Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Reconciling National and International Interests: The Rockefeller Museum and Its Collections

2017; Penn State University Press; Volume: 5; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.5.1.0035

2166-3556

Béatrice Laurent,

Museums and Cultural Heritage

This essay addresses the imminent transfer of the library, British Mandate Archives and potential continued movement of antiquities from the Rockefeller Museum to sites in West Jerusalem. It further addresses the recent Israel Supreme Court ruling which challenges international law governing institutions in the Occupied Territories and allows the Israel Antiquities Authority and Israeli museum officials to move the museum's collections to West Jerusalem. The focus of this article places the Rockefeller and its collections in historical context as the major antiquities museum of Palestine, based previously in two other buildings in East Jerusalem now considered by international law to be in the Occupied Territories.Emek Shaveh, an Israeli organization with the stated mission "to prevent the politicization of archaeology in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" issued this statement with respect to an action they brought before the Supreme Court of Israel. The High Court's final decision held that Israeli law superseded international law in the case, and approved the movement of the Rockefeller Museum's collections, library, and archives from the museum to locations in West Jerusalem (Fig. 1). In the context of repatriation, which is usually considered to be the return of valuable artifacts to their country of origin, this case is, to say the least, unusual in that it involves the removal of the venerable museum's entire corpus of cultural property from a location in East Jerusalem, which is not internationally recognized as a part of the State of Israel, to locations regarded as within the borders of Israel. (Jerusalem's status is unsettled in international law, which is why no countries' embassies are located there. However, it is generally assumed that West Jerusalem is part of the State of Israel, while East Jerusalem is claimed by Palestinians as the capital of their future state.)The salient (and most controversial) part of the decision2 reads as follows: "The Antiquities Authority is responsible by law for all of Israel's antiquities, including all of the artefacts in the Rockefeller Museum and its library …. [t]herefore the Authority may transfer anything (as needed, according to professional considerations) to the new facility in West Jerusalem … since Jerusalem is considered, according to Israeli law, as an inseparable part of Israel" (Regev 2016: 2).3The case brought to the Supreme Court by Emek Shaveh speaks to a situation that has long existed between the Rockefeller (also called the Palestine Archaeological Museum) in East Jerusalem and Israeli cultural institutions in West Jerusalem. In essence, the case merely publicized developments that have taken place since 1967, and has also provoked a public discussion of the implications of the ruling beyond the Rockefeller as a cultural institution in what is generally considered by international law to be the Occupied Palestinian Territories, i.e., part of the land Israel conquered in the Six-Day (June) War of 1967. This article stresses the implications of the decision not only for the Rockefeller and its collections but beyond them as well, since the ruling raises questions concerning the status of other insitutions in East Jerusalem.Emek Shaveh notes that the museum was opened in 1938 (Emek Shaveh 2016), during the period of the British Mandate, when the city was undivided. An article on the Israel Antiquities Authority website indicates that it was "the first building created as a national museum" (Kudish-Vashdi and Baruch n.d.) and the first building constructed in Jerusalem to expressly function as a museum. There were, however, two other buildings that in effect functioned as museums of antiquities in Jerusalem prior to the construction of the Palestine Museum of Antiquities, i.e., the Rockefeller. Identifying it as 'national' is misleading because all three museums were created by the governments controlling Jerusalem—the Ottoman Empire, the British Military, and Mandate Authorities. Indeed, the Palestine Museum of Antiquities did open in this particular location in 1938. However, it is only the building that dates from this time period, and not the collections. What is not discussed or examined in the very brief article by Kudish-Vashdi and Baruch is the earlier history of the three museums of antiquities nor their collections, which began in the nineteenth century, and their continuity prior to 1938.The collections of archaeological finds in Palestine began in the late nineteenth century, during the late Ottoman period (until 1917), continued during the British military (1917–1922) and Mandate (1922–1948) periods, and then through Jordanian (1948–1967) and Israeli (1967–present) rule. The artifacts were housed in two different museums prior to the construction of the Palestine Archaeological Museum. While the museum buildings changed, the collections grew larger and continually moved, finally coming to rest in the current building, known today as the Rockefeller. The museums and collections were government-controlled during the Ottoman and British periods, but for less than one year during the Jordanian period. From 1948 to 1966, an international council administered the museum, its collections and endowments. Since the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel in June 1967, the museum has been under Israeli control, and has also housed the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) with its technical offices and archives. Nevertheless, according to international law, the museum remains in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.While the website of the IAA states that the Rockefeller was "the first building constructed expressly as a national museum" (Kudish-Vashdi and Baruch n. d.), it would be more correct to refer to it as a cosmopolitan museum— British designed, American funded and housing an Ottoman-British Mandate collection. Further, the website fails to note predecessor museums—including the Ottoman Government Museum (as the British referred to it) or, according to the Ottomans, the Müze-i Hümayun (Imperial Museum), which, planned between 1891 and 1900 and opened in 1901, was Jerusalem's first museum of antiquities (Fig. 2). In the Ottoman Empire, antiquities and their maintenance were the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. This museum represented history and identity in the Ottoman world with archaeology as a "marker of cultural capital" (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 9).Though museums in provincial cities closer to the imperial center in Istanbul were in buildings specifically dedicated for antiquities display and storage, such as in Bursa, that was not the case in Jerusalem (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 17). Rather, the museum was planned to be part of the Ottoman secondary school or idadiye (1890), located in the Old City not far from Herod's Gate (today al-Madrasah al-Qadisiyyah lil-Binat, a girls school) and controlled by the Ministry of Education (Fig. 3; St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 17–21).The Ottomans in 1910 created a catalogue (Defter) of the collection of 6,004 objects entitled the Pre-War Catalogue of the Palestine Archeological Museum, and this catalogue still resides in the library of the Rockefeller (Fig. 4). This suggests that the catalogue remained with the collection through its multiple moves through the city (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 22–24). In 1911, in anticipation of a move to newly planned museum quarters in the Jerusalem Citadel, the Ottomans packed the collection of over 6,000 objects in 120 crates and stored them in various places in the Old City (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 24–26).4 Delayed availability of the Citadel site and the outbreak of World War I prevented further action and the crates remained in storage until the Ottomans left Jerusalem with the British conquest of the city.After the British established the British Military government in 1918 in Jerusalem, Colonel Ronald Storrs initiated a plan to create a new museum of antiquities to house the collection of 120 crates of antiquities that he had discovered stored in the Old City. The Palestine Museum of Antiquities, planned as a British government institution between 1919 and 1921, was opened to the public at the end of October 1921. While Patrick Geddes in 1919 (Kudish-Vashdi and Baruch n. d.) may have suggested a new museum, there was a plan prepared and submitted by the American architect Paul Allen of Columbia University for a museum converting the Citadel into that museum (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 27). This suggests that the British engaged multiple archaeological communities present in Jerusalem in the planning of the museum.The museum was in an old Ottoman period house on Museum Road, just off Nablus Road, not far from the French Dominican École Biblique (Figs. 5–9). The building came to be known later as Way House. While the old Ottoman Imperial museum was short-lived (Kletter 2006: 155), the collection remained intact and was displayed in the new museum and new finds were added from contemporary excavations. While the old Ottoman catalog must have existed at the time, an entirely new catalogue was prepared and published in 1924 (Fig. 10). The building also housed the Department of Antiquities, the British School of Archaeology, and the library of the American School of Oriental Research—the latter emphasizing the international nature of this British institution (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 26–36). The building did not survive the struggles of 1948 and 1967 and is today a parking lot across the street from a light rail station.As clearly stated in the archival documents and as the collection catalog reflects, the collection of the Palestine Museum of Antiquities focused on Biblical regional sites. Separate museums were planned for both Islamic and Jewish art. Initially, in 1921, there were rooms in the Citadel reserved for that purpose and ultimately it was suggested in 1922 that the collection of Jewish art, including the finds from Tiberias, be moved to the Bezalel Museum in West Jerusalem (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 37–38). In December 1921, the British established the Supreme Muslim Council and, in 1922, the Council created the Islamic museum which, since 1929, has been located on the Haram al-Sharif (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 37–38). Thus, the British government planned and initiated the separation of collections of Biblical archaeology, Jewish and Islamic art, and the establishment of at least two of these museums in Jerusalem.Soon after the opening of the Palestine Museum of Antiquities in 1921, discussions began regarding a possible move to a new location. At the opening in 1921, it was noted that the museum was intended only for small objects and that rooms in the Citadel (not yet restored) would be used for larger objects. Exhibits sponsored by the Pro-Jerusalem Society had already been held in the Citadel in 1921 and 1922. The Citadel was proposed for the new site and a plan was drawn up by the firm of Austen St. Barbe Harrison, which included the entirety of the Citadel except the Ottoman Barracks—the same location proposed by the Ottomans in 1911. In July of 1923, John Garstang, Director of the Department of Antiquities, voiced concerns as to the adequacy of the site as the kernel of the new museum (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 37–38).5The collection quickly outgrew its space in the Palestine Museum of Antiquities and, though discussions continued regarding moving to a larger space (including the Citadel), official discussions in correspondence began in 1925 concerning the purchase of a different site for the new museum. The site was located just outside Herod's Gate, next door to the Ottoman ruşdiye or elementary school, known as the Rashidiyya, and not very far from the old Ottoman museum (St. Laurent and Taşkömür 2013: 37). According to the property waqfiyyah (endowment deed) dated 1711, the property was known as 'Karm esh-Sheikh al-Khalili or 'the Sheikh's orchard,' owned initially by Shaykh Muhammad al-Khalili (originally from Hebron or al-Khalil in Arabic) and for a long period by the al-Khalidi family (Figs. 11–13). On the property was an eighteenth-century fortified farmhouse built by the shaykh, one of the earliest buildings located outside the city walls (Fig. 14). One of the provisions of the sale was that the building would be preserved. The Mandate Authorities repaired the building and declared it an antiquity in 1939, guaranteeing that it would be preserved (Fig. 15; IAA/Mandate Archives SRF #104 and ATQ/18/203).6By 1927, the land was finally acquired and construction of the Palestine Archaeological Museum began with the laying of the foundation stone on 19 June 1930 (Gibson 1999: 132), largely funded through a two-million-dollars donation by John D. Rockefeller (Fig. 16). The museum was a British government institution. But as with the previous Palestine Museum of Antiquities that housed the ASOR library and the British Department of Antiquities, the Palestine Archaeological Museum served and involved the interests of the broader international archaeological community, including the multi-ethnic population of Jerusalem.7The building was designed by Austen St. Barbe Harrison with sculptural panels and text in Arabic, Hebrew, and English by the British artist and type designer Eric Gill, and was completed and occupied by 1935.8 However, the collections were not moved until later and the museum did not open to the public until 1938, with only one exhibition and gallery ready for the opening. The museum complex included exhibition galleries, storage space for artifacts, a library, a reading room, a 'lecture theatre' or auditorium, and the offices of the Department of Antiquities and space for their records—now known as the Mandate Archives (Figs. 17–22). The latter included metal double bookcases with loose-leaf binders on all of the historical sites in the country (Iliffe 1938: 17).9 The library was designed so that it would not overlap with those of the American School of Oriental Research, the British School of Archaeology, the École Biblique, and Hebrew University (Iliffe 1938: 16). The Mandate Archives well document the plans and construction of the building, a topic which this article does not cover.10By 1931, the collection included 11,000 objects, almost double the 6,004 objects registered in the Ottoman catalogue of 1910 and at the beginning of the Palestine Museum of Antiquities in 1921 (Iliffe 1938: 13). The collections consisted of antiquities from the entire region, which include what is now Jordan, the West Bank, and Israel. In addition to finds from the early biblical periods, the collections expanded to include Islamic finds from the eighth-century palace of Khirbat al-Mafjar, which occupies a major part of the exhibition space. The latter objects were not featured in the earlier British-period museum.11The mission of the founders was the creation of an international museum governed by an international council and administered by the British Mandate government. In a letter from 13 October 1927, John D. Rockefeller wrote to Lord Plumer that the "responsibility for the erection of the Museum will be assumed by the Palestine Government, and that its future administration will likewise be carried on by the Palestine Government in such advisory relations with an International Advisory Committee as the Palestine Government may deem feasible" (Jerusalem School Collection 16). The board comprised members from England, the United States, and France as well as the resident schools of archaeology in Jerusalem—ASOR, the British School of Archaeology and the École Biblique.The museum maintained this status throughout the British Mandate Period until April 22, 1948. At that time, the High Commissioner of the Mandate government created an international Board of Trustees and transferred the title of the Museum, its endowment and collections to that Board. The Board consisted of twelve members: four from British institutions, two French, two from Arab countries' antiquities departments, one from Hebrew University, one from a Swedish institution, one from the American Archaeological Institute and one from ASOR (Gurney 1948; Khatib 1966). On 2 August 1950, R. W. Hamilton, Director of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine, indicates to Gerald Harding, Director of the Transjordan Department of Antiquities, that there was from the time of its creation "the obligation to ensure that the management of the Museum should continue to be directed to scientific, as opposed to political or nationalistic ends." Hamilton further emphasizes that Rockefeller's intentions were to create "a scientific and cultural, and not a philanthropic or national institution, of worldwide not simply local utility" (Jerusalem School Collection 16).From 1948 to 1967, Jordan governed the eastern part of the city and the museum continued to function with an international advisory board until December of 1966, when the Jordanian government nationalized the museum. As early as December 1947, the Jewish staff of the museum, directed by Dr. I. Ben-Dor, had not been able to come to work for security reasons and was moved to a flat specifically rented for the purpose in Rehavia, located in West Jerusalem. There is a record both in the Mandate and ASOR archives of the Jewish staff's commitment to the museum and its collections. The materials that they were working on at the time, remained in the branch office which explains why some of the files were missing from the Museum. A Memorandum from the 1960s and the Agreement for the Handing over of the Palestine Museum dated 26 November 1966, indicates that these records were never returned to the museum (Jerusalem School Collection 16). Raz Kletter explores this subject thoroughly, mostly drawing from archives in Israel, not ones that I have consulted for this article (Kletter 2006; 2015). By 1950, discussions of nationalization are clear in the Mandate Archives and more notably and clearly expressed in the ASOR archives. These exchanges, preserved in letters in the ASOR archives, focused on funding for the museum and the difficulties encountered in obtaining sufficient funds for the museum, its daily functions, and the expansion of its collections.By 16 November 1960, Henry Detweiler, the President of the American School of Oriental Research (a major player in the Museum's governance) stated in a letter to the director of ASOR, Oleg Grabar, that "we think that the transfer of the Museum to the Government of Jordan is inevitable" (Jerusalem School Collection 16). This and the future nationalization of the museum is well summarized in a letter of Sheldon Mills, then American ambassador to Jordan and a member of the Museum Board of Trustees (Jerusalem School Collection 16). Mills stated that the official position of the United States government concerning Jerusalem was "in support of the United Nations resolution on the internationalization of Jerusalem and environs and does not recognize the de jure right of Jordan to the Old City or of Israel to the New City." Israel was laying claim to the endowment based on Rockefeller's donation and Mill's response was: "The best way to avoid the danger of separating the Museum from its endowment … is to continue it as a private entity with an international Board of Trustees" (Jerusalem School Collection 16). Kletter's work also deals with the concerns for the endowment and museum management from the point of view of Israel, which was developing separately on the other side of the Green Line. It would be of interest to know what the archives in Amman can contribute to this discussion.A major focus in all of these discussions was on funding the purchase of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls and on their ownership. This discussion seems to have played a major role in the decision-making process which allowed Jordan to nationalize the museum. By July of 1960, the Government of Jordan declared its ownership of the scrolls. On 20 January 1961, Detweiler stated ASOR's position that the Museum would be nationalized by Jordan, with no transfer of funds to Jordan or Israel and that Jerusalem's archaeological schools would own the Scrolls (Jerusalem School Collection 16).By 1966, it was a forgone conclusion that the Museum would be nationalized. The Jordanian government as well as the Palestinian administration of the Museum and of Jerusalem had long advocated for this to happen during the 1960s. In a letter dated June 6, 1966 and addressed to the Museum Board of Trustees, Anwar Khatib, the Governor of Jerusalem, stated that "it is time for the Jordanian Government to assume its responsibilities" (Jerusalem School Collection 16).In 1967, as part of its annexation of East Jerusalem, Israel took over the administration of the museum and it became the headquarters of the Israel Antiquities Authority just as it had been the home of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine. After 1967, from an international perspective the museum was considered to be located in occupied territory and the exhibition halls were frozen in time, with nothing to be changed or moved from the collections. Even the prices of the publications sold at the museum were fixed at their 1967 rates and today remain static. Since this time, the Museum has been commonly referred to as "the Rockefeller" (Gibson 1999: 132). The Israel Museum has been in charge of the exhibition galleries and the collections, currently with an appointed part-time curator and associate curator. This remains the status quo. The current Israeli guardians of the Museum have acted responsibly in preserving the museum's collections and in the maintenance of the buildings.I would like to comment here on my experience working in the Mandate Archives, the library, and with colleagues in the IAA. First, a certain number of files/records were lost prior to 1967, possibly during the Jordanian period. It is clear that those in charge of the Mandate Archives have done a superb job of organizing and digitizing the collections. This makes globally available an entire body of research materials including documents, photographs, and plans from the British Mandate period. The library is one of Jerusalem's richest research resources, particularly for the pre-1967 period. The collection, which began in 1938 and has continued through the present day, has holdings unavailable in other research libraries such as the Albright, the École Biblique, or the British School of Archaeology, today the Kenyon Institute, in East Jerusalem. The director and staff consistently provided assistance in locating early publications. The library director alerted me to the existence of the Ottoman Catalogue of 1910 and provided a digital reproduction, which figured prominently in my research on the history of archaeological museums in Jerusalem. I would also add that the current 'residents' have maintained the historic building that we know as the Rockefeller excellently. This includes the preservation and re-purposing of the original structure on the site Qasr al-Shaykh Khalili, already declared an antiquity by the British in 1939, and repaired at that time as well as in the mid-1950s. It is now well-restored and renovated to serve as office space for the mosaic conservation center (The Scientific Archive 1919–1948: ATQ/18/203; SRF104 (112/112) (Figs. 23–25).Since 1967, some entire collections of antiquities have been removed from the museum. Among them are the coin collection and the Dead Sea Scrolls, now on display in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in West Jerusalem. In addition, in multiple visits to the museum I have noticed that objects had disappeared from the display cases or from the museum's storage area. I was told that the missing objects were either on exhibit in the Israel Museum or removed for conservation. One of the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Israel in its decision to accede to the right of movement of the collections is that part of the collections had already twice been moved. Is that a reasonable justification for not adhering to international law governing cultural property in the Occupied Territories?There is another important issue relating to collections housed in the Rockefeller. The Islamic Galleries house beams from the al-Aqsa Mosque, borrowed for an exhibition at the Rockefeller from the Islamic Museum on the Haram al-Sharif (created in 1922 by the British Mandatory Government with the Supreme Muslim Council). Despite repeated requests from the Islamic Museum at the Haram al-Sharif, the beams from the al-Aqsa Mosque have not been returned. The former director of the Islamic Museum, Khader Salameh, was informed that no items could be removed from the collections or exhibition spaces (personal communication K. Salameh). I would add that the beams are no doubt better maintained at the Rockefeller than they would be currently at the Islamic Museum, but that is not the issue. And does this mean that the beams will be moved from the Rockefeller to an institution in West Jerusalem? And who is to make this decision? We can see that this ruling raises serious questions for all institutions on the eastern (Palestinian) side of the Green Line.J. Iliffe (Keeper of the Museum during the British Mandate) raised the question of UNESCO involvement after the establishment in 1948 of the international Board of Trustees, asking whether or not ownership of the Palestine Archaeological Museum should be transferred to this body for international supervision. On January 12, 1950, in a letter to the then director of ASOR, J. K. van der Haagen (Head of the Museums and Historic Monuments Division of UNESCO) stated: "Mr. Iliffe felt that Unesco [sic] would be in the best position to assist in the establishing of the Palestine Archaeological Museum under international supervision with the control vested in a Board of Trustees" (Jerusalem School Collection 16). The situation changed with the nationalization of the museum by Jordan in 1966 and the control assumed by Israel in 1967. Up to the recent Israel Supreme Court ruling, authorities more or less maintained the status quo at the Rockefeller and its collections. However, the upcoming move to the new location in West Jerusalem raises serious questions concerning the integrity of the museum, its collections, records, and archives. The IAA decision, upheld by the Supreme Court, is a clear breach of the international law that governs institutions in the Occupied Territories. Could it be now once again relevant and important to consult with UNESCO? The monuments of the Old City have already since 1982 been under the protection of UNESCO as a World Heritage Site. Since the museum is outside of the walls of the Old City, that designation does not apply to the Rockefeller.The Mandate Archive in the Rockefeller is a major factual resource for the history of the construction of the Palestine Archaeological Museum. Its value is as a straightforward record of the building and its transformation. The records of the American engagement in the Palestine Archaeological Museum are in the ASOR archives now located in Boston. This archive differs from the Mandate Archive in that it evidences the American engagement in the construction of the museum as well as its later political history. The American and often also the European partners' political viewpoints are evident in their correspondence. No doubt the archives of the École Biblique and those of the Kenyon Institute in East Jerusalem, the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the British archives at Kew in the United Kingdom are filled with additional valuable evidence. The Jordanian Ministry of Awqaf archives in Amman also must contain documentary evidence of the Jordanian period in Jerusalem—to my knowledge an un-researched topic in those archives. The 'Jewish/Israeli' archives loom large in Raz Kletter's scholarship and I have not consulted those archives. This article merely scratches the surface of the Mandate and ASOR archives and much remains to be explored in all of them.The official story of the creation of the Ottoman Museum until recently largely denigrated the role played by the Ottomans themselves. The local contribution from Jerusalem's Palestinian notables was essentially completely ignored. Nor was there any mention of the continuity of the Ottoman museum and its collection with that of the British Palestine Museum of Antiquities and its collection and the Palestine Archaeological Museum/Rockefeller Museum. The intent of the current article is to present an alternate narrative to those put forward by British, other foreign, Palestinian, and Israeli scholars who view the multiple incarnations of a museum of antiquities as independently created out of whole cloth. The museums were viewed as assets adorning multiple narratives focused on imperial, national, and biblical considerations and claims to ownership.What is clear is that the collection has remained contiguous throughout its history from 1900 to 1967, or for that matter until today. Furthermore, the three museums—one an Ottoman government Imperial museum, the second created and administered by the British government, and the third initially also attached to the government of England (except between 1948 and 1966) and very briefly nationalized by Jordan for seven months beginning in December 1966—are all governmentally created, administered, and controlled institutions that housed the collection. These museums have been and remain in East Jerusalem. What has changed is that, in more recent history, parts of the collection have been moved from the Rockefeller and integrated into newer collections in West Jerusalem/Israel—notably, but not limited to, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coin collection. The upcoming move of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the library, and the Mandate Archives to a new building in West Jerusalem initiated a discussion of the implications for the future status of the Museum and its collections. The Emek Shaveh lawsuit brought to public attention that discussion. Ultimately, moving any of the collections to disparate spaces would separate an integral collection of antiquities, records and library, which scholars use on a regular basis at the East Jerusalem museum location. Should not all collections pre-dating 1967 remain in the Rockefeller?The recent court case brought by Emek Shaveh brings the issue into the public discourse and has resulted in a 'unique' (for lack of a better word) ruling from the Supreme Court of Israel that, since there has already been movement of part of the collection, this legitimizes (potentially unrestricted) open movement of, perhaps, all of the collections, archives, and the library. It also raises the issue whether other collections of antiquities dating prior to 1967 and housed in East Jerusalem could be moved to West Jerusalem as well. Further, since East Jerusalem and its property are considered by International Law to be in the Occupied Territories and not part and parcel of Israel proper, it would be important to know what consideration was given by the Israeli Supreme Court to settled international law applicable to the Occupied Palestininan Territories, and why, as cited above, that law is deemed 'irrelevant' with respect to the Rockefeller.The Palestine Archaeological Museum/Rockefeller Museum stands as an historic monument that has represented cosmoplitanism, eclecticicism, multi-culturalism, and ethnic diversity in Jerusalem. Adina Hoffman in her recent book Till We Have Built Jerusalem quotes a statement by C. R. Ashbee from 1920 when he was advisor to the Mandate government as Chair of the Pro-Jerusalem Society: "The city belongs to us all … Let us focus on the creative present, forget the old Jahweh and Elohim, and the Byzantine Gods who promised this land to so many people. There is no room anymore for an exclusive religious nationalism or a chosen race, certainly not in Palestine." (Hoffman 2016: 277). Hoffman tells the stories of three architects who figured prominently in creating this cosmopolitan social and architectural landscape of the city on both sides of the Green Line, a vision that is now obscured by current political aims for the unification of the city.