Remember the Jericho? Mythification of Place and Identity Formation at Two Frontier Towns

by Wes Sutermeister

Wes Sutermeister is a 2012 ATS. M.Div. graduate.

Abstract

The biblical accounts concerning the city of Jericho have always sparked much scholarly interest, especially in the fields of history and archaeology. For many, the story of Jericho’s miraculous conquest by the Israelites, as found in Joshua 6, is pure legend with no basis in reality. For others, Jericho did indeed have walls that astonishingly fell at the shout of Israel, and the biblical account is consistent with both the historical and archaeological evidence. Leaving these complicated questions aside, this essay will seek to illumine the portrait of Jericho as found in the biblical texts of Joshua through a narrative analysis of the texts themselves, focusing on the deep, symbolic elements of the narrative. It will also explore the rhetorical function of the narrative as it now stands in its canonical form (Text). Finally, through a comparison with the construction of the Alamo myth within both the American and Texan consciousness in our modern era, we will explore how the place of Jericho might have functioned as an identity shaper in the life of Israel, and how a mythic vision of Jericho’s conquest may have been perpetuated within the community of Israel (Trajectory). It is our hope that such a study will provide a better starting point through which the more “historical” questions might be addressed.

Text

While Joshua 6 relates the narrative of the conquest of Jericho by the Israelites, the city itself figures prominently in the preceding chapters, especially as the place where two Israelite spies encounter Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who lives within the walls of Jericho (Josh 2). In this story, the spies are commanded by Joshua to “Go, view the land, especially Jericho” (2:1 NRSV). Here, it seems that Jericho is a kind of representation, by way of the prominence given to it, of the land of Canaan as a whole. Richard D. Nelson picks up on this thread, claiming that, “The language of the Rahab story has already prepared the reader to equate Jericho with the land as a whole.”[1] Furthermore, in Joshua 5 we are given a story about the “commander of the army of the Lord” who meets Joshua “in Jericho” (בִּירִיחוֹ; 5:13).[2]

Thus, when the narrative of Joshua 6 opens we already have an idea of the significance of Jericho and the tensions and characters involved. Similarly, when in 6:1 we are told that “Jericho was shut up and locked in,” we have to wonder whether or not these defensive measures taken by the Canaanites really matter, as we were just told in the previous chapter that both Joshua and the commander of YHWH’s army had their strange rendezvous “in” Jericho (or at least in a dangerously proximate place; 5:13). Yet in 6:2 the narrator bolsters our perception of Jericho’s defenses by describing its inhabitants as “a mighty army.” However, this description comes from the lips of YHWH himself, who assures Joshua of victory. This assurance of victory over a mighty army prepares us for an epic victory to come.

In 6:3, YHWH’s assurance turns into a series of commands as to how the battle is to be fought. The object receiving his commands shifts from second person singular to second person plural throughout vv. 2–5, especially in v. 3, which has the effect of closely identifying Joshua (“you”) with the “y’all” referring to the people of Israel. In a special way, Israel is represented by their courageous leader, who acts as their surrogate and commander before YHWH. This is further played out in vv. 6–7, where Joshua relays the commands of YHWH to both the priests and the people.

It is also interesting that in 6:3 we are told that the “men of war” are to circle Jericho for six days, but then in v. 4 we discover that the priests are involved as well. By v. 5 there is mention that “all the people” are involved in the plan to capture Jericho. So the narrative progression of who is involved in YHWH’s strategy, from individual to group, is as follows: v. 2, Joshua; v. 3, the “men of war”; v. 4, priests; v. 5, “all the people.” Israel, though it has many constituent parts in its makeup, is fully united against Jericho. The progression also gives us a clue that this is no ordinary battle plan. In fact, as many commentators have noted, cultic and military actions are combined in this narrative to give it a symbolic, even mythic, connotation. According to Nelson, “The trumpet-blowing priests seem to add elements of cultic procession to an earlier divine warrior conquest narrative.”[3] What might have once been a purely military account of the conquest of Jericho has been given a steroid shot of the sacred.[4]

One of the ways that the narrator accomplishes this sacralization of the battle is through the use and repetition of the number “seven”, which to the ancient mind symbolized a sense of completeness or perfection. The Hebrew Bible if full of references to the number seven, and many of these instances occur in liturgical settings. L. Daniel Hawk has perceived a connection between the seven day circuits around Jericho with the Sabbath and Year of Jubilee as described in Lev. 25, both of which mark a conclusion or the end of a span of time.[5] For him, not only the trumpets that are blown, but the theme of land possession and transference of property, reveal a strong connection between Joshua 6 and Leviticus 25.[6] YHWH owns the land of Canaan, including Jericho, and has the right to distribute it to Israel, who must now go in and take possession of it.

Along with this, we believe that the use of the number seven in Joshua 6 forges a link with Genesis 1 and the theme of creation.[7] Following J. H. Walton, the seven day creation should be seen as emblematic of the building of a cosmic temple, which provides the space for worship, and the creation of those who would serve before YHWH within this cosmic temple.[8] Other ancient Near Eastern accounts of temple dedications attest to this seven day period. However, if we follow the story of Genesis, YHWH’s temple space is polluted and his disobedient servants are booted out east of Eden. With this deeper story in mind, Joshua 6 can be seen as a new act of creation, and more specifically, the dedication and cleansing of temple space (land) for YHWH.[9] Jericho, as representative of the Promised Land, is literally wrapped up in liturgical, creational motifs. It must be thoroughly cleansed and, as we will see below, devoted to YHWH.

Further, many instances of temple dedication or temple cleansing in the Hebrew Bible occurs in tandem with Passover and the seven day Feast of the Unleavened Bread.[10] It should come as no surprise, then, that in Joshua 5 we are told that the Israelites kept the Passover at Gilgal (5:10–12). This is in fulfillment of Moses’ command in Exodus 12:25: “When you come to the land that the Lord will give you, as he has promised, you shall keep this observance.” The Israelites were also to celebrate the seven-day festival of Unleavened Bread that immediately followed Passover: “When the Lord brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he swore to your ancestors to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this observance in this month” (Exod 13:5).

It is natural to expect this celebration to follow the Passover reported in Joshua 5, and the seven-day period of the surrounding of Jericho fits. Richard S. Hess argues that, “For Israel, this particular week was the Feast of Unleavened Bread,” and that, “This Passover and the following seven-day festival would serve a new generation that also experienced a miraculous crossing of water [i.e., the Jordan].”[11] Israel is symbolically crossing into a kind of new Eden.[12] However, the land (read: temple) has been polluted with false idols and false worshippers: the Canaanites and their gods. The land must be purged and everything in it must be dedicated to YHWH.

This is exactly what happens in Joshua 6–12, with the story of Jericho setting the symbolic paradigm for what comes after. In perfect obedience to YHWH’s command, the priests and “armed ones” march around the city one time per day for six days, and then, on the seventh day, they march around the city seven times.[13] Close to the climax of the account, the narrative relates Joshua’s command to the people to “raise a shout” (6:16), but then digresses into an unnatural explanation concerning both Rahab and the things devoted to destruction (vv. 17–19).[14] Finally, in v. 20 we are brought back to the action, as the walls of Jericho fall down (נָפַל) and the Israelites go up (עָלָה) and capture the city. The Israelites devote everything in the city to destruction, except for Rahab and her family (vv. 21–23), who are given rest (נוּחַ) “outside the camp of Israel.” Likewise, the silver, gold, bronze, and iron are all spared and placed in the treasury of the house of YHWH.[15] The end of the narrative reports Joshua’s poetic curse of anyone who attempts to rebuild Jericho, as well as the fact that his fame spread throughout the whole land.[16]

Trajectory

At this point, a description of the place of the Alamo myth within the American consciousness, especially in Texas, can help us uncover some of the meaning of the text analyzed above. The Alamo was chosen for this study because it, like Jericho, is situated in a border/frontier region.[17] It represents not just the border region between Mexico and Texas, but historically, the border between the civilized world and the “Wild West.”[18] Jericho also represented that place where Israel’s wilderness wanderings finally found an anchor in the land which they could claim as their own, as is hinted at in Joshua 5:10–12 when they cease eating manna and begin eating the produce of the land. Also, like any border town, the Alamo is a place where different ethnicities have had to negotiate issues of identity and life in relation to one another, just like the Israelites vis-à-vis the Canaanites. Finally, both the Alamo and Jericho are popularly known as sites where a major battle between two competing people groups[19] took place, and so they offer a compelling way in which to analyze not just the biblical texts, but our own stories about the past.

To begin with, as many anthropologists and sociologists have noted, public places often become sources of meaning and identity formation for the society in which they exist. However, this is not a purely objective process on the part of those who are doing the remembering. As Richard Flores argues in his discussion of the Alamo, “The past is not … the construction of a historical narrative, but that of historical memory, imbued with the ideological cadence such discourses promulgate.”[20] In other words, ideologies, agendas, biases, propaganda, and the like, all influence our memory of past places and events. Flores’ concept of “memory-place” is especially helpful in this regard. For him, “memory-place” can be defined as, “collective memories fixed to physical places that construct meaning.”[21] In the case of the Alamo, the collective memory of Americans, especially Texans, has given a meaning to the place of the Alamo in ways that enhance identity and group formation to the exclusion of others. The popular-level meaning ascribed to the Alamo often ignores, or pushes to the side, historical reality as well as differing perspectives on the meaning of the place.[22]

The popular myth of the Alamo, as it most famously appeared in John Wayne’s film, The Alamo (1960), and is still engendered at the historical monument itself, portrays the battle of the Alamo in terms of the fight for freedom and liberty against tyranny and evil. In fact, the brass plaque that appears to the right of the front doors at the monument today reads, “Shrine / Cradle of / Texas Liberty.”[23] The Alamo monument that appears in the Texas capitol has an inscription on it that reads, “To the God of the Fearless and Free is dedicated this Altar made from the ruins of the Alamo.”[24] According to the myth, the Alamo “defenders” died in the cause of freedom and liberty, and their heroic struggle bought enough time and inflicted such a heavy toll on Santa Anna’s forces that Sam Houston was able to gain ultimate victory over the Mexican forces at the battle of San Jacinto.[25] Timothy Matovina comments on the rhetorical force of this myth on Texans by stating that, “A powerful saga like the Alamo tale is embraced by a people and characterizes them, expressing shared beliefs and cultural symbols. As a creation myth for Texans, the Alamo story helps define them as a people.”[26]

The Alamo myth has its heroes and villains as well. The heroes of the Alamo, Davey Crockett, Jim Bowie, and William Travis, all embody American ideals to the fullest, just as Joshua and Caleb embodied Israelite ideals of strength, unbridled courage, and total obedience to YHWH. Following the work of Brear, Bowie represents all that is savage, primal, wild, and ancient. He is reckless and untamed, and his famous “Bowie knife” speaks of an old and gritty way of doing violence in an age of guns.[27] Like the others, he is full of that rugged individualism and masculinity that is fit for survival in the wild frontier.[28] Travis, the commander of the Alamo forces, is more youthful and spirited than the old Bowie. His famous act before the battle of the Alamo was to draw a line in the dirt with his sword and to have all who desired to stay and fight with him to the death cross it. This act finds parallels in Joshua, who draws his own line at Shechem: “Choose this day whom you will serve … as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord” (24:15). Finally, Crockett’s image as the model frontiersman, the champion sharpshooter in the buckskin suit, was all that Americans prided themselves on.

All of these men were in stark contrast to Santa Anna, the despised “Napoleon of the West” who led the Mexican forces against the Alamo.[29] He represented everything that Americans despised: the old European order, a despotic government, Roman Catholicism, and later, Mexican immigrants.[30] In the Alamo myth, Santa Anna is a ruthless, heartless killer who is extremely bloodthirsty. He is also lazy and over-sexualized, but ultimately attacks the Alamo and executes all living survivors. Santa Anna is the Alamo’s Adoni-Zedek (Josh 10), or king of Jericho. Both are characterized as solely bent on destruction and are always the aggressors, despite the fact that they are really defending their own land against a foreign invader, or an internal rebellion (in the case of the Alamo).

This last fact is the first hint that the Alamo myth has its problems. For one thing, the Alamo myth reduces the Alamo to one, specific event in the past: the battle of the Alamo in 1836. In fact, the Alamo was originally established as a Roman Catholic mission by the Spanish crown in 1718.[31] Also, “From 1810 to 1865, the site changed hands at least sixteen times between Spanish, Mexican, Texan, Union, and Confederate forces.”[32] The Alamo site served as a mission, church, convent, barracks, commercial business, fort, trading post, supply depot, quartermaster’s house, and also stood vacant for many of its years. The Alamo myth conveniently ignores this rich diversity to create what Brear calls a “hyperreality,” where, “the representation of the past becomes more real than the original.”[33] Even in artistic renderings of the site, the “Alamo imagery [eventually] attainted a significance and symbolic value independent of the physical site itself.”[34]

The symbolic value and meaning of the Alamo came to be defined more and more by the increasingly dominant Anglo-Saxon population, especially during the epoch of the Spanish American War and with the influx of Mexican immigrants to Texas at that time. Scholars have long recognized this historical trend in the construction of the Alamo myth. Flores claims that, “The ‘remembering’ of the Alamo acts as a local narrative of displacement against the local mexicano population … the Alamo in Texas legendry and oral tradition impelled a discourse of fear and recompense against Mexicans.”[35] In the same way, Brear comments that, “In the Texas creation mythology, the sacrifice that gives life to Texas is made almost exclusively by Anglos for the birth of a nation separated from its Mexican ties. The main role of the Hispanic within this story line is that of executioner.”[36] The fact that there were blacks, European immigrants, and even local Tejanos fighting with the Alamo defenders is rarely revealed in the popular-level myth, or if it is, it is only to be politically expedient. Instead, all Mexicans (Spanish? Canary Islanders? Indians? Mix?) are identified as the enemy, the “other,” and placed alongside of Santa Anna and his troops. The real heroes are white Americans (and Protestants).

And this tendency to exclude the “other” in the stories we tell about places is not limited to the Alamo. Izhak Schnell and Shaul Mishal, in describing modern Israeli settlements in the Gaza, explain that, “Mystification of places is likely to be initiated by sociopolitical groups in search of hegemony; marginal groups tend to adopt not a systematic consciousness comprising incompatible values and ideas rooted in hegemony-seeking social groups but ideas that spring from more their direct, everyday-life experience.”[37] In seeking to develop a sense of identity among competing claims, which is always a struggle in border regions, one dominant group uses concrete, historical places and events to boost their claim to dominance, both economically and socially, and usually at the exclusion of others.[38] Related to the Alamo, Brear succinctly states that, “Those who control identities born at the Alamo receive ancestral ties to the past, ownership claims to the present, and, if calls to ‘Remember the Alamo’ remain intact, inheritance rights to the future.” Because Anglo-Saxons eventually became the dominant cultural and economic group in the region, and could thereby control the narratives and meanings that were fixed to certain places and individuals, the Alamo became “a Hispanic building dedicated to Anglo-Texan glories.”[39]

In light of all of this, we believe that the same phenomenon of myth construction and its use in identity formation that can be seen in relation to the Alamo has occurred in relation to Jericho. Jericho probably meant many different things to a wide spectrum of peoples, Canaanites included, and probably had many different uses and traditions concerning it throughout its history. But Israel’s myth of the Jericho is the only one that remains. It serves as a rhetorical ploy to highlight the dominance of Israel over the Canaanites. This narrative has silenced all other traditions about who has a right to the land. It is a perpetual reminder that Israel won, and that Israel’s God won. It is just like Gilgal’s stones, only now the stones are stories. Each succeeding generation can now take part in the battle by hearing the story, viewing the actual ruins, and identifying with one side or the other. The story removes all ambiguities from the complexity of living in the midst of multiple ethnic groups, and the narrative itself forces the reader/hearer to choose sides. To choose one way is the way of death (the way of the Canaanites), and to choose the other way is to choose life (the way of Israel). This is exactly the same thing that people do when they visit the shrine of the Alamo. They are reinforcing their identities by reliving moments from the past by participating in the “hyperreality” of the place. “By the honoring of a glorious past,” says Flores, “we strengthen our present, and by the care of our eloquent but voiceless monuments we are preparing a noble inspiration for our future.”[40] However, we must realize that our monuments and stories often exclude others. We must struggle to hear the Canaanite’s side of the story, who, if we ever met one, would surely sound something like this disgruntled Tejano: “We’ve been erased. We’ve been cut out. We don’t exist. And that’s why we protest. They’re trying to erase us, and we refuse to be erased.”[41]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Anderson, Mark Cronlund. “The U.S. Frontier Myth, American Identity and 9/11.” The Journal of Psychohistory. 38 (2011), 314–327.
• Brear, Holly Beachley. Inherit the Alamo: Myth and Ritual at an American Shrine. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press, 1995.
• de Zavala, Adina. History and Legends of the Alamo and other Missions in and Around San Antonio. San Antonio: [No publisher], 1917.
• Flores, Richard. “Memory-Place, Meaning, and the Alamo.” American Literary History 3 (1998), 428–445.
• ———. “Private Visions, Public Culture: The Making of the Alamo.” Cultural Anthropology. 10 (1995), 99–115.
• Hawk, L. Daniel. Joshua in 3-D: A Commentary on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny. Eugene: Cascade, 2010.
• ———. Joshua. Edited by David W. Cotter. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000.
• Hess, Richard S. “The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua.” In Critical Issues in Early Israelite History. Edited by Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008, 33–46.
• Matovina, Timothy. “San Fernando Cathedral and the Alamo: Sacred Place, Public Ritual, and Construction of Meaning.” Journal of Ritual Studies 12 (1998), 1–13.
• McConville, J. Gordon, and Stephen N. Williams. Joshua. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
• Nelson, Richard D. Joshua: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
• Raines, C. W. “The Alamo Monument.” The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 6 (1903), 300–310.
• Schnell, Izhak and Shaul Mishal. “Place as Source of Identity in Colonizing Societies: Israeli Settlements in Gaza.” Geographical Review 98 (2008), 242–259.
• Schoelwer, Susan Prendergast. Alamo Images: Changing Perceptions of a Texas Experience. Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1985.
• Thelle, Rannfrid I. “The Biblical Conquest Account and Its Modern Hermeneutical Challenges.” Studia Theologica—Nordic Journal of Theology 61 (2007), 61–81.

Notes

1. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 91. Also, Jericho “serves as a paradigm for the entire conquest.” (Nelson, Joshua, 91)
2. Other English translations read, “by Jericho” (NRSV), “near Jericho” (NET). In any case, Joshua and the Lord’s commander are in the vicinity of Jericho.
3. Nelson, Joshua, 89. See also L. Daniel Hawk, Joshua in 3-D: A Commentary on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010), 63.
4. Nelson offers a reconstruction and analysis of the possible layers in the text (MT revision and unrevised). See Nelson, Joshua, 83–87.
5. L. Daniel Hawk, Joshua, Berit Olam, ed. David W. Cotter (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 98. For Hawk, the “sevens” of Joshua 6 contrast with previous uses of “threes” in the book. Israel is moving from incompleteness to completeness.
6. Hawk, Joshua, 94.
7. See also J. Gordon McConville and Stephen N. Williams, Joshua, THOTC, ed. J. Gordon McConville and Craig Bartholomew (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 34.
8. See J. H. Walton, “Creation,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press), 155–168. The Psalms are especially clear in this idea that the cosmos is the temple of YHWH (and Isa 66:1).
9. The statement that “they started early when the dawn went up” in Joshua 6:15 also adds to this theme: a “new dawn” is truly at hand.
10. Solomon’s temple dedication festival lasted seven days (1 Kgs 8:65, 2 Chr 7:8–10); Hezekiah celebrated the Passover and seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread after he restored temple worship (2 Chr 29–30); Josiah’s reforms included a celebration of Passover and the seven day Feast of Unleavened Bread (2 Chr 35); In Ezra, the Passover and seven day festival of Unleavened Bread takes place immediately after the new temple’s completion and dedication (Ezra 6). The Ark of the Covenant has a vital role in many of these episodes, as in Joshua 6.
11. Richard S. Hess, “The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua,” in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, ed. Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil, and Paul J. Ray Jr. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 43.
12. While also speculative, is Joshua’s encounter with the “commander of the army of the Lord” in Joshua 5 meant to remind us of the cherubim and flaming sword that guard the east entrance to Eden (Gen. 3:24)? The commander meets Joshua just east of the Promised Land across the Jordan with a drawn sword.
13. The discrepancies and tensions as to who is doing what in the procession is listed in Nelson, Joshua, 88. Also, a chart that shows this command/obedience theme can be found in Hawk, Joshua, 88–89.
14. For detailed explanations of the Hebrew word herem (“devoted thing; devoted to destruction”) see Rannfrid I. Thelle, “The Biblical Conquest Account and Its Modern Hermeneutical Challenges,” in Studia Theologica—Nordic Journal of Theology 61 (2007), 63–66. Also, Hawk, Joshua in 3-D, 66; Hawk, Joshua, 99–101.
15. Economic loot is placed in the center of Israel’s camp, while human “loot” (Rahab) is placed outside. Also, the reference to the “house of YHWH” seems to be an anachronism, as the temple has not been built yet.
16. Nelson sees a similarity to another piece of Joshua’s poetry after a miraculous victory in Joshua 10 (Nelson, Joshua, 91).
17. On Jericho as a border town, see McConville, Joshua, 30–31.
18. On the importance of the frontier in the overarching American myth, and a good discussion of the “Turner thesis,” or the importance of the frontier in American history, see Mark Cronlund Anderson, “The U.S. Frontier Myth, American Identity and 9/11,” in The Journal of Psychohistory 38 (2011), 314–327.
19. As we will see, this binary logic is part of the myth’s attempt to remove ambiguities from the complexity of historical events.
20. Richard Flores, “Private Visions, Public Culture: The Making of the Alamo,” in Cultural Anthropology 10 (1995), 105.
21. Richard Flores, “Memory-Place, Meaning, and the Alamo,” in American Literary History 3 (1998), 429.
22. “Memory is not only forgetful, but, in attempting to preserve the forgotten, it selectively silences those elements that attempt to rupture the quiet.” Flores, Memory-Place, 434.
23. Holly Beachley Brear, Inherit the Alamo: Myth and Ritual at an American Shrine (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1995), 1.
24. C. W. Raines, “The Alamo Monument,” in The Quarterly of the Texas State Historical Association 6 (1903), 305.
25. “The Alamo has emerged as the site of the supreme sacrifice necessary to birth a new society.” (Brear, Inherit, 2).
26. Timothy Matovina, “San Fernando Cathedral and the Alamo: Sacred Place, Public Ritual, and Construction of Meaning,” in Journal of Ritual Studies 12 (1998), 2. Also, “In the frontier mythology, the American arrives in Texas as the cultured individual able to take a wasteland and create a productive extension of the United States. Here the death of heroes, coupled with the near-miracle victory of Sam Houston’s small army at San Jacinto, ‘proved,’ in the eyes of many Americans, that theirs was a destiny ordained by God.” (Brear, Inherit, 2).
27. A biblical equivalent to the Bowie knife, as far as its legendary status, would have to be Samson’s jaw-bone or David’s sling.
28. Brear, Inherit, 39–40.
29. Brear, Inherit, 30.
30. Susan Prendergast Schoelwer, Alamo Images: Changing Perceptions of a Texas Experience (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1985), 67.
31. Brear, Inherit, 5.
32. Schoelwer, Alamo Images, 26.
33. Brear, Inherit, 17. This is also similar to the idea of the “heterotopia” found in Foucault’s work: http://foucault.info/documents/heteroTopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en.html.
34. Shoelwer, Alamo Images, 41. There were also many legends, ghost stories, and traditions concerning the Alamo from older periods of the site’s history which had nothing to do with the battle of 1836. Because these are mainly local Tejano stories, or stories about Roman Catholic characters, they are largely ignored in discourses concerning the Alamo’s meaning. See Schoelwer, Alamo Images, 29, and the classic collection of these traditions by Adina de Zavala, History and Legends of the Alamo and Other Missions in and around San Antonio (San Antonio, [no publisher], 1917).
35. Flores, Memory-Place, 441.
36. Brear, Inherit, 2.
37. Izhak Schnell and Shaul Mishal, “Place as Source of Identity in Colonizing Societies: Israeli Settlements in Gaza,” in Geographical Review Vol. 98 (2008), 242–259.
38. Thus, a newspaper from Gaza could read: “When you enter the settlement yard, after crossing the wild and dangerous Palestinian populated areas, you feel the relief of someone who reaches a safe haven. You feel the surplus of a superior sense of spirituality here, even before meeting the residents of the place” (Schnell and Mishal).
39. Schoelwer, Alamo Images, 173.
40. Flores, Private Visions, 105.
41. Matovina, San Fernando, 7.