Archive | 2024/02/12

Czy uchodźcy żydowscy i arabscy są równi?

Feb12

Zgromadzenie Ogólne ONZ. Źródło: Zdjęcie ONZ/Loey Felipe.

Czy uchodźcy żydowscy i arabscy są równi?

Lyn Julius
Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska

Mimo prawie miliona żydowskich uchodźców z krajów arabskich, Organizacja Narodów Zjednoczonych nadal ma obsesję wyłącznie na punkcie potomków uchodźców arabskich.

Po ujawnieniu informacji, że palestyńska agencja ONZ ds. uchodźców UNRWA współpracowała z Hamasem w Gazie, do chwili pisania tego tekstu 12 krajów [obecnie 20] wycofało lub wstrzymało finansowanie tej agencji, przy czym jest prawdopodobnym, że takich krajów będzie więcej. Niewiele jednak dyskutuje się na temat tego, dlaczego agencja utworzona jako tymczasowe rozwiązanie w celu pomocy uchodźcom z izraelskiej wojny o niepodległość w 1948 r. miałaby nadal nieść pomoc potomkom uchodźców arabskich 75 lat później.

Co ciekawe, nie jest powszechnie wiadomo, że UNRWA faktycznie została powołana, aby pomagać uchodźcom po obu stronach konfliktu – zarówno arabskim, jak i żydowskim. Początkowo UNRWA definiowała osoby, za które była odpowiedzialna, jako „osobę potrzebującą, która w wyniku wojny w Palestynie straciła dom i środki do życia”.

Definicja ta obejmowała około 17 tysięcy Żydów, którzy mieszkali na obszarach ówczesnej Palestyny podbitych przez siły arabskie podczas wojny w 1948 r., oraz około 50 tysięcy Arabów mieszkających w granicach Izraela objętych zawieszeniem broni. Izrael wziął odpowiedzialność za tych ludzi i do 1950 r. usunięto ich z list UNRWA. To pozostawiło około 550 tysięcy Arabów palestyńskich – według szacunków New York Timesa z grudnia 1948 r. – pod opieką UNRWA.

W tamtym czasie nie istniała międzynarodowo uznana definicja tego, co stanowi uchodźcę. W 1951 r. Konwencja ONZ dotycząca uchodźców przyjęła następującą definicję:

osoba, która na skutek uzasadnionej obawy przed prześladowaniem z powodu swojej rasy, religii, narodowości, przynależności do określonej grupy społecznej lub z powodu przekonań politycznych przebywa poza granicami państwa, którego jest obywatelem, i nie może lub nie chce z powodu tych obaw korzystać z ochrony tego państwa, albo która nie ma żadnego obywatelstwa i znajdując się na skutek podobnych zdarzeń, poza państwem swojego dawnego stałego zamieszkania nie może lub nie chce z powodu tych obaw powrócić do tego państwa.

Definicja ta z pewnością odnosi się do 850 tysięcy żydowskich uchodźców, którzy uciekli przed prześladowaniami z krajów arabskich po 1948 roku i w większości przedostali się do Izraela. Powrót do tych krajów narażałby i nadal naraża ich życie.

Ciężar rehabilitacji i przesiedlenia 650 tysięcy uchodźców, którzy przybyli do Izraela, wzięli na siebie Agencja Żydowska i amerykańskie żydowskie organizacje humanitarne, takie jak American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. Razem z ocalałymi z Holokaustu z Europy Wschodniej zostali przewiezieni do obozów przejściowych zwanych ma’abarot, gdzie warunki były bardzo złe.

W tamtym czasie amerykańska pomoc przeznaczona dla uchodźców z Bliskiego Wschodu miała zostać rozdzielona równo pomiędzy Izrael i państwa arabskie, a każda ze stron miała otrzymać po 50 milionów dolarów. Pieniądze na przyjęcie arabskich uchodźców przekazano UNRWA, zaś Stany Zjednoczone przekazały krajom arabskim kolejne 53 miliony dolarów na „współpracę techniczną”. W efekcie narody arabskie otrzymały podwójną kwotę pieniędzy przekazaną Izraelowi, mimo że Izrael przyjął więcej uchodźców, z których duża liczba została wypędzona z krajów arabskich.

W 1951 r. projekt ustawy przedstawiony Kongresowi był pierwszym i ostatnim przypadkiem, w którym stworzono jakikolwiek mechanizm zapewniający pomoc tym żydowskim uchodźcom. Całkowita kwota, jaką Kongres przyznał żydowskim i arabskim uchodźcom z Bliskiego Wschodu, odpowiadała dzisiejszej równowartości 1,5 miliarda dolarów.

Na wczesnym etapie konfliktu arabsko-izraelskiego ONZ została przejęta przez potężny blok wyborczy arabsko-muzułmański. Blok ten zaprojektował przejście od równego traktowania uchodźców do obsesji na punkcie tylko jednej grupy uchodźców – Palestyńczyków. Podczas gdy UNRWA opiekuje się wyłącznie uchodźcami palestyńskimi, wszystkimi pozostałymi uchodźcami na świecie zajmuje się Wysoki Komisarz ONZ ds. Uchodźców (UNHCR). W rzeczywistości istnieje 10 agencji ONZ zajmujących się wyłącznie uchodźcami palestyńskimi, z których większość nie jest uchodźcami, ale raczej potomkami uchodźców. Agencje te definiują status uchodźcy jako zależny jedynie od „dwuletniego pobytu” w „Palestynie” przed rokiem 1948. W definicji nie ma wzmianki o „strachu przed prześladowaniami” lub przesiedleniem.

Co najbardziej wymowne, spośród 65 milionów uznanych uchodźców na całym świecie, uchodźcy palestyńscy są jedynymi, którym pozwolono przekazywać swój status uchodźcy następnym pokoleniom. W rezultacie szacuje się, że obecna populacja palestyńskich „uchodźców” wynosi ponad pięć milionów, z czego tylko ułamek to uchodźcy zgodnie z jakąkolwiek rozsądną definicją.

Co więcej, jako jedyni wśród uchodźców na świecie uchodźcy palestyńscy mają przywilej żądania „repatriacji” zamiast przesiedlenia. Izrael z oczywistych powodów uważa to za rzecz niemożliwą do zaakceptowania.

Niemniej narody arabskie utrzymały te podwójne standardy zarówno jako broń przeciwko Izraelowi, jak i w celu uniknięcia znacznych kosztów osiedlenia samych uchodźców. W 1959 roku Liga Arabska przyjęła uchwałę nr 1457, która stanowiła, że z wyjątkiem Jordanii kraje arabskie nie przyznają obywatelstwa wnioskodawcom pochodzenia palestyńskiego. Ta dyskryminacja trwa do dziś.

W przeciwieństwie do miliardów dolarów, które społeczność międzynarodowa przeznaczyła na uchodźców palestyńskich, nie przeznaczono żadnej takiej pomocy dla uchodźców żydowskich. Wyjątkiem była dotacja w wysokości 30 tysięcy dolarów przyznana w 1957 r., której ONZ w obawie przed protestami ze strony swoich muzułmańskich członków nie chciała upubliczniać. Dotacja została ostatecznie zamieniona na pożyczkę, którą spłacił American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

Tylko dwukrotnie ONZ przyznała, że Żydzi uciekający z kraju Bliskiego Wschodu lub Afryki Północnej byli rzeczywistymi uchodźcami. W 1957 roku Wysoki Komisarz ONZ ds. Uchodźców August Lindt oświadczył, że Żydzi w Egipcie, którzy „nie mogą lub nie chcą skorzystać z ochrony rządu swojego kraju”, podlegają jego kompetencjom. W lipcu 1967 r. UNHCR uznała Żydów uciekających z Libii za uchodźców objętych mandatem UNHCR.

Nie trzeba dodawać, że żaden z tych Żydów nie uważa się już za uchodźcę. Mimo przeżycia ogromnych trudności są teraz pełnoprawnymi obywatelami Izraela lub innych krajów.

Czy to zbyt wiele, jeśli prosimy o podobne humanitarne rozwiązanie trudnej sytuacji uchodźców palestyńskich?

Lyn Julius – Dziennikarka, współzałożycielka brytyjskiego stowarzyszenia HARIF, Żydów pochodzących z Północnej Afryki i krajów Bliskiego Wschodu; stowarzyszenia informującego o liczącej trzy tysiące lat historii Żydów na Bliskim Wschodzie i o losie tej mniejszości wyznaniowej i religijnej w XX wieku. Rodzina Lyn Julius pochodzi z Iraku.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

Why Campus Antisemitism Matters

Feb12
Why Campus Antisemitism Matters

EONARD SAXE

Studies and polls of American Jewish students reveal a startling degree of anxiety and fear

.
Pro-Palestinian protesters participate in an ‘All Out for Palestine’ rally outside Columbia University in New York on Feb. 2, 2024 / YUKI IWAMURA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

“Context,” has become an ugly word. Used by a trio of college presidents to avoid agreement with a politically barbed question in a congressional hearing as to whether or not calling for genocide against Jews is acceptable student conduct, use of the term seemed morally obtuse. They failed to acknowledge their university’s responsibility to protect students from harassment. Two presidents later apologized and subsequently resigned; their testimony, however, has continued to inflame the already charged debate about antisemitism on campus.

In the case of antisemitism, “context” includes understanding how certain types of action and speech affect Jewish students. The moral obligation to speak out against calls for genocide notwithstanding, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act obligates a university to protect members of ethnic, racial, and religious groups from discrimination. Under a “disparate treatment” provision of the act, Jewish students must be treated in the same way as those who are members of other protected groups. Notably, the impact on the victim of prejudice—not only the intent of the source—governs assessment of discrimination.

In the wake of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, as reports of antisemitic incidents spiked, my colleagues and I launched a program of research to document Jewish young adults’ experiences of antisemitism. We wanted to understand how the war was affecting young diaspora Jews. Since the war began, we have conducted a set of surveys with nearly 7,000 Jewish young adults (college age to mid-30s) across the United States.

One recent study, conducted during November and December (with data collection before, during, and after a cease-fire), included a survey that garnered more than 2,000 Jewish respondents at 51 U.S. campuses that have large Jewish student populations. Our respondents were drawn from a pool of over 20,000 young adult Jews who had applied to Birthright Israel. Overall, the sample is broadly representative of Jewish students on U.S. campuses, although on average, respondents were slightly more engaged in Jewish life and more likely to have traveled to Israel than their Jewish peers.

Our survey was designed to give voice to Jewish students. We wanted to understand their reactions to the war and their campus climate; specifically, their perceptions of the level of hostility toward Jews and Israel, as well as their concern about antisemitism on campus. The three questions were highly correlated and yielded an index of hostility based on responses to these questions which enabled us to compare campuses with one another. 

The impact on the victim of prejudice—not only the intent of the source—governs assessment of discrimination.

Not surprisingly, we found that antisemitism experienced by Jewish students is now far more prevalent than in the past. Many of our respondents commented that they were scared by what was happening on their campuses and, among other issues, afraid to be recognized as Jewish. A 2016 study that used similar methods found that the overall rates of perceived hostility toward Jews were nearly half of what we are currently observing.

Nevertheless, there is substantial variation across schools, even after controlling for individual differences. Using our antisemitic hostility index, we arrayed campuses into four groups, from most to least hostile. Respondents at the highest hostility schools were five times more likely to indicate that they “very much” agreed that their campuses were hostile toward Jews and Israel compared to those in the least hostile group.

Antisemitic hostility is not concentrated at any one type of school. Schools with the highest levels of antisemitic hostility include elite private universities in the Northeast, as well as large public universities in California and the Midwest. Both private and public universities, including some highly selective, appear in the list of schools with the lowest levels of antisemitic hostility. That hostility varies across campuses suggests that we can identify predictors of anti-Jewish hatred and use that knowledge as the basis for addressing it more effectively. 

Across schools, one-third of the Jewish students we surveyed reported personal experiences of insult or harassment. Many reported being insulted or harassed on social media, but at the most hostile campuses, nearly one-quarter reported personal experiences of harassment. The vast majority also reported seeing antisemitic images on campus, and many said that they were blamed for Israel’s actions because they were Jews. Students at the most hostile schools were also much more likely to have these personal experiences than students at the least hostile schools.

Campus sentiment toward Israel was also directly related to Jewish students’ concerns about antisemitism. Antisemitism related to Israel was, for our respondents, much more of concern than antisemitism about traditional Jewish stereotypes. Again, these concerns were not limited to Jewish students with more conservative political views or those who were more “pro-Israel” or even among those Jewish students who had unfavorable views of the Israeli government.

Notably, when asked about the political orientation of the source of antisemitism on their campus, respondents expressed far greater concern about antisemitism emanating from the political left than from the political right. Consistent with other findings, this was evident even among those who identified as politically liberal. Students spend the bulk of their time with peers, so it should not be surprising that more are concerned about antisemitism from liberal sources.

Nevertheless, faculty and administrators have an important role and their words and actions shape what happens on a campus. Especially at campuses with the highest levels of antisemitic hostility, many more Jewish students are concerned about their safety. Among students in the group of campuses with the highest level of hostility, only one-quarter of our respondents felt “very safe” compared to nearly half who felt “very safe” at schools in the lowest hostility group. Their ratings are confirmed by student comments about being frightened and needing to hide their Jewish identity.

So, what can be done? Our findings seem to confirm what was on display at the congressional hearing: a gap between the lived experience of Jewish students and how university leaders view the situation. The law requires that universities protect Jewish students, but many seem not to acknowledge the problem.

Apparently, some university presidents believe that Jewish students are not harmed by discourse that holds all Jews responsible for Israel’s actions and echoes Hamas’ call for the elimination of Jews. That such discourse is associated with threats and acts of violence against Jewish students is also ignored. These views appear to run counter to the way that other protected groups are routinely treated by those in charge of campus life and appear to violate Title VI.

Although we do not as yet have clear data about the impact of measures to recognize and act on antisemitism, it is difficult to imagine a solution that doesn’t involve academic leaders and faculty. As has been done with diversity, training faculty how to deal with ethnic and religious differences that includes specific discussion of Jewish students is needed. Whether or not Jewish students are considered a minority, they carry with them family histories and the memory of being targets of oppression. Most young Jews feel a connection with Israel and the Hamas attack on Israel reignited their sense of vulnerability.

The law requires that universities protect Jewish students, but many seem not to acknowledge the problem.

Similarly, mobilizing an institution’s educational programs to offer students a better understanding of Judaism, Israel, and the Middle East conflict also seems essential to addressing antisemitism on campus. Offering such courses should be part of the mission of any college or university that accepts its responsibility to create an educated citizenry.

Unfortunately, antisemitism is only one of the challenges being faced today by colleges and universities. Institutions of higher learning are struggling to respect diversity, while also reckoning with fundamental curricular debates, questions about the role of scholarship, and financial pressures. At the same time, public approval ratings of higher education institutions are in free-fall.

A key question for university leaders in their response to pernicious antisemitism is the degree to which they are willing to exercise moral authority. Are they willing to address antisemitism by using their office to draw lines between acceptable and unacceptable conduct? Statements alone by academic leaders may not be sufficient to address the current problems, but actions that enforce guidelines for civil and productive discourse about issues such as the Hamas-Israel war seem essential. Guidelines should not be a matter of supporting the political left or right, but relate to institutions’ core educational mission.

Historically, Jews have been the “canary in the coal mine” and anti-Jewish discrimination has often served as an early warning of broader societal turmoil, including discrimination against other groups. Confronting antisemitism on campuses is therefore not only important for members of the Jewish community, but also for higher education and the aims of civil society. That’s one part of the context that has not yet been sufficiently appreciated by campus leaders.

Leonard Saxe is Klutznick Professor of Contemporary Jewish Studies and directs the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University.

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com

Israeli research uses Earth’s magnetic field to verify event in Bible’s Book of Kings

Feb12
Israeli research uses Earth’s magnetic field to verify event in Bible’s Book of Kings

JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH

The discovery was achieved by scientists from Tel Aviv University (TAU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), Bar-Ilan University (BIU) in Ramat Gan, and Ariel University in Samaria

.
One of the studied burnt mudbricks. / (photo credit: Dr. Yoav Vaknin)

Using a “breakthrough” technology based on measuring the magnetic field recorded in burnt bricks, researchers at four Israeli universities have corroborated the occurrence of an event described in the Bible’s Second Book of Kings – the conquest of the Philistine city of Gath by Hazael, King of Aram.

The discovery – achieved by scientists from Tel Aviv University (TAU), the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HU), Bar-Ilan University (BIU) in Ramat Gan, and Ariel University in Samaria – will make it possible for archaeologists to identify burnt materials discovered in excavations and estimate their firing temperatures.

“Our findings are important for determining the intensity of the fire and the scope of destruction in Gath – the largest and most powerful city in the land at the time – and also for understanding construction practices in the region,” they wrote in the journal PLOS ONE under the title “Applying thermal demagnetization to archaeological materials: A tool for detecting burnt clay and estimating its firing temperature.”

Applying their method to findings from ancient Gath (Tell es-Safi, located between the cities of Ashkelon and Beit Shemesh in central Israel), the researchers validated the biblical account: “About this time. Hazael King of Aram went up and attacked Gath and captured it. Then he turned to attack Jerusalem” (2 Kings 12, 18).

They explain that, unlike previous methods, the new technique can determine whether an item such as a mud brick underwent firing even at relatively low temperatures, from 200°C and up. This information can be crucial for correctly interpreting the findings.

The studied area during excavation. (credit: Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project, Bar-Ilan University)

Clays are rich in magnetic-iron minerals, depending on the local geology. Yet, it is common to all iron-bearing clay minerals that, when they are heated to temperatures starting from about 150°C and up to 700°C, they are transformed into stable ferrimagnetic minerals such as magnetite, maghemite, and hematite.

The multidisciplinary study was led by Dr. Yoav Vaknin from TAU’s Nadler Institute of Archaeology Entin Faculty of Humanities and HU’s palaeomagnetic lab. Other contributors included: Prof. Ron Shaar at HU’s Institute of Earth Sciences; Prof. Erez Ben-Yosef and Prof. Oded Lipschits from TAU’s institute; Prof. Aren Maeir from BIU’s Martin (Szusz) Land of Israel studies department; and Dr. Adi Eliyahu Behar from Ariel’s the Land of Israel studies and archaeology department and its chemical sciences department.

“Throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages, the main building material in most parts of the Land of Israel was mud bricks. This cheap and readily available material was used to build walls in most buildings, sometimes on top of stone foundations,” Lipschits explained. “That’s why it’s so important to understand the technology used in making these bricks.”

During the same era, dwellers of other lands like Mesopotamia, where stone was hard to come by, would fire mud bricks in kilns to increase their strength and durability.

The method dates back to the biblical era
“This technique is mentioned in the story of the Tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis,” Vaknin added. “They said one to another – Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly, so they used brick for stone” (Genesis 11, 3).

“Most researchers, however, believe that this technology did not reach the Land of Israel until much later with the Roman conquest; until that time the inhabitants used sun-dried mud bricks. Thus, when bricks are found in an archaeological excavation, several questions must be asked: First, have the bricks been fired, and if so, were they fired in a kiln before to construction or on site, in a destructive conflagration event? Our method can provide conclusive answers.”

The new method relies on measuring the magnetic field recorded and “locked” in the brick as it burned and cooled down. “The clay from which the bricks were made contains millions of ferromagnetic particles – minerals with magnetic properties that behave like so many tiny ‘compasses’ or magnets,” Vaknin explained.

“In a sun-dried mud brick, the orientation of these magnets is almost random so that they cancel out one another. Therefore, the overall magnetic signal of the brick is weak and not uniform. Heating to 200°C or more, as happens in a fire, releases the magnetic signals of these magnetic particles and, statistically, they tend to align with the earth’s magnetic field at that specific time and place. When the brick cools down, these magnetic signals remain locked in their new position, and the brick develops a strong and uniformly oriented magnetic field that can be measured with a magnetometer. This is a clear indication that the brick has, in fact, been fired.”

In the second stage of their work, the researchers gradually “erased” the brick’s magnetic field, using a process called thermal demagnetization. This involves heating the brick in a special oven in a palaeomagnetic laboratory that neutralizes the earth’s magnetic field. The heat releases the magnetic signals, which once again arrange themselves randomly, canceling each other out, and the total magnetic signal becomes weak and loses its orientation.

Dr. Yoav Vaknin (credit: TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY)

“We conducted the process gradually.” Vaknin went on. “At first, we heated the sample to a temperature of 100°C, which releases the signals of only a small percentage of the magnetic minerals. We then cooled it down and measured the remaining magnetic signal. We then repeated the procedure at temperatures of 150°C, 200°C, and so on, proceeding in small steps up to 700°C. In this way, the brick’s magnetic field is gradually erased.

“The temperature at which the signal of each mineral is ‘unlocked’ is approximately the same as the temperature at which it was initially ‘locked,’ and ultimately, the temperature at which the magnetic field is fully erased was reached during the original fire.”

The researchers tested the technique in the lab; they fired mud bricks under controlled conditions of temperature and magnetic field, measured each brick’s acquired magnetic field and then gradually erased it. They found that the bricks were completely demagnetized at the temperature at which they had been burned – proving that the method works.

“Our approach enables identifying burning which occurred at much lower temperatures than any other method,” said Vaknin. “Most techniques used for identifying burnt bricks are based on actual changes in the minerals that usually occur at temperatures higher than 500°C – when some minerals are converted into others,” he continued.

One of the common methods for identifying mineralogical changes in clay – the main component of mud bricks – due to exposure to high temperatures is based on changes in the absorption of infrared radiation by the various minerals. In this study, they used this method as an additional tool to verify the results of the magnetic method.

Their new method is much more sensitive than others, because it targets changes in the intensity and orientation of the magnetic signal, which occur at much lower temperatures. “We can begin to detect changes in the magnetic signal at temperatures as low as 100°C, and from 200°C and up the findings are conclusive,” said Behar.

The method can determine the orientation in which the bricks cooled down
In addition, the method can determine the orientation in which the bricks cooled down. “When a brick is fired in a kiln before construction, it records the direction of the earth’s magnetic field at that specific time and place,” said Vaknin. “In Israel, this means north and downward, but when builders take bricks from a kiln and build a wall, they lay them in random orientations, thus randomizing the recorded signals. On the other hand, when a wall is burned on site, as might happen when it is destroyed by an enemy, the magnetic fields of all bricks are locked in the same orientation,”

After proving the method’s validity, the researchers applied it to a specific archaeological dispute – Was a specific brick structure discovered at Tell es-Safi, which has been identified as the Philistine city of Gath, the home of Goliath – built of pre-fired bricks or burned on location? The prevalent hypothesis, based on the Bible, historical sources, and Carbon-14 dating, attributes the destruction of the structure to the devastation of Gath by Hazael, King of Aram Damascus, around 830 BCE. But a previous paper by researchers including BIU’s Maeir, who headed the Tell es-Safi excavations, proposed that the building had not burned down but rather collapsed over decades and that the fired bricks found in the structure had been fired in a kiln prior to construction. If this hypothesis were correct, this would be the earliest instance of brick-firing technology discovered in the Land of Israel.

To settle the dispute, the research team applied the new method to samples from the wall at Tell es-Safi and the collapsed debris found beside it. The findings were conclusive: The magnetic fields of all bricks and collapsed debris displayed the same orientation – north and downwards. “Our findings signify that the bricks burned and cooled down in-situ, right where they were found, namely in a conflagration in the structure itself, which collapsed within a few hours,” Vaknin declared.

“Had the bricks been fired in a kiln and then laid in the wall, their magnetic orientations would have been random. Moreover, had the structure collapsed over time, not in a single fire event, the collapsed debris would have displayed random magnetic orientations. We believe that the main reason for our colleagues’ mistaken interpretation was their inability to identify burning at temperatures below 500°C. Since heat rises, materials at the bottom of the building burned at relatively low temperatures, below 400°C, and consequently the former study did not identify them as burnt – leading to the conclusion that the building had not been destroyed by fire.

“At the same time, bricks in upper parts of the wall, where temperatures were much higher, underwent mineralogical changes and were therefore identified as burnt, leading the researchers to conclude that they had been fired in a kiln prior to construction. Our method allowed us to determine that all bricks in both the wall and debris had burned during the conflagration: those at the bottom burned at relatively low temperatures, and those that were found in higher layers or had fallen from the top – at temperatures higher than 600°C,” he noted.

“Our findings are very important for deciphering the intensity of the fire and scope of destruction at Gath, the largest and most powerful city in the Land of Israel at the time, as well as understanding the building methods prevailing in that era,” Maeir said. “It’s important to review conclusions from previous studies, and sometimes even refute former interpretations, even if they came from your own school.”

Ben-Yosef added: “Beyond their historical and archaeological significance, ancient building methods also had substantial ecological implications. The brick firing technology requires large amounts of combustive materials, and in ancient times this might have led to vast deforestation and even loss of tree species in the area.

For example, certain species of trees and shrubs exploited by the ancient copper industry in the Timna Valley have not recovered to this day, and the industry itself ultimately collapsed once it had used up its natural fuels. Our findings indicate that the brick – firing technology was probably not practiced in the Land of Israel in the times of the kings of Judah and Israel.”

Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com