over the component parts to support shared values while ignoring valorisation gaps. These gaps present two important credibility questions: are the inscribed component parts the best examples of the heritage phenomenon; and does the serial inscription truly display the prominent values of its component parts.

Tel Beer-Sheba

Following section analyses Tel Beer-Sheba to demonstrate how post-inscription serial values influence the perception of heritage through on-site interpretation. Tel Beer-Sheba was primarily referenced for its antiquities in the British Palestinian Exploration Fund (PEF) publications of 1875 and 1914. The Mandatory Palestine Department of Antiquities registered the tel as an antiquity site in 1944.⁹ The site was excavated in 1969–1976 by Tel Aviv University archaeologists, as part of a regional survey, and again in 1993–1995 by the Israeli Antiquities Authority to uncover the water systems. The site has been a public national park since 1986 under supervision of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

Figures 3 and 5 present the diverse cultural significances, chronologies, and main discoveries of Tel Beer-Sheba. Figure 3, discussed above, presents diverse cultural significances attributed to the site and affirms the limited scope of the Biblical context. Figure 5 compares the archaeological and Biblical timelines of Tel Beer-Sheba. Archaeological information is compiled from articles about the excavations (Aharoni 1972, 1974; Herzog 2002, 2009; Herzog, Rainey, and Moshkovitz 1977; Meitlis 2009; Yadin 1976) while Biblical referencing appears in the nomination dossier (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003).

Figure 5. Tel Beer-Sheba – comparison of archaeological and biblical timelines. (Background: schematic diagram of an archaeological tel based on Ben-Tor 1992).

Archaeological dating customarily stems from the analysis of physical discoveries. Particularly in tels, archaeological layers tend to be more ancient the deeper the excavation goes. According to the research, Tel Beer-Sheba is a relatively small settlement inhabited mainly in the Iron Age between the eleventh and eighth centuries BCE. In its heyday, it was a regional administrative centre of the central regime, destroyed during the campaign of Assyrian King Sennacherib in 701 BCE. Afterwards the tel was settled alternately on a limited scale and finally abandoned around the eighth century CE. The two water collecting systems – a well and an underground reservoir – were in use for a millennium until the first century CE. As Figure 5 shows, archaeological chronology presents inconsistencies with the Biblical affinity of the site, mainly in relation to the Patriarchs, who hold a major place in the nomination but have no evidence in the site itself. Hence, the archaeological importance of the tel derives from it being the first and only complete example of a pre-planned settlement of its era in Israel (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003, 17) and from a reconstruction of the first discovery of a full-sized four-horned altar (Herzog 2009; Meitlis 2009).

Considering this, the following sections discuss the interpretive dynamic at Tel Beer-Sheba and the way archaeological evidence and Biblical referencing are linked and interpreted on a visit at the site.

Site interpretation

Israel Nature and Parks Authority established a self-visiting route in Tel Beer-Sheba, installed informative infrastructures, and published an information brochure for visitors. Figure 6 depicts contemporary on-site relations between archaeological discoveries, visiting circuit, main interpretation stops, and Biblical referencing in the interpretation. The visiting circuit starts at the entry plaza at the foothill of the tel. The plaza displays a collection of interpretive aids: a dedication panel of the World Heritage inscription, a life-size copy of the horned altar, maquettes, and information boards. After ascending the tel from the plaza, the visit at the top starts by the water well and city gate and leads the visitor through the city square and streets onto a modern observation tower situated at the centre of the mound. The elevated tower allows a comprehensive view of the tel and the area around it. To complete the circuit, visitors descend a fifteen-metre stair-shaft to enter the five underground chambers of the water reservoir. The exit is through an ancient secondary opening hewed at the tel’s foothill, which takes the visitors back to the entry plaza.

Figure 6. Tel Beer-Sheba – mapping of contemporary on-site relations between archaeological discoveries, visiting circuit, main interpretation stops, and Biblical referencing in the interpretation.

Considering the prominence of archaeology here, one could expect that the interpretive frame of Tel Beer-Sheba would be based on an archaeological perspective. But our research shows that the Biblical frame is similarly prominent in on-site interpretation. Biblical citations play a central commentary role and influence the perception of the archaeology. Biblical references are prominent through direct citations or suggestive correlations between on-site discoveries and Biblical narratives or notions. These correlations begin with the main interpretive elements in the entry plaza, which are demonstrated in Figures 7 and 8. First is a dedication panel of the inscription, which indicates that the three tels represent some two hundred Biblical Tels in Israel. Second is a citation from Genesis, which commences the introductory board of the tel – depicted in Figure 7 – and links it to the Patriarch Isaac –

Figure 7. Selection of interpretive infrastructures at Tel Beer-Sheba.

From left to right clockwise: the observation tower; a ‘Biblical’ direction sign; a maquette; the introductory board of the site. (Photos by the authors. Courtesy of Israel Nature and Parks Authority).

Figure 8. Interpretation at the altar and the water well.

Top: altar information board and photos of its reconstruction at The Israel Museum (top) and its replica at the entry plaza (bottom).

Bottom: water well information board and photo of its reconstruction.

(Photos by the authors. Courtesy of Israel Nature and Parks Authority).

Then he went up from there to Beersheba. And the Lord appeared to him […] So he built an altar there and called on the name of the Lord, and he pitched his tent there: and there Isaac’s servants dug a well.

(Gen. 26, 23–25)

Third is the horned altar replica in Figure 8 which is related to a Judahite cult reform in 2Kings,18. Last is the opening statement in the visitor brochure stating that ‘The mound represents an urban ruling center from the Biblical period’.¹⁰ Together these correlations establish an explicit connection between the archaeology of the tel and descriptions of Biblical Beer-Sheba.

As the visit continues Biblical correlations are presented as a complimentary context whenever they are perceived to be relevant to the archaeology. Figure 8 presents the example of the water well. The information board contains almost exclusively Biblical context – headline citation from Song of Songs, another from Genesis on a well dug by the servants of Isaac, and lastly, a closing remark stating that ‘Some people connect this well with the one mentioned in Genesis’. Namely, the board implies a direct connection between the Biblical text and the well, even though archaeological chronology in Figure 5 suggests the site was uninhabited at the time of the Patriarchs.

Moreover, in addition to elaborate Biblical referencing in places such as the altar or the well, general Biblical citations – illustrated in Figure 7 – are used as direction signs to archaeological highlights. Unfortunately, citations like ‘At the head of the busy street, she calls …’ (Proverbs 1, 21) and ‘ … so let it enter his body like water … ’ (Psalms 109, 18) have nothing to do with the city square and water reservoir they point to. With no connections to Beer-Sheba, these citations become no more than Biblical flavouring.

In conclusion, presumed Biblical affinity in Tel Beer-Sheba is enhanced by on-site interpretation aiming to correlate the story of the site with World Heritage serial justifications. As already suggested in regard to the Biblical tel term, these interpretive decisions reflect national perspective as they disseminate the narrative of the inscription. These interpretive choices are promoted by national Israeli stakeholders despite an established conclusion that the correlation made between archaeological and Biblical chronologies in Tel Beer-Sheba is fictitious and cannot be corroborated. As a result, these choices influence the perception of the heritage through the interpretive dynamic. This dynamic and the discrepancies it creates are demonstrated below.

Interpretive dynamic

In this paper, the term interpretive dynamic describes the effect of the justifications of the nomination over heritage significance and interpretation, both within the realm of World Heritage and in each heritage property locally. The on-site interpretive dynamic influences the way heritage is interpreted to support serial justifications. This means that many times on-site interpretation emphasises content related to the justifications of the series at the expense of other aspects which do not directly relate to the serial inscription.

According to the inscription, the Biblical significance of Tel Beer-Sheba ‘reflects Biblical traditions surrounding the Patriarchs’ wanderings in the Holy Land and God’s appearance to the Patriarchs in Beer Sheba’ (ICOMOS 2005, 125). The interpretive dynamic between Bible-related serial justifications and archaeological discoveries at Tel Beer-Sheba is evident by the following four interpretive issues. They demonstrate how interpretive content on-site inclines towards the nomination context and its heritage perception.

The first issue lies in the notion that ‘Most scholars and researchers accept the identification of Tel Beer Sheba with Biblical Beer Sheba’ (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003, 13). As contemporary excavations under the modern city of Beer-Sheba revealed seven thousand years of human inhabitance, they suggest that the tel was only a small administrative outpost of the ancient city nearby (Gilead and Peter 2008). Therefore, the identification of the tel as Biblical Beer-Sheba is far from certain.¹¹

The second issue is the chronological link to the Patriarchs as ‘Beer-Sheba’s importance is reflected in the Biblical traditions surrounding the Patriarchs’ wanderings’ (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003, 13). Since the Patriarchs – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – are the prominent Biblical figures associated with the site, on-site interpretation explicitly connects them to the history of the tel. This is done despite explicit archaeological conclusion, demonstrated in Figure 5, that the tel was uninhabited during the Patriarchs period in the Bronze Age.

Third is the Israeli Committee’s decision to withdraw the water systems as a separate theme meriting World Heritage status. The omitted justifications argued that the water systems are unique in their technological and sociological aspects independent of any Biblical context (Israel National Commission for UNESCO 2003, 52–56). However, Figure 8 shows that the well is interpreted almost entirely according to the serial Biblical context, leaving only the water reservoir to be interpreted by its physical and social attributes.

Lastly, the fourth issue is the dismantled four-horned altar ashlar stones found incorporated into a built wall. Figure 8 shows the reconstructed altar on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem and the replica at the tel entry plaza. Archaeological debates regarding the dismantling period, the possible association with Biblical 2Kings, as well as the original location in the tel prior to its dismantling attest to the importance of this discovery (Aharoni 1974; Herzog 2009; Herzog, Rainey, and Moshkovitz 1977; Meitlis 2009; Yadin 1976). However, the information board by the replica highlights possible Biblical affinity without addressing the archaeological debates. This reduces the critical role of archaeology and presents Bible-related interpretations as agreed-upon facts. In addition, a comparison of the replica with the reconstruction reveals physical differences between the two. Lastly, as the replica stands in the entry plaza, it misleads visitors to assume this was its original location. All in all, we observe how a lack of clear archaeological interpretation distorts the perception of this unique discovery.

In conclusion, these four issues demonstrate the interpretive dynamic in Tel Beer-Sheba in which Biblical affiliation from the serial nomination actively influences the interpretation of the archaeology. The prominence given to Biblical connotations seems to outweigh archaeological conclusions and sets the tone as the main cultural frame. The outcome – evident on-site – can be perceived as manipulation done knowingly in order to avoid displaying inconsistencies that endanger the credibility of the inscription and undermine the public significance attributed to the site. As the heritage values during the nomination process shifted from tangible archaeological discoveries to intangible mythical Biblical narratives, post-inscription reliance on the Biblical context results in interpretation discrepancies and misrepresentation of the perception of the site.

Discussion – heritage interpretation in serial nominations

This paper discussed cultural serial properties in World Heritage and the way their interpretive dynamic shapes public perception in accordance with World Heritage viewpoint and justifications. The influence of the interpretive dynamic on heritage perception clarifies why serial properties should be addressed more than a mere technical solution, but as a value-oriented construct which actively interprets heritage values according to its perception. Interpretive dynamic is directly related to the definition of serial properties in the Operational Guidelines as a deliberate grouping of properties around a shared theme. This turns interpretation into an essential tool in creating new thematical constructs, which offer new heritage perceptions.

Using the case study of the Biblical Tels, we noted that the serial interpretive dynamic was made up of two phases. The first was along the nomination process, as iterative changes in serial justifications redefined component parts, values, and attributes. The second was post-inscription as on-site interpretation content was addressed according to inscription justifications.

The interpretive dynamic of the first phase reflects the influence of the World Heritage Committee and its Operational Guidelines on the credibility of serial inscriptions. We note that many series go through various valorisation changes in issues like component selection, serial theme, and Outstanding Universal Values justifications. Since valorisation is the ‘process by which value is ascribed to an object’ (Koziol 2013, 248), its World Heritage execution usually aspires to correlate to the perspective and procedures of the World Heritage Committee and to secure an inscription. However, thematical serial valorisation often leads to discrepancies. Here, for example, the component parts cannot represent the diversity of the heritage phenomenon (namely, Levant archaeological tels), and simultaneously are not a prominent enough example of the inscription theme (i.e. sites cited in the Bible). From a more general perspective, we argue that these discrepancies stem from the gap between the frequently pragmatic use of series – to promote more inscribed properties – compared to their essence as value-oriented constructs.

The post-inscription phase is directly related to monitoring, which regulates the state of conservation of the inscribed property. This is done, inter alia, by disseminating inscription values publicly and safeguarding the physical attributes that demonstrate them. Thus, on-site interpretation actively integrates World Heritage serial justifications into the heritage story. As we demonstrated, interpretation of serial components highlights the affinity to the series even at the expense of other values to create a definite correlation with serial justifications. Therefore, we claim serial post-inscription interpretation is an interplay between two distinct heritage frames – one of the series and the other of the accumulated heritage on-site. This dynamic is an inevitable outcome of the serial nomination process, as disseminating the inscription is part of its safeguarding.

This leads us back to the insights of Tilden (Tilden 1977) and The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Sites (ICOMOS 2008) on the essence of heritage interpretation. This paper reinforces their approach that heritage interpretation does not aim to deliver facts but is an essential tool in shaping heritage. Serial properties are created through a deliberate interpretive dynamic process, thus demonstrating the role of interpretation in shaping heritage content and public perception.

Considering this, we criticise the process of serial World Heritage properties and their obtained outcome. Extremely elaborate nomination dossiers strive to bring together multi-layered heritage and narratives of sites, while the thematical grouping of the sites under shared justifications requires simplification for this grouping to succeed. The results are, on the one hand, extremely detailed nomination dossiers which are difficult to encompass, and on the other, diluted on-site cultural data to support clear justifications and dissemination. These inevitable discrepancies may be a sign for the World Heritage Committee to readdress the definition and use of serial properties and the importance of interpretation in them.

Finally, it is possible that the scarcity of research on serial properties and their interpretation stems from the assumption that they constitute only a small fraction of the List. Recognizing that there is a continuous increase in the use of this mechanism, and that each series potentially contains dozens of component parts, makes their influence on heritage valorisation and the composition of the List more prominent than it seems. Future research should chart these influences on the characteristics of the List and its goals.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Glass-Balaban Endowment.

Notes on contributors

Oshrat Wolfling-Assa

Oshrat Wolfling-Assa is a PhD Student in the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at the Technion, Israel, and a member of ICOMOS Israel. She is an active architect holding a bachelor’s degree (BArch) in architecture and a master’s degree with honours (MArchII) in architectural conservation, both from the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning at the Technion.

Tal Alon-Mozes

Tal Alon-Mozes is a landscape architect and Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. She holds an MLA degree from UC Berkeley and a PhD from the Technion. Her scope of interest includes the histories of the designed landscapes of Israel. Among her published works are two edited books on Israel’s modern landscape architects, and numerous articles.

Ruth Liberty-Shalev

Ruth Liberty-Shalev is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, where she leads the Conservation of Built Heritage Unit. She is a practicing architect specializing in archaeology and built heritage conservation and holds an MA (cum Laude) from Oxford Brookes University. Between 2008 and 2017 she served as head of the monitoring committee of the Israel National Commission to UNESCO, and on the Israeli delegation to UNESCO World Heritage Committees. Since 2022 she is a Board member of ICOMOS Israel. Her practice, Ruth Liberty-Shalev Architecture & Conservation, is in Haifa, Israel.

Notes

1. The Operational Guidelines define Outstanding Universal Value as an exceptional significance which transcends national borders and is of global current and future importance. To possess it, a property should meet at least one criterion from a permanent list of ten; meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity; and be managed and protected (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2023).

2. Compare the Operational Guidelines versions of 1980, 1988, 2005, and 2011. All versions are available on the World Heritage Committee website https://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.

3. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/

4. The Israeli Committee has an online database of correspondence, working documents, and submitted nomination material at - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0Bzrp0GrznzcSNU5GNTFsNHpSSGc?resourcekey=0-hKt1e0XNANAfSJwFQEq59g

5. Quoted from internal correspondence draft dated June 14, 2005. The draft describes the decision-making process and considerations behind the nomination changes (free translation from Hebrew by the authors). Filed in the Israeli Committee online database (see footnote no. 4).

6. All citations were retrieved from https://www.biblegateway.com/ by searching for the names Megiddo, Hazor, Beersheba, and Armageddon.

7. The decision to nominate only the water collecting systems was influenced by the World Heritage Committee’s ‘Global Strategy’ (1994) action plan. This strategy promoted underrepresented countries or themes to arrive at a more credible and balanced List (World Heritage Comittee 1994). Therefore, the Israeli Committee articulated the water systems as the underrepresented technological evolution heritage.

8. Dated January 2005. See footnote no. 4.

9. The archive of The Mandatory Palestine Department of Antiquities is now part of The Israel Antiquities Authority archive. The data on Tel Beer-Sheba describes the state of the site as surveyed by British Mandate personnel. One of the notes mentions publications on the tel in the PEF Quarterly of 1875 and Annual of 1914–1915. The archive is available at http://www.iaa-archives.org.il/.

10. An on-line copy is available at https://en.parks.org.il/reserve-park/tel-beer-sheva-national-park/.

11. Local Arabic language uses the name Bir es-Sabi for both the city and the Biblical citation, while this tel is named differently as Tel Es-Sabi.