event 44.eve.0002002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Even before his downfall in 1973, Dayan was criticized by dovish, radical and/or left-wing politicians and journalists. Their criticism was motivated not so much by love of antiquities, but by hatred of his politics.� However, because of their political standing, they were treated as enemies and their criticism was discarded even when it was accurate. Such early critics included Dan Ben Amotz and Uri Avneri. Dan Ben-Amotz published detailed reports in the radical newspaper �Ha-olam Ha-zeh� (�This World�). In December 1971 he made a long list of accusations against Dayan, republished in one of his books (Ben-Amotz 1974:29-34): Dayan robbed antiquities; lied about it; abused his high position by using army personnel and material for his private aims, sold antiquities, and did not pay income taxes for profits from selling antiquities. Desperate about the authorities� lack of action, Ben Amotz staged a �demonstrative excavation� at Tel Qasileh near Tel Aviv. The police only took his turiyah [hoe] and did not arrest him. He complained at the police, but the file was closed on pretence that the complaint was unfounded (for another early critique see Geva 1977).�

7.1.4� Uri Avneri, a journalist, radical politician who was also an MK, handed a series of queries against Dayan on 6th December 1971 in the Knesset (cf. Kim 1991:4). Dayan denied all allegations. He claimed that he never bought antiquities for money and did not held �any antiquity of archaeological value that is not known to archaeologists working in Israel Museum, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv Universities and the IDAM. Furthermore, archaeologists used and are using, freely, all the finds in my collection for their scientific work and exhibitions�.� Dayan said that he �never sold or gave an Israeli object of archaeological value to someone who has no authority [for dealing] in that by the IDAM ... to the best of my knowledge I do not transgress the law of antiquity and do not use bulldozers, tractors, lifts, trucks and helicopters for excavating and delivering antiquities.�� Dayan only admitted that occasionally he visited sites while on work-tours (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:532).�

Avneri (Divrei HaKnesset 7, 1971, no. 62:533) surprised Dayan with another question: �I am holding in my hand here an advertisement from the �Los Angeles Times� of 12.10.1970, where archaeological items of the Biblical period �from the famous collection of Moshe Dayan� are offered for sale, priced 100 or 200 dollars each. Have you received permit to excavate, search, trade or export antiquities, and if not- what is the origin of these antiquities�? Dayan replied (Divrei HaKnesset 1971, no. 62:533): �This is not exactly another question, certainly not relating to the Ministry of Defense, but I will gladly answer... I already said that according to the best of my knowledge, I did not transgress any law of antiquities. Second, I do not export or trade in antiquities. As for the advertisement, it is conceivable that the buyer or man from Los Angeles bought while in Israel antiquities from my collection... Occasionally, I take out surplus items from my collection and sell them, so perhaps he bought them in Israel and later sold them in Los Angeles.� Avneri�s remark: �but this is definitely against the law� remained unanswered.

A second round of queries was heard on 22.12.1971 (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1971, no. 62:721). Yig�al Alon, answering for the Ministry of Education, admitted that Dayan had not received permit to excavate, export or trade in antiquities.� Furthermore, no supervision of his collection was made �after December 1971�.�� Avneri asked Prime Minister Golda Meir on 19.1.1972 whether ministers are allowed to trade; whether she investigated if Dayan trades in antiquities; and if so, was he required to cease?� Golda Meir answered (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053) that the law does not specifically forbid a Minister to trade; that she was informed that all these complains were checked properly.� Avneri asked: �Honorable Prime Minister, it is a question of principles: does right order permits a minister in the state of Israel to be a professional trader, in any kind of merchandise? Does not the Prime Minister have an opinion about this?� Golda only mocked him: �If MK Avneri wishes to ask about good order- he may, though I am not quite sure if he is interested in my private opinion. In any case, if he is, he can ask me privately, and if I find it worthy of answering him, I shall.� (Divrei HaKnesset 7/3, 1972, no. 62:1053).

��������� As long as Dayan was a national hero the media refrained from criticizing him, turning a blind eye to his deeds, with very few exceptions. This attitude changed after 1973, but then Dayan was mainly robbing sites through help of others, or buying antiquities, not digging with his own hands.



7.2. �� Criticism by Biographers

7.2.1� Most of Dayan�s biographers do not condemn his deeds. Taslitt barely mentions Dayan�s interest in archaeology, and does so in praising terms: �the farm tools tucked away in the trunk of his car were for a purpose quite apart from agriculture- to dig for ancient sites and uncover relics from days long gone by� (Taslitt 1969:158).� Teveth (1972) does not accept Dayan�s hobby-horse as good, but repeats and accepts his arguments for defending it. Teveth also admires the man �above the law�, and his contempt is directed towards those who fail to stop him.� Teveth (1972:202) quotes Dayan�s words that �if he were given the choice of digging for antiquities half of his life and spending the other half in jail, or not digging at all and remaining a free man, he would choose the former.�� Teveth (1972:202) also admires Dayan�s collection: �the precious relics in the garden, as well as in his house, have made ancient Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Islands an inseparable part of his daily thoughts.�� Falk (1985, cf. Adler 1987) was the only biographer who criticized Dayan�s digs clearly and consistently, perhaps because he, a psychoanalyst, was used to handle deceptive statements (regardless of the contribution of this psychological biography, which can be doubted). Falk understood that Dayan�s claim of saving antiquities is paradoxical, and that� �the fact that Israeli society was not able to limit the narcissistic greatness complex of Moshe Dayan, and put an end to the attitude that he can do whatever he wants, is a sad evidence to its lack of maturity at that time�. It was like in the period of the Judges before the Kingdom, said Falk, quoting Judges 21:25 (Falk 1985:246).

7.2.2� Surprisingly, later biographers did not follow Falk. Slater repeated Dayan�s excuses and the unfounded appraisals of his deeds: �As time went Dayan became a great expert in the subject. He had a dexterity that enabled him to take the relics and piece them together into a whole� (Slater 1991:161). �By all accounts, Dayan was a superb archaeologist... the commonly held view of Moshe Dayan as an archaeologist was unfailingly complimentary; it was said that he had a keen sense of where to dig, and when he reached a site, he had the diligence and patience of a prospector looking for gold� (Slater 1991:161-162- not understanding that archaeology is the very opposite of gold prospecting).� �Besides, through some of Dayan�s efforts, valuable relics were saved from being destroyed by oncoming bulldozers� (Slater 1991:326).� As late as 1997, Ehud Ben-Ezer still had a tone of approval and admiration: �Moshe does not intend to devote himself to archaeology, like chief of staff Yadin... he remains an amateur. But what an Amateur!� (Ben Ezer 1997:121; cf. Ben Ezer 1997:218-219).



7.3 ��� Criticism following the display of his collection

7.3.1 An event that furnished occasion for public debate about Dayan�s illicit digging was the display of his collection in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem in April 1985. Many criticized the Israel Museum for displaying stolen antiquities, and for buying them for so much money. Most clear is Tom Segev (1986:61-62). Segev mocks Dayan by reference to an old white porcelain night-pot of Winston Churchill, exhibited in the London WWII bunkers, which he had once seen, �but Churchill, as far as I know, had not stolen this pot, and if he had, his widow had not sold it back to the state�.� Other critics included Ariel (1986:9);� Bar Kedma (1986:23-24); Ilan (1986:7); Hareven (1986) and Boshes (1986).� A demonstration of a group of archaeologists took place at the opening day of the exhibition (Ilan 1986:7; Meshel, pers. com.).� Though some still admired the collection and the Museum (Aarons 1982), it seems that the wide public started to despise Dayan�s deeds as a result of this exhibition. The Israel museum soon dispersed the collection.

disclaimer 443.dis.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

I need to add a disclaimer: I hated the '60s. While I enjoyed the performances and craft of Hair, the show made my skin crawl. Far too many contemporaries of mine wasted years of their lives in that haze of drug-fueled hedonism. Not a few contemporaries lost their lives.

It was the time we permantently mistook freedom for license, when every boundary was removed from the normal process of young adult rebellion while at the same time the concept of rebellion was elevated to transcendent status. We created a religion out of hormonal reactions.