Is the Masada Story a Myth?
Thursday, December 5, at noon, U.S. Eastern timeDid archaeologists who excavated Masada describe their findings in ways that distorted the evidence?
A new book, Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada (Prometheus/Humanity Books), accuses Israel's most celebrated archaeologist, the late Yigael Yadin, of professional misconduct in his excavations at Masada during the 1960s. The book concludes that Yadin conducted "a scheme of distortion which was aimed at providing Israelis with a spurious historical narrative of heroism." The book is attracting praise in some circles and sharp criticism in others.
» Israeli Icon Under Fire (12/6/2002)
Nachman Ben-Yehuda is the author of Sacrificing Truth. Mr. Ben-Yehuda is a sociologist and dean of the faculty of social sciences at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also the author of The Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel (University of Wisconsin Press, 1995). Mr. Ben-Yehuda will respond to questions and comments about his findings on Thursday, December 5, at noon, U.S. Eastern time. Advance questions are encouraged and may be posted now.
Rich Monastersky (Moderator):
Welcome to the Chronicle of Higher Education's discussion about Masada and the practice of archaeology. My name is Richard Monastersky and I'm a senior writer at the Chronicle. Our guest today is Nachman Ben-Yehuda, a professor of sociology and the dean of the faculty of social sciences at Hebrew University. His new book is "Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and the Myth of Masada."
Welcome Professor Ben-Yehuda.
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
I'm happy to be here, and it's very exciting. I hope people read my book, and that they will learn something today, and I will learn something too.
Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle of Higher Education:
What kind of reception are your ideas receiving from Israelis who learn of them?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
Many times, expressions of amazement and curiousity. Reactions like: "are you sure"? Others are angry, especially from people my age. The Masada myth has a strong generational effect. Exposing a falsification, especially one believed to is, is not always pleasant. Sociologists, anthropologists, criminologists, quite a few archaeologists and closer professionals tend to congratulate me So, its a mixed bag.
Question from Rich Monastersky:
Jews around the world are celebrating Hanukkah this week, which honors another group of Jewish rebels. Although there are important differences, the Hanukkah story mirrors what happened at Masada in some ways. According to the standard tale, the Maccabean revolt started when the leader of that clan murdered a Jew who favored assimilation into the Hellenized culture. With Hanukkah, Jews celebrate the revolutionaries and revile the moderates. Why is it so shocking that they would do the same with Masada? And what does it say about how history will judge the present split between Jewish extremists and moderates?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
"Jews around the world are celebrating Hanukkah this week, which honors another group of Jewish rebels."
A very different group. Very.
"Although there are important differences, ..."
Yes. There are. Very significant differences.
" ... the Hanukkah story mirrors what happened at Masada in some ways."
Does it? Yadin tried to create such an analogy in the very title of his 1966 book in Hebrew (not the English version). He subtitled his book in Hebrew: "In those times - at this time" (bayamim hahem bazman haze) which is direct quote from Hanukka. So, I would say that the mythologizers of Masada tried (quite succesfully for some time) to make Masada and Hanukka become identical in the mind of Israeli (and other) Jews. The mirror, to my mind, is an attempt to make Masada appear as a mirror to Hanukka. As you know, observant Jews (orthodox and ultra orthodox) were never too impressed by Masada and did not develop a sense of awe toward it. On the contrary. I record this fascinating phenomenon in my first book. Masada was a myth mostly for secular Jews.
"According to the standard tale, the Maccabean ..."
The Maccabeans were as far from the Sicarii.
" ... revolt started when the leader of that clan murdered a Jew who favored assimilation into the Hellenized culture. With Hanukkah, we celebrate the revolutionaries and revile the moderates."
Well, if I may, this is an excellent point. A major point here, I believe, is the fact that the Maccabeans succeeded. Among other things, the Seleucid kingdom against which the Hasmoneans rebelled was most certainly not as powerful as the Roman empire in the first century. Also, the term "moderates" is, I believe, not the same. In the great revolt, the moderates did not become "Romans" or preached to become ones. The main issue, at least from my understanding of Josephus, was what was the better was to maintain Jewish religious freedom, keep the temple functional, etc. So, to my mind, the two situations were very different in geo-political context, goals, alternatives, military planning and chances of success. Even in religious terms (e.g., a miracle) the two events are very different. Also, the Hasmoneans were not afraid or reluctant to fight, and when suicide was considered - it was a Samsonite like one (if i remember now correctly).
"Why is it so shocking that we would do the same with Masada?"
Well, I would not draw such a strong analogy between Masada and the Hasmoneans. The Hasmoneans functioned in a very different context; were successful, and did not get themselves cornered and committed collective suicide rather than fight to the end. I think that these two tales are different enough to invalidate a strong analogy between them.
"And what does it say about how history will judge the present split between Jewish extremists and moderates?"
I am very very reluctant to make contemporay analogies. Too dangerous and too political. I really feel uncomfortable doing that. Moreover, we are in the middle of the conflict here and to answer this question, I suspect, we need some distance. This distance is required if we are to decide who are the moderates and who are the extremes, as well as what moderation is. Also, assessing the strategies Israel can, or should follow, given its geo-political situation, is - at present - not a simple issue. We are too immersed in this. I hope I am not disappointing you, but I must ask your forgiveness.
Question from Rich Monastersky:
Yet societies have never regarded success as the standard for heroism. Look at the respect granted to Custer, the Texans at the Alamo, even the Jews of the Warsaw uprising (who, it is said, were inspired to act by the story of Masada). The people in the Warsaw ghetto surely knew they could not defeat the entire Nazi army, but they chose to act.
As for whether the Sicarii actively fought, there is disagreement. You
say that Josephus does not mention the Masada Sicarii raiding the
Romans, and so you regard them as cowards. But there is evidence that
the Sicarii on Masada were forging their own arrowheads. One possible
reason is that those weapons were for fighting the Romans. Moreover,
some Sicarii continued to defie Rome even after Judea fell. In
"Josephus" (2002, Duckworth), Tessa Rajak says that when some Sicarii
fled to Egypt, "those in Alexandria are praised for the endurance and
courage with which they withstood torture so as not to have to 'call
Caesar master'; their self-appointed task was to persuade other Jews to
regard God alone as their Lord, the Romans as their equals."
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
"Yet societies have never ..."
NEVER?
"... regarded success as the standard for heroism. Look at the respect granted to Custer, the Texans at the Alamo, even the Jews of the Warsaw uprising ..."
All your examples are thos of a "last stand" fight. In these cases - you are right. A "last stand" fight is hailed as heroism. I mention a few such cases in my book (p. 43). But, Masada was "suicide to the end" not fighting to the end. If Masada would have been - as the mythmakers would have wanted us to believe - a "last stand" - than, yes, it would have been considered "heroism". But it was not. The mythmakers made it appear as a "last stand" but the Sicarii on Masada did not even elected a "Samosonite Solution".
"... (who, it is said, were inspired to act by the story of Masada)."
I am still waiting for the evidence for this lore. Even if so, the "inspiration" must have been from the heroic mythical, not grim historical tale.
"The people in the Warsaw ghetto surely knew they could not defeat the entire Nazi army, but they chose to act."
Yes. They chose to fight and not commit suicide. a big difference. I feel it is not to the credit of the Warsaw revolt to associate it with Masada. This "analogy" is morally and historically wrong.
"As for whether the Sicarii actively fought, there is disagreement."
A: Ok. Where is the evidence for such fights & struggles during the siege? Where is evidence that the Sicarii fought the Romans? Where did they participate in an actual war against the Roman military forces?
"You say that Josephus does not mention the Masada Sicarii raiding the Romans, ..."
No. Raiding is just one example. Josephus does not mention any
fightings around Masada (see pp. 42-43 in my book). Moreover, with the
exception of the last stage of the siege, no archaeological indications
of a fight were found there. To remind you, there were fights & struggles around Jerusalem, Macherus, Yodfat. None around Masada.
"... and so you regard them as cowards."
Indeed I do.
"But there is evidence that the Sicarii on Masada were forging their own
arrowheads. One possible reason is that those weapons were for fighting the Romans."
OK. where are the fights? where is the evidence for the effort made by the Roman army to fight those Sicarii? So, they forged some/many arrowheads. When/where were they used? Sure, I am willing to agree that the Sicarii may have perhaps wanted to defend themselves, so they may have prepared some weapons. But, there is a distance between preparing weapons and actually using them. Contemporary example? None of the doomsday weapons prepared during the cold war was used.
"Moreover, some Sicarii continued to defie Rome even after Judea fell. In 'Josephus' (2002, Duckworth), Tessa Rajak says that when some Sicarii fled to Egypt, ..."
Yes, of course. but how do you, or anyone else, know that these Sicarii came from Masada? I read this text very carefully and I am not at all convinced that the Sicarii in Egypt are those that ran there from Masada. To the best of my memory, I do not remember that Josephus says that survivors from Masada fled to Egypt. My interpretation is that there were Sicarii. Many/some escaped to Masada, others to Egypt. And, yes, they were defiant, troublemakers, extremists even in Egypt.
"... those in Alexandria are praised for the endurance and courage with which they withstood torture so as not to have to 'call Caesar master'; their self-appointed task was to persuade other Jews to regard God alone as their Lord, the Romans as their equals."
Are we discussing the Sicarii who were in Egypt or those that were on Masada? It should not surprise us that the Sicarii would not yield. That is why they committed suicide on Masada. That they withstood torture is not a bit surprising. Josephus SAYS that they wanted to worship only G-d. But, what does this have to do with lack of a fighting spirit on Masada? the shameful expiulsion from Jerusalem by other Jews? the lack of willingness to help the besieged in jerusalem? the assassinations? the massacre in Ein Geddi? None of the above sas much about the lack of fighting in Masada. But you need not go too far. Some would say that the act of collctive suicide is "heroism" and courage too. Well, if the choice is Samson like death, or a "last stand" like in the Alamo or suicide, I would definitely say that heroism lies wityh the first, not last (suicide) illustrations. Willingness to stand torture is definitely not indicative of ability or willingness to fight in a war.
Question from Shalom Noury UOC:
Ask a question? Are you kidding? If somebody compares the Jews who committed suicide at Massada instead of being tortured, raped, enslaved and crucified after a heroic stand for independence from an evil Empire to a bunch of crazy murderers as in: “"If UNESCO is endorsing places where hundreds of fanatics killed themselves, then why not go to Jonestown as well?" then whatever else he may or could say has no validity as he has thus proven to be both crazed and degenerated, having no tools by which to judge anything or anybody. That proves Mr. Ben-Yehyda's theological approach to Massada (and other issues)and can not be taken seriously by any thinking or decent person. What kind of a question can anybody ask of such a person? THAT is my question. It is a pity that the HUJ has gone to such lows as to acquire the services of such an incapable nut and who expresses only demagoguery, ignorance and shortsightedness. Shalom Noury Cagliari
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
I read your "question" with much sorrow. You realize, of course, that there is no "question" in your above text that I can, or indeed should, answer. I would advise you, tho, to read the book, keep an open mind and heart, and try not to pre-judge it. Despite your heated rhetoric you may, I hope, find it of interest, including some references to some of the emotional points mentioned in your text.
Question from Thomas Riley, North Dakota State University:
Two of the foundations of archaeology have been to debunk and create myths. In Americanist archaeology, there is real proof, for instance, that "scalping" existed before European contact with America, and that cannibalism existed in some American Indian societies at some times in prehistory. While some Native Americans don't like these facts, the people who present them have a duty to present them in a way that does not blow them out of proportion. But, if there is an event of mythic proportion, and there is evidence that fits with it, what's wrong with presenting the story and the evidence and letting the myth take over- as in the myth of Arthur or of the Roy Mataa in New Caledonia?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
Nothing wrong with a myth. In fact it is probably true that ALL cultures have mythologies. However, science is based on facts and driven by empirical evidence. A "reality" which is based on falsehood is, in my view, contrary to the very essence of science. Also, in the case of Masada, there IS no "evidence that fits with it" but "evidence" that was CONSTRUCTED to fit with it. So, while I have absolutely no objection to mythology, fairy tales, fictionalized accounts - as such, if we invoke science, the rules change and I firmly believe that we need to stick to evidence; to examine competing interprtations; to find the best fully justified interptetation for the given evidence, and not get lost in some enchanted mythical reality, beautiful asnd enticing as it may be.
Oh, yes, I must add that I love science fiction, so that you should not get the impression of some dry "Mr. Spock" sticking to logic only. But, when it comes to science, I do not believe that we should mix mythical fantasies with it.
Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Some of the criticisms of your book point to the ambiguous nature of some of the evidence cited by Yadin. In analyzing that period, isn't it inevitable that much of the evidence will be ambiguous? Even if his interpretations aren't correct, is it fair to make the kinds of accusations you do in your book based on evidence being ambiguous?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
Well, not ALL the evidence is ambiguous. If the evidence is ambiguous then I expect Yadin to present the ambiguity & tell us why he elected one interpretation over others. He does not do it, and the direction of his interpretations is very clear, and - to my mind - biased. However, there are quite a few pieces of evidence which are NOT ambiguous, and I tried - as much as I could - to rely on those.
Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle of Higher Education:
To follow up on your answer about not all of the evidence being ambiguous.... What do you consider the most clear case where you believe Yadin said something that was flat out untrue (as opposed to him saying something happened when the evidence only indicates that it might have happened). And can you explain how you evaluated the evidence in this case?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
The first question, I will take the finding of the bones on the lower level of the northern palace. This is an illustration of one thing which was unambiguous. Another example is the finding of the "lots." This is an example of clear evidence that was interpreted in the wrong way.
On the next question, let me first give an example which could be intepreted as ambiguous. The finding in Locus 2001 and 2002 had pig and human bones in it. The finding has been interpreted as if the human bones were the Jewish warriors of Masada. Yadin repressed the findings -- or didn't say in his book -- that there were pig bones in that cave. Now finding pig bones in the cave could have been interpreted in a few different ways, but Yadin never explored other interpretations. For example, Roman soldiers could have been buried there with the pig bones; the pig was a sacrificial animal for the Roman army in that period. Moreover, the insignia of the 10th Roman legion which laid seige around Masada had a pig figure in it. So it is possible that when the Romans buried their solidiers there that they put a pig inside the grave as well.
In evaluating the evidence, I took the evidence within the context -- that means in the context of what Josephus Flavius said. You look at the evidence and try to figure out what the interpretations could be, and what Yadin found.
Josephus said very clearly that the people were Sicarii, and Yadin consistently ignores that the people in Masada were Sicarii, and called them Zealots. And back to the example of the bone on the lower level of the northern palace... eventually, Yadin said that those bones were from an important commander of Masada and his family. There was not a shred of evidence to support that.
Rich Monastersky (Moderator):
Yadin equated the Sicarii and Zealots and he used the term Sicarii at least once in his book.
Also, the issue of the pig bones is unclear. Bones from sheep, goats, cows, chickens, dog and rabbit were found at that same site. So it's hard to know what they were all doing there and if they had symbolic meaning or were just a refuse pile. One of Yadin's former students told me that Yadin did not know of the controversy over the pig bones until later.
Question from Baruch Kimmerling - University of Toronto:
Why they had to do that? For their "nationaslistic approach" or their scientific career?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
Chapter three in the book deals this issue. Yadin was reluctant at first to excavate Masada. He was under continuous pressure to do it, and yielded to the pressure. He may have been initially hopeful to find some scrolls there. However, he must have immersed himself, probably slowly, into the myth, and when asked about it (in the media) his answer was that Masada was a symbol, which is why it had to be exacavated. So, eventually, Yadin (and others) used nationalistic and ideological justifications. There were sporadic attempts to exacavate parts of Masada before Yadin's excavations - for similar reasons.
Yadin probably did not "need" to excavate Masada for his archaeological career. Micha Livne, in his book about Masada, suggests that the exacavtions of Masada were a turning point in the archaeologist's career. I was curious myself and we asked all of our interviewees about it. They all denied it, pointing out that -- professionally speaking -- the excavation of Hatzor was much more important (pp. 184-186 in the book deal directly with this issue). So, my answer is that a nationalistic, ideological motivation played a very major part in the decision to excavate Masada.
Question from Scott Jaschik, The Chronicle of Higher Education:
Are there cases where national myths are overturned (not just to scholars but for the public) as a result of new evidence, or a critical interpretation of older evidence? Do you think that will happen with Masada?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
I can not remember such cases right now. I was not the one who exposed the Masada myth for what it is - a fabricated myth. Historians, anthropologists did that before. What I did was to focus and collate all the evidence within new conceptual frameworks. Evidence does not always persuade the "true believers", as I am sure you must know. As to what will happen to Masada? That one is easy. It will, no doubt, become one of the most attractive tourist sites in Israel. You must realize that the overwhelming majority of visitors to Masada are not Israelies any more. The myth does not occupy such a prominent place as before, a process which began in the mid 1960s.
Question from Michael, background in biophysics, but interested in the question.:
Aren't you mixing up two issues - one, the issue of whether this event of mass suicide deserves to be memorialized, and two, what was the political nature of the group? The memorialization of suicide can be discussed irrespective of the politics. There seems to be no controversy over whether it happened, only over whether we should honor it, and this is not a question for archeologists. The politics of the group, whether they were terrorists, that comes out with study over the years; and the fact that Yadin may have glossed over this point is not a major problem. His work was not the final word on the subject. There is room for new scholarly input.
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
I agree that archeologists should not have had a monopoly on the moral interpretation of what happened at Masada. They took the role here -- it's like they took Masada for themselves and tried to ignore other voices.
As for the distinction between whether this deserves to be memorialized and the political nature of the group, let me make these points: one, the Masada mythical narrative connected the nature of the people to the suicide. Two, is the argument that people who commit suicide should be respected regardless of whether their political or idelogical views had anything to do with the suicide? I disagree. I think the reason for why people commit collective suicide has a lot to do with the way we should treat that suicide. This is a moral question.
Question from Sandra M-L, Nebraska liberal arts university:
If the Masada excavation evidence has, in fact, been distorted, similar to the evidence about "Sandia Man" (New Mexico excavation years ago), what can be changed in the field of archaeology so that this deception will not occur again? Is the process of excavation, discovery, and control over future excavations, research, and artifacts so tightly controlled by the original leading archaeologist and his/her supporting or sponsoring institution or agency so tightly guarded that NO ONE is allowed to second guess the original findings? Or, does the archaeological field play favorites, not wanting to challenge a major name in the field? Just curious, Sandra M
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
As in other forms of deviance or misconduct in science, an effective deterrent can be achieved by a combination of two ingredients: high probability of being caught and meaningful punishment/sanctions. Other than that, and as anywhere else, integrity, honesty and a good sense of skepticism must be qualities that need to be strongly reinforced. Good, effective, but fair and non-repressive controls need to be in place as well. Of course, power within science must be decentralized so that skeptics will not be afraid to raise their voice. There is no doubt in my mind that there were scholars who were aware of what was going on Masada (most of them, I suspect, outside Israel, but some Israeli professionals knew as well) but were afraid to raise their voice, fearing sanctions. Even today it is not always simple to raise critical or skeptical remarks regarding those excavations.
I must be fair and state that the archaeologists at Hebrew University, and elsewhere, some very critical of my findings, helped me along the way in some very nice and cordial ways.
In the case of Masada, yes, Yadin would not allow others (or, they may have interpreted his behaviour as such) to publish any major work on the findings. Only after his death were all (or most) findings published. But, yes, Yadin controlled the findings from Masada pretty tightly. Also, Yadin was a very powerful person and, I suspect, challenging him on some of his basic views was probably quite risky.
Re: "Does the archaeological field play favorites, not wanting to challenge a major name in the field?"
To the extent that this generalization is is valid (I am careful in my phrasing because I am not familiar with all of the archaeological field), it is not only archaeology which suffers from such a state. Similar processes can be easily observed in sociology, early work in radio astronomy and a other disciplines.
Question from Frank Edge, Appalachian State University:
It seems that the story of the Exodus has already archaeologically been revealed as non-historical. Now you are suggesting that another Jewish story is also not truely historical. The Jewish culture and religion are largely built upon these stories. How do you feel these revelations will affect the Jewish culture and religion, and can practicing Jews afford to accept these recent revelations as fact? If the Patriarchs are gone, can the religion survive?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
The Exodus story is in the Bible. Masada is not in the Bible. The story about the Exodus has a sacred value that Masada does not have. The Masada myth was basically created by secular Jews from about 1925 to the early 1960's -- and not by observant Jews. Observant Jews are not too excited about the Masada myth -- not then and not now.
Challenging the narrative about the Exodus is challenging a narrative which is considered very sacred by a lot of Jews. The magnitude and severity of this challenge is very different than challenging the narrative about Masada. For the true believers, I don't think that challenging the Exodus narrative will make much difference. You either believe it or you don't. With Masada, the difference is that we do have an actual site, and historial evidence and a text. So it is much easier to deal with this mythology.
With Masada, the myth began to decline in the mid-1960s. It's probably the most profitable tourist site in Israel, and it doesn't have the same status that Exodus has. More non-Jews than Jews visit Masada now.
Question from Rich Monastersky:
It is interesting to note that your book was published in English, as are most books by Israeli sociologists. Does that mean that few Israeli's will have access to the book? Is it in bookstores there?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
That's easy to answer -- you are right. It means Israelis will find it difficult to find a copy of the book. The truth is, I don't even know if it will be in bookstores in Israel.
Israeli social scientists are hard-pressed to publish in English outside Israel because the academic community in Israel is too small. Though most Israeli social scientists in academia are publishing mostly in English -- economists, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and political scientists. Most of their works cannot be found in Israeli bookstores. Because of this policy, most of us are prevented from talking to our own culture in our own language.
Question from Robert, a seniors' learning center:
What, then, to the best of your knowledge and/or inferential reasoning, is the truth in contrast to "their findings in ways that distorted the evidence?"
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
What I take as an "historical truth" or - better yet - as a baseline, is the text by Josephus Flavius. Also, factual evidence from archaeological excavations should be taken, undoubtedly, as facts. The interpretation of these archaeological findings is a different story.
Question from Brenda Danet, Yale Univ./Hebrew Univ.:
How do you distinguish between intentional and unintentional distortions? Isn't it possible that in many instances, it was bias rather than an intent to deceive that led to certain phenomena that you discuss?
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
Well, the answer is simple. Let me give some examples. If Yadin knows that the pig bones were found in Locus 2001 and 2002 and doesn't mention it all, of course it's intentional. There's no shred of evidence that the bones found on the lower level of the northern palace are those of an important commander of Masada and his family, and he still says that they were, then this is intentional. When Yadin finds the "lots," and says that these were the instruments used to determine who would commit suicide and when, knowing that the number of lots did not match the number of those committing suicide and that the lots were found in a garbage dump and not in a place that could have accomodated the 960 people who committed suicide, was this intentional or bias or what?
Rich Monastersky (Moderator):
Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina, who has excavated at Masada, notes that the place where the final speech was made would not have had to hold 960 men, women, and children--only the men. They would have numbered far fewer. Also, archaeologists found armor along with the skeleton you mention, which is why Yadin interpreted that individual to be a commander.
Rich Monastersky (Moderator):
I want to thank Professor Ben-Yehuda for joining us today. As is evident from the questions we received, your work inspires people to reevaluate ancient events and recent scholarship as well.
Nachman Ben-Yehuda:
I want to thank people for asking me these questions, and the time they spent here today. I'd like them to read the book and enjoy it as much as I enjoyed writing it.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education