An 88-year-old mystery surrounding the murder of British archaeologist James Leslie Starkey in 1938 has taken a significant turn. New research builds on a 2016 study by examining overlooked archival documents, British intelligence records and Palestinian oral accounts. The findings suggest that Starkey was likely the victim of a targeted assassination connected to land disputes between his archaeological expedition and local villagers. The study points to a Palestinian rebel commander as the suspected killer, offering fresh insights into the links between archaeology, land ownership and political violence during the British Mandate.

Eighty-eight years after pioneering British archaeologist James Leslie Starkey was shot dead while traveling from the ancient city of Lachish to Jerusalem, researchers say they have uncovered compelling new evidence explaining who was behind his murder — and why he was targeted.

A new study by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and historian Dr. Roy Marom of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute challenges the long-standing account that Starkey was an unfortunate victim of random violence during the Arab Revolt against British rule in Mandatory Palestine (1936-1939).

Instead, the researchers argue that his assassination on January 10, 1938, was linked to a bitter land dispute between the British archaeological expedition at Lachish and peasants from the neighboring Palestinian village of al-Qubayba.

The findings, published in the academic journal Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, combine untapped British colonial records, Palestinian historical accounts, intelligence documents and oral testimonies preserved by descendants of the village’s residents.

The study also identifies Palestinian rebel commander Issa al-Battat as the assassin as  part of a locally organized operation connected to grievances against the excavation.

A murder that shocked the archaeological world

Starkey was one of the leading British archaeologists working in Mandatory Palestine during the 1930s. Beginning in 1932, he directed the major expedition at Tell ed-Duweir, identified with biblical Lachish, one of the most important cities of ancient Judah.

The excavations were supported by influential British patrons, including the wealthy pharmaceutical entrepreneur Sir Henry Wellcome, and attracted considerable international attention.

On January 10, 1938, Starkey left Lachish for Jerusalem, where he was expected to participate in the inauguration of the Palestine Archaeological Museum, now known as the Rockefeller Museum.

He never reached the city.

Near Hebron, armed men stopped his vehicle. After identifying Starkey as the director of the archaeological excavation at Lachish, they ordered the driver away and shot the archaeologist.

His death shocked the international academic community and contributed to the premature end of one of the most ambitious archaeological projects then operating in the region.

At the time, British authorities characterized the killing as an act of banditry amid the widespread violence of the Arab Revolt. They also officially cleared the nearby village of al-Qubayba of responsibility.

For decades, the precise circumstances and motives behind the killing remained  a mystery.

The breakthrough began in 2016

The new research builds directly on a study published by Garfinkel a decade earlier.

In his 2016 article, “The Murder of James Leslie Starkey near Lachish,” published in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, Garfinkel challenged the accepted explanation after examining previously unpublished reports from the British expedition and records of the Mandatory Department of Antiquities.

The documents revealed a prolonged confrontation between Starkey’s expedition and local landowners over agricultural plots on the summit of Tel Lachish.

Although the expedition attempted to purchase or lease the land, negotiations repeatedly broke down. Ultimately, British Mandatory authorities intervened and expropriated the disputed property to allow archaeological excavations to proceed.

The conflict was further aggravated by delays in compensating the affected families.

“The landowners never received full compensation for the expropriated land, undoubtedly a strong motive for revenge,” Garfinkel wrote in his 2016 paper.

At the time, the land dispute provided a possible motive for the murder, but the connection between the local grievances and the identity of those responsible remained difficult to establish conclusively.

The newly published research, conducted with Marom, adds a crucial dimension: Palestinian testimony and documentary evidence that the researchers say independently support the original hypothesis.

“When I first examined the Lachish expedition archives in 2016, it became clear that Starkey’s murder could not be understood without the bitter conflict over the land. What we did not have then was the Palestinian perspective. The new evidence, particularly the oral testimonies, allows us to connect the archival documents with the memories of the local community and reconstruct the circumstances of the assassination much more clearly,” Garfinkel said.

Palestinian oral histories provide missing evidence

One of the most significant contributions of the new study comes from the Palestinian Rural History Project, curated by Marom, which documents the memories and historical experiences of Palestinian rural communities.

Interviews with former residents of al-Qubayba and their descendants preserved accounts of the tensions surrounding the British excavations.

According to these testimonies, local families deeply resented losing access to land they had cultivated for generations.

The disputes involved not only property ownership but also the destruction or removal of trees, restrictions on agricultural activity, and the exclusion of some affected families from employment opportunities at the excavation.

While the archaeological expedition provided jobs, medical care and economic opportunities for many villagers, other families viewed its activities as an unjust intrusion into their lives and livelihoods.

The new research also highlights a previously overlooked petition submitted in May 1937 by a local landowner, Salih al-Hajj Hamad Abu Awwad, to the British Department of Antiquities.

In the petition, the farmer complained that portions of his land had been used for several years without the compensation he believed he had been promised.

“I am a poor and weak man, and my livelihood depends entirely on the yield of this land,” he wrote, according to the translation offered  in the study.

The petition offers a striking contemporary account of the growing frustration among some of the landowning families.

The researchers found that compensation for the expropriated land was not finalized until 1943 — five years after Starkey’s murder.

Who pulled the trigger?

By combining Palestinian historical sources with British and Zionist intelligence records, Marom and Garfinkel identify rebel commander Issa al-Battat as a central figure in Starkey’s assassination.

According to their reconstruction, local intermediaries with connections to the village and the armed insurgency may have helped arrange the attack.

The researchers argue that the location of the ambush, away from Lachish itself, was significant. Carrying out the killing along the road near Hebron may have been intended to distance the operation from al-Qubayba and reduce the risk of British retaliation against the village.

Their reconstruction also draws on testimony from Starkey’s driver, who described how armed men intercepted the vehicle, identified the archaeologist, and ordered the driver to leave before the fatal shots were fired.

The authors conclude that the murder was not simply an indiscriminate act of violence but a deliberate assassination arising from a specific local conflict.

Nevertheless, the study’s conclusions remain a historical reconstruction based on converging evidence, rather than a confession by a participant. Previous researchers have also differed over the identity and fate of those involved in Starkey’s killing.

When archaeology and politics collided

Beyond identifying a likely motive and perpetrator, the study raises broader questions about the relationship between archaeology, colonial authority and local communities during the British Mandate.

Lachish was a major archaeological site of international importance. Its excavations transformed scholarly understanding of the ancient biblical world, but the work also depended on access to lands cultivated and claimed by local residents.

The researchers argue that the resulting tensions cannot be separated from the political environment of the 1930s, when the Arab Revolt intensified opposition to British rule.

The latest study therefore presents Starkey’s death as an episode in which scientific exploration, economic interests, land ownership and armed resistance became tragically intertwined.

Garfinkel’s broader research on the expedition was also presented in his comprehensive 2024 book, Colonial Archaeology in Palestine in the 1930s: The First Expedition to Lachish, which examines the history of the British excavations and their political and social setting.

Nearly nine decades after the assassination, the new findings provide a more detailed account of the events leading to Starkey’s death, and offer closure for his family and descendants.

They also demonstrate how combining traditional archaeological archives with the historical memories of local communities can transform the understanding of events long considered settled.

The murder of James Leslie Starkey is no longer merely a tragic footnote in the history of archaeology. It is a revealing episode in the complicated relationship between archaeology, land and political power in Mandatory Palestine and beyond.

Read More :

TRAI Introduces New Telecom Interconnection Rules, Implementation to Begin January 2027

Aditya-L1 Observations Reveal Asymmetric Expansion of Solar Eruption, Offering New Space Weather Insights