6.4���� During his life, Dayan actually promised to donate the collection (Aarons 1982:28). Meshorer explains why he changed his mind: because of �family obligations� and the fact that Dayan realized �he was going to leave a young widow� (in Aarons 1982:28). But Dayan�s young widow, Rahel, was not exactly poor- she sold the Zahala house for U$S 400,000�a huge sum in Israeli terms of that period (Slater 1991:441).� Furthermore, Dayan left very little to the rest of his family, so what did his �family obligations� mean?� Dayan never apologized for his deeds, and from all we know, never had any intention of doing so. Shortly before his 55th birthday in 1970, Dayan told Teveth (1972:202) that� �the one thing about old age that worries me is that I might not be able to dig with a pickaxe from morning till night�.�
6.5����� About a hundred objects were published by the Museum (Ornan 1986; cf. also Clamer 1986), with introductions that glorify Dayan- one written by another antiquities collector, Tedi Kollek (former mayor of Jerusalem), the other by Yael Dayan. No wonder they do not see any problem. Yael Dayan (in Ornan 1986: introduction) even believed that her father acquired �deep knowledge� and shared with them �the secrets of Hieroglyphs and the delicate observations about levels of cultures and their meanings�. The feelings of Tallai Ornan, the curator, against this collection and the way in which it was acquired were expressed in an interview (Bar Kedma 1986:24), but she was in no position to decide. The managers of the Museum were proud of buying the collection and of exhibiting it. Meshorer (in Aarons 1982:28-29) felt that he had �accomplished a national mission� in saving the collection from being dispersed, so at last the �books [sic] of the Department of Antiquities, which was so much embarrassed by Dayan, can now be closed�. (The IDAM never held any �books� about Dayan; complains by citizens who saw him digging illicitly were collected in a secret dossier marked �complaints file � Moshe Dayan�. I could not locate this dossier at present, and according to rumors it was intentionally destroyed many years ago). Aarons (1982:29) happily concludes: �The reputation of the Dayan collection is now assured, that of the collector must be left to history�.� More details about the fate of the collection after Dayan�s death can be found in Zemer (1991), which I hope to review in more detail in the future.�
The discussion below reflects a preliminary stage of research. The conclusions are tentative, but still noteworthy.
7. 1. � During Dayan�s Lifetime
7.1.1��� During the early 1950�, Dayan was completely free, and his deeds were unknown or unnoticed by authorities and the public. Between 1956 and the early 1970� Dayan became a national hero, his actions became more overt, and criticism commenced.� At four sites, at least, Dayan was caught on person during the act of illicit robbing of antiquities: at Benaya near Gedera in 1957 and also in 1962, at Tel Birah in 1959, at Azur in 1965 and at Tel Megadim in 1968 (only two cases were described here). Dayan was caught by IDAM workers or by citizens, but even when a military or police investigation started as a result, he was so strong that people refused to complain or testify against him; or the allegations were abolished on some irrelevant pretense. While simple field workers of the IDAM carried their duties and tried to interfere, higher authorities failed.� The ability to act was inadequate, but authorities also showed lack of will to act. They did not realize that this would only make the problem more difficult to solve later. Efforts were directed at hushing up the embarrassing scandal, instead of at exposing the villain. Furthermore, the IDAM was subordinated to a government in which Dayan served as an important minister, hence the motivation and ability to act against Dayan were inadequate. Even when he was questioned in the Knesset, the IDAM helped to protect him. Part of the problem was the prevailing norm, according to which high army officers and leaders were not treated as common citizens.� Even Biran, head of the IDAM, admitted that Dayan broke the law and was not prosecuted. Biran�s excuse was that other robbers were not prosecuted as well, for �it required a lot of effort to prosecute in most cases, and it was not important. No one was holding the equivalent of the Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire marbles�. These words were said many years after Dayan�s death (in Slater 1991:326), and -if correctly quoted- they raise numerous questions.
7.1.2� Leaders of Archaeological research institutions (including Yadin, who had an especially high status) also failed to stop Dayan. One (unverified) story claims that Yadin complained to Ben- Gurion, Israel�s first Prime Minister, many times about Dayan, and finally it was concluded that Dayan is not allowed to dig illicitly, but is allowed to �go after the plough�- that is, to pick �stray� antiquities. If true, such a vague term gave him free leash. As late as 1976, Yadin as editor of Qadmoniyot accepted and published a paper on the Machpela cave in Hebron, written by no other than Moshe Dayan (1976b). Archaeologists knew about Dayan, visited his house, saw the collection, and some were given permission to publish items from it.��