Talk:Archaeology of Israel

Period dates

I disagree with the terms "leading lights" regarding Finkelstein. That would imply that he has the truth and everybody is following his ideas which is not true. Moreover, I think this article should be merged with the others archeological articles on Israel and/or the Hebrew bible. --Squallgreg 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the new consensus on the Iron Age IIA is 980-830 BCE instead of 1050-900 BCE. A. Mazar has modified his previous dates due to Finkelstein's views. He rejects (as a majority of archeologists) to place the beginning of IIA around 900 BCE but agrees that it ends around 830 BCE as suggested by Finkelstein et al. Same thing for the beginning of Iron Age IA, the rounded date of 1200 BCE is moving to 1180 or 1130 BCE depending on when you date the settling of the philistines. Another reason is that the Iron Age IB could not have lasted more than two centuries. Could anybody answer to my two comments ? -- Squallgreg 04:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Today this period is more commonly referred to simply as the Iron Age. The use of the term 'Israelite Period' has certain colonialist and nationalistic overtones. " Whoever put this in, I suppose you imagine you can write propganda like that without any factual support, merely because it is anti-Israel? pray then would you let me pick any period of your native homeland's heritage, and amalgamate it into the iron age merely because it occured in the same time? just let me know which you choose. And I'm being lenient here. Its actually called 'Israeli' period and not 'Israelite', the western archeologists added the 'lite' to reflect their longings to severe any link between the ancient Jews and the modern ones, perhaps because they have never been made to taste their own medicine on their own native heritage. counterboint 21 Jan 2007

Well, there are a number of points you have made which I'm unclear about. Firstly, writing propaganda without factual support. I wasn't aware I was writing propaganda - merely relating a view which is commonly expressed by archaeologists (Israeli ones too!). My own particular homeland is Wales, more broadly Britain and I am painfully aware of our own historical shortcomings. By the way, your point about amalgamation makes no sense. I really see no reason to your objection to the use of the term Iron Age, it is a relatively neutral term. Is it actually called the 'Israeli' period? According to whom? Anyway, for your own benefit, I recommend you look at some material regarding contested ethnicity in Iron Age Israel, e.g. Finkelstein 1999 (He's Israeli!). Oh yes I also disagree with Squallgreg's point about merging this section with the Hebrew Bible. Let us keep them distinct. There has been a major movement over the past 30 years to separate biblical archaeology from archaeology. Archaeology in the region is not all about the Bible.

You seem quite sure of yourself yet still give very thin refernces to your claims. The term "Israeli period" is what is used in Israel to describe the part of the Iron Age which is believed to have contained some of the events in the Bible. There are archeological findings mentioning King David and King solomon. Secondly, one Finkelstein, even though an Israeli, still does not merit the "contested" and "movement" phrases, especially since you mention only one Israeli Archeologist! (were you at odds to find more?). Say I contest your existence, is that enough for me to say so in an article? The fact that this one archeologist is Israeli means nothing. In any country (well... almost any!) you can find anyone doubting anything, that does not mean you can infer it is a major body of opinion which "contests" something. You have to list a GROUP of eminent archeologists and not just one. Unlike its neighbors Israel does have many scholars who dare to challenge conventional national values and culture but that does not mean every single one of their views can count as a "movement". You have to mention more, many more, Israeli sources to support your accusation of "colonialism", which, by the way, didn't wholly originate from the evil white westerners as you may think. Wiki guidlines clearly state "no original research" and this does not only refer, alas, to the Iran and Saddam Hussein articles.

I strongly suggest to lower the misleading accusations of colonialism (before I start to mention eastern colonialism, I'd be an unstoppable bore). Any Nation on earth is entitled to come up with its own ethnic terms for parts of universal historical periods which contained important local events. You can't rob the Israeli Jews from that. Of course they have "nationalistic overtones" that's because Israel is a nation. If the Palestinians and the Welsh are allowed to pick and choose periods and name them names then, unfortunately so are the Israelis. If they are not then just say the word and I'll scan all of the latter folks' articles and replace all local period names with "Iron Age" and "Bronze Age" as chronologically fit.

Counterboint 19:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Counterboint, I am failing to understand what it is you are objecting to. You appear to have taken offence at my writing about archaeology in the region, mistaking it for an attack on your very values. Your criticisms are confused and in some cases just wrong. I will answer them as best I can in turn.

Firstly let me say that you are correct in a certain respect - the weight of scholarly discourse (and popular opinion) is with you on particular issues. Surely that doesn't mean that you can dispute my representing another academic viewpoint?

I must say that I myself have never encountered the use of the term 'Israeli' period. I have always known it and encountered it as the 'Israelite' period. Even having spoken to Israeli archaeologists, they too have called it the 'Israelite' period - this point is redundant however, the favoured term is now the 'Iron Age'. Of course you are allowed to use different terms, I never denied that right, I was merely pointing out that the favoured term these days amongst many archaeologists (not all!) is 'Iron Age'.

You criticise me for only providing one reference - you yourself have provided none.

Archaeological findings mentioning David and Solomon? Well, there is the much feted 'Beit David' inscription from Dan and the Mesha Stele. And Solomon? None that I know of. Don't you find it odd that these two much vaunted figures have so far only turned up a couple of fleeting archaeological references?

Finkelstein is perhaps the most well known current Israeli archaeologist. Even others who often do not often agree with his work still recognise that ethnicity in Iron Age 'Israel' is far from certain e.g. Mazar, Herzog (both Israeli!). There is very little (if anything), archaeologically, to distinguish any apparently distinct Israelite culture.

Your point about 'no original research' is unclear. If you are inferring that I am undertaking original research you would be correct. Nothing that I have written here however is original, merely an academic overview.

I still don't understand what it is about the terms 'Iron Age' or indeed ' Bronze Age' that you object to. It can only be that they are not the term 'Israeli'.

As for the colonial aspects - again I was merely representing an academic opinion. An opinion that, if you study the subject, you will encounter. Your points about Israel's neighbours and the east in general are indicative of a certain political attitude, one that may help to explain your objections.

The beauty of archaeology, and more generally the past, is that it is ultimately unknowable. The material available to us in attempting to reconstruct that past is fragmented and partial. Each of us constructs the past according to our influences and our needs. As such there is no single objective past, no monolithic past reality - just as there is no single objective present. We must recognise that there are a multiplicity of pasts.

Linking the term 'Israelite Period' with colonialism or politically-charged revisionism has no place in this article, which purports to be about science. If one wants to take issue with the term, simply point out that archaeological findings might not support its validity. The prevailing insistence on dragging Israeli/Palestinian political issues into every article hinders the efforts of people who just want to know the facts. Just once, can we leave our ideology at home and be objective? Lack of self-disciplined objectivity is Wikipedia's greatest failing, and has poisoned far too many otherwise promising articles. Tallil2long (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

evidence of a degree of Biblical historicity

Balderdash. In 1880 you could have sat in a university chair and opined the the bible was pure myth, that homer was writing fairy tales, and that the Xia dynasty was mythical. then shlieman uncovered Mycenea, Chinese archaeologists in the 60's and 70's uncovered the Xia, and archaeologists digging in Israel have proven that the outlines of the historical narrative going forward form the time of Solomon is verifiable.

The Israelite / Iron Age section in this article is highly inaccruate.

It needs a POV label until someone has time to do a thoughtful rewrite.

I find it concerning that you appear to take my representing of certain academic views personally. 131.251.0.11 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I am sorry you are concerned. I can quite reassure you that I do not take it personally at all. In Israeli culture, such a heated tone of debate is considered normative and even better behaved than some, e.g. the Israeli parliament. Our Prime Minister and Minister of Defence are screamed at "Fascist" and "Racist" every fortnight by Anti-Zionist Arab backbenchers, and they too (the former) do not take it personally, they understand that these backies have to do this if want to make it safely through Friday prayers in their hometowns. I am sure they know only too well that no such priveleges would be dreamed of in their advocated future "liberated" regime. Anyway more to the point... Going in reverse order on your comments: "Your points about Israel's neighbours and the east in general are indicative of a certain political attitude..." The same can be said about you. Calling the innocent term "Israelite period" colonialism, without referencing any specific articles that do so... thats a bit... Jimmy Carterish I would say. Shame on you, **I** had to labour in findin and citing a reference to that wounding term myself...I think it will be much easier for you to find references criticising your POV. Which Archeologist claims that there was never a Kingdom of David?

I too feel that the article should represent several views, however, major views and not petty ones. That is why I didn't mention anything about Archeological attempts to find remains of the Siege on Jericho etc. Regarding the "Israeli period", this is how it is known in Hebrew. We have no word for "Israelites". We have "Hebrews" and "Israelis". In many of the articles I found, the period is mentioned as "Israeli period" or "Ancient Israeli Period (Iron Age)", describing the aforementioned part of the Iron age when Jews lived in Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Education describes it as "Iron Age, called by some 'The Israeli Period'".

As to "We must recognise that there are a multiplicity of pasts".. I only partially agree there. Just as long as each group's past is not mutually exclusive of some other group's past; we must all at least strive to an objective description, not cloister ourselves in Ghettos of incompatible narratives. Who's past are we excluding by saying there was an "Israelite Period"? even the Bible does not deny that there were other groups living in this land. Is it our fault that they didn't properly write and archive their heritage? if we are excluding some other narrative, please mention it (e.g. the Philistines). 'Colonialism', however is not a term of an Ancient narrative-but of a modern exclusive political agenda. In other words, descendants of the modern Philistines, too have a right to name periods to their own liking, if you can find them. It won't erase Jewish history (90 Synagogues unearthed so far in Israel, as ancient as50BC). But which groups are left today that claim to be descendants of any pre-Christ Palestine ethnic group? only the Jews. The Palestinian Arabs, as far as I have been able to tell, do not make any particular effort to refer to anything before the much later Islamic conquest of the region-I believe with good reason. Counterboint 01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to remove the text referring to literacy being widespread during the early Iron Age, since this is fantasy, completely unsupported by any archaeological evidence. You can't just quote the bible, or accept its claims, willy-nilly, in an encyclopedic article. Khayyam 77 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Making the discussion easier to follow

It will be easier to follow if contributors indent their points, using colons, and sign their posts. You can sign with four tildes ~~~ whether you have an account or not. Thanks in advance to all. Itsmejudith 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

hmm

This a talk page . I am not logged in . Wikipedia is hiding something . This post is unsigned

Sensible

The article is very sensible, if it needs expanding on certain points like the Roman period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.(I see no discussion here regarding them, anyway)Jjdon (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No Palestinian Archaeology

Because there is no such thing as Palestinians and a Palestine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.143.0 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's mostly because their archaeological record begins in 638 AD or so. That is when the Arab group that is today referred to as Palestinians arrived in what is now the State of Israel. They don't let much archaeology digging go on in their neck of the woods though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? All the Palestinians' ancestors arrived in Palestine in the 7th Century? Come on. Let's be serious. The Palestinians are the aboriginal, native population. They are the descendants of the Christian majority which followed after the conversion of Jews and politeist. Hard to swalow? Your problem, not wikipedia's. And of course there is Palestinian Archeology, since the region is called Palestine during long periods of history. Certainly longer than the place-name "Israel", only in existence during less than a century in Ancient times (refering only to a little area north of present day West Bank) and again for less than a century in its modern form of the State of Israel. Chosing a name is very much a question of preferences, and many people around the world is fine with the term "Palestine". Objection? Again, your problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.125.125 (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Megalithic sites

Which culture is associated with Israel's megalithic sites? I am surprised that this culture is not even mentioned in this article. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Israeli-Arab conflict" section duplicate, unnecessary

The "Israeli-Arab conflict" section in this article is identical to the same section under Syro-Palestinian archaeology, almost word for word (give or take a few recent edits). This seems rather unnecessary. We can treat this article as Israel and archaeology-specific and leave regional and political issues to the more general article. How about removing it from here? Poliocretes (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

tag on section

I put a POV-section tag on the section "Damage to archaeological sites" for the following reasons:
1. The section makes multiple claims against Palestinian organizations without any mention of their responses to the charges.
2. The section repeats claims by Israeli organizations as facts when they should be cited as claims.
3. The section makes no mention of the many similar charges against Israel.
Zero^talk 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Table of periods

The table had been problematic for a long time. Firstly, it was unsourced, and I suspect it may originally have been plagiarized. The article was originally nothing more than this list, now it is much better. Ideally, the article should lay out the periodization that is commonly used by archaeologists working in the region, but that needs to be looked up in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How are the Dead Sea Scrolls a part of Israeli Archaeology?

The image is not justified in being in this article. The artifacts were found in the West Bank. Israel has never had any territorial sovereignty over the area in which the scrolls were found. It is as relevant as putting a image of any Egyptian artifact in American Archaeology article because the artifact is currently in the US. -asad (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to see disciplines such as Archeology depoliticized. The find relates to Israel as a people, not the modern state; the article is named Archeology of Israel, not Archeology in Israel. As a matter of fact at the time the geographic area didn't belong to anyone because it was occupied by the British when find was first made in 1946, and later by Jordanian troops until 1967. It seems to me inappropriate to remove the image just because the state of Israel lacked territorial sovereignty of the area at the time. The purpose is to inform the reader on the subject matter, not to score political points Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the find not relate to the Palestinian people as well? There are plenty of Palestinian Christians who believe that that text, nearly verbatim is the text of their bible. It is not about Israel have territorial sovereignty at "that time" it is the fact that the State of Israel has never had any sort of sovereignty over that area at any point in its existence. It would be great if this was not political, but given the circumstances of the conflict, it will not be able to happen. Just a reminder, the article is not titled "Archaeology of Ancient Israel," it is just listed plainly as "Archaeology of Israel". -asad (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't exclusive, you know, the inclusion of the Dead Sea Scrolls in an Archaeology of Israel article does not preclude it from appearing in an archaeology of Palestine article. Putting it here in no way says anything about its relation to Palestinians. The scrolls, however, are mostly in the possession of Israel, are an important part of Israeli culture and history, are on display in Israel and are researched and published mostly by Israelis. Whatever people may feel about their possession, it would be silly not to include them here. Poliocretes (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, an image can appear here per Poliocretes. Kokakhtzvigad's post raises the question of the focus of this article, important, and I shall raise it in a separate section below. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@Poliocretes- Fair enough, so lets put a photo for all the Egyptian Artifacts that are in American possession, are displayed in American museums and researched by almost entirely American Archaeologists. It would be silly not include it, right? You said something incorrect though, you said that the artifacts are an important part of "Israeli culture and history". The correct thing to say is that the artifacts are an important part of "Jewish and Christian culture and history". -asad (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Dead Sea Scrolls are the single most important archaeological find in Israel/Palestine (those are not my words) and are important to Jews, Christians, Palestinians, and alas, to Israel and Israelis. The Israel Museum did not build an entire wing to house them for nothing, nor is the amount of money invested in their collection, preservation, research and display. You may not like it, but their role in modern Israel and its culture, historiography and archaeology are an indisputable fact. Feel free to try and get consensus to remove it from here, but please don't tell me what is "correct" and what is not. Poliocretes (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, I was looking at the broader implications, therefore I found it more correct to say they are a part of Jewish and Christian culture and history. A few years back a museum I went to a Museum in my city to see the King Tut display. They made a whole wing and a giant set up for it. In fact, the museum, and others have invested a lot of money into touring it around the World and they were even taking donations to help for its preservation of it and that of other artifacts displayed with it. I read about all the British and American archaeologists who played a role in excavating the tomb. Does that make it Archaeology of America or Great Britain? -asad (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, that's your example, a touring display? Do you have the slightest idea have much effort is undertaken by Egypt to repatriate lost antiquities? But we digress, these are mere examples, and I have no desire to enter lengthy off-topic discussions. Not mentioning the scrolls is unprofessional in the extreme, and their modern political dimension is trivial compared to their immense significance to the archaeology of Israel, not merely as a museum piece but in the context of ongoing research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group. Now, I don't intend to discuss this ad nauseum nor to edit war and I hope you feel the same and note that the consensus is currently against you. Poliocretes (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This will be my fifth comment on this on this topic, and you are already writing my opinion off as not being important, and claiming there is a consensus "against me". Perhaps you should look up what the word consensus actually means. What ever you say about their importance is your point of view, to me, I am neither Christian or Jewish, so the scrolls as religious text me nothing to me, it is merely one of the many artifacts in this world that are very important. So obviously there would be a lot of sensitivities to these, political or what not, so, in the end, no one is completely satisfied, that is why WP relies on sources. So lets end this now. Please provide a worldview source saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Israel and only ended up being in Israel because they were taken from a museum without permission. -asad (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither I nor anyone else makes the claim that the scrolls were found "in Israel", but then you're the only one who's claiming the sole purpose of this article is to list artifacts found in Israel. The dead sea scrolls are an important part of the science and practice of archaeology of Israel and ignoring that, as I said, is highly unprofessional. Your political agenda does not trump the facts about the practice of archaeology in Israel. Whatever criticism you have of how Israel obtained the scrolls can be elucidated in the article about the scrolls. Poliocretes (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The history of how the scrolls ended up in Israel is well documented and referenced in that article. At the time the jurisdiction of the area was British.

Consider that if any artifacts identified as belonging to the Philistines were to be found say in Ashkelon, they would be part of the Archeology of Philistines. However, there doesn't seem to be a convention on the use of of here because Archeology of Algeria deals with all the cultures that claimed that territory before 944 CE.

I'd like to deal with your statements that

• The artifacts were found in the West Bank. - do you have contemporary reliable sources that use the term in its capitalised (and politisised) form as you do?
• Israel has never had any territorial sovereignty over the area in which the scrolls were found. - the issue of legitimate ownership of archeological finds is a difficult on in international and national corpus of laws. And I say this based on cases where national entities did exist, such as Egyptian kingdom occupied by the British. Where no national entity existed, the assertion of legal rights to any artifact would be incontestable because the legality of transactions would be examined within the context of the mandate and administrative laws of the then British Imperial Colonial Office.

Lastly, how does removing the image improve this, or any other article? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As said above, images should be there to help understanding in the article and shouldn't be the focus of wikiwarring. If the image is well labelled, and there are links to full information about where the scrolls were found, their (world-wide) importance, and their relevance to the archaeology of the Middle East, it is a good addition to this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still can't understand what the relation this artifact has to do Israel other than it was Israelis who stole it from a Jordanian museum and that is currently Israelis who house and display it, in direct violation of UNESCO rules. -asad (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please source such claims as I have never heard anything like that claimed by anyone. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Focus of article

What is it? The process of archaeology in the present-day State of Israel, university departments, prominent archaeologists, digs? Archaeological findings, sites, artefacts? Ancient history and prehistory of ancient Israel? I would like to see consistency with articles relating to other parts of the world. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is titled Archaeology of Israel, not "Ancient Israel" or "Historical land of Israel" not even "Land of Israel", just "Israel". -asad (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So is it about doing archaeology in Israel, about what archaeologists have discovered about Israel, or something else? We have no Archaeology of the UK, Archaeology of the USA etc for comparison. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, there are Archaeology of the Americas served in part by the Category:Archaeology of the United States, and Archaeology of Great Britain, served by the Category:Archaeology of England, Category:Archaeology of Wales, Category:Archaeology of Scotland and Category:Archaeology of Northern Ireland...however, no main articles that define these categories

Of Israel implies in Israel. You don't need those article to exist for such a comparison to be relevant. -asad (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Israel is both a people, Israelites in English, but Israel in Hebrew, and an ancient confederation of tribes, and a state/s (kingdoms), and by extension a religion and a culture derived from it (though renamed Judaism). The article deals with the archeology of all of that until large Israelite populations in the region they formerly populated almost disappeared from the countryside during the Byzantine Empire, though remained in some urban centres. The article clearly stops there. So it seems to me it is of Israel, and not in Israel, though because the modern state derives its name from the same source, the confusion is understandable. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. I think the article is very much about the modern state of Israel and its archaeology. It does not merely cover Israel/Judah/Israelites/Jews, bur rather the archaeology of the region from prehistory to modern times. Having said that, the article should be more than a mere list of sites in Israel, but more about the practice of archaeology in Israel - its history and evolution, practitioners, institutions, problems and relations with modern thoughts and ideologies. Poliocretes (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I only remarked on what the article seems to me now, not what it should be. The last sections do deal with the modern Israel by necessity. It seems to me that this could be a very extensive article, but as the banner in the Roman section says, it really needs expert on the subject Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem

It's odd that Jerusalem, the most excavated site in history, is not listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyp (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is NOT in Israel? That could be the reason, don't you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.125.125 (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Linked to another wiki - Help?

In the "Politicisation" section I inserted a link that gives a broader survey of how archaeology is politicized in Israel. I will probably link to it in Archaeology of Palestine as well. The article I linked here is an orphan, and I was hoping to bring it to greater attention on related pages - but I don't quite know how to do that without seeming obnoxious. Any help with other pages I can leave a link would be appreciated. Iowa.Grad.13 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

section tagging

The section "damage to sites" consists entirely of Israeli claims presented as facts and doesn't have the least pretense of balance. As such it is in violation of WP:NPOV and should remain tagged until some balance is reached. What about the destruction of several hundred villages of which many had ancient buildings? The Mamilla cemetery? The shrine of Hussein's head in Ashkelon that was blown up? Etc etc, start with Benvenisti's book for a very long list. Zero^talk 10:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not Archaeology

Most of this article is not about Aracheology. The time periods have few arcaheological references. The Persian time period has no reference at all and only mimics the biblical text, and says nothing about the archaeology, for example. This needs a complete rewrite. --83.7.185.97 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a lot of material that seems irrelevant to this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Stop put wrong category on places in the West Bank

Stop put Category talk:Archaeological sites in Israel on places in the West Bank. Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank should be used when it is about places there. Saying that it is in Israel makes it a violation of the NPOV policy. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Iron Age/Israelite period

I added "In December 2014, archaeologists from Mississippi State University announced the discovery of six bullae which suggests that some type of government activity was being conducted in the 10th century, and thus makes the existence of David possible.[7]" But it could be edited a little Sadya goan (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216154111/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020105339/http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=334516 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=334516
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419153936/http://www.rehov.org/bee.htm to http://www.rehov.org/bee.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206081713/http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_92.6.pdf to http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_92.6.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Christianity

Debresser. Technically, when you saw Poliocrates answering the motivation of your original revert (not in the lead, perhaps somewhere else) by placing it under Byzantine, you should have, as you now twice insist in edit summaries, opened up a discussion. You didn't. Secondly, if you disliked it in the lead, you could have added a section ( Christian remains/heritage) and plunked it there. One edits to find solutions, not to block page development.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please post comments as to editors' behavior on their talkpage. I know myself what I can do, and am not in need of your help or advice. Also, I am not to be blamed for the fact that you do not understand my reasons, as is evident from your edit summary. Please do not teach me, or anybody else here on Wikipedia, how to behave. If you see any serious violations, report them at the appropriate places, but keep the talkpages clean. Please be even more careful with editors whom you have been warned by ArbCom to treat extra politely, like me. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In any case, the Byzantine section is mostly Christian, but there is no indication that the opposite is also true. Meaning that there is no reason to assume that the Christian artifacts mentioned in the statement are all Byzantine. In short, we should consider where to put this. I can find no appropriate place in this article, so perhaps a new section is in order. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is rather tedious. I gave you a technical reason why your editing was erratic, and unconsensual, and you take it as a personal attack. As I said, the material is appropriate to the article. You refuse it in the lead (Nishidani), you refuse it in the Byzantine section (Poliocrates), but keep saying 'a new section is in order'0 for it. Well pull your boots up and put that section in, whatever title you care to invent, and restore the information, which you have now elided 3 times (here, thenhere and finally here ) against a standing consensus of 2, with, further, so far User:Drsmoo finding no objection to it. I disagreed with Poliocrates, but accepted his position on his talk page. No one editor can be entitled to unilaterally use the revert procedure to insist that a talk page discussion convince him, else, nothing. Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone summarise what the issue is here? I just see text inserted and reverted, sourced to AP and Ha'aretz, which are in principle good sources, for news if not for history. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

This is what it's all about. The fact is significant and well sourced. While I don't believe it belongs in the current lead, considering that Christian remains that predate the Byzantine period are meager, that before the 20th century Palestine had never been as populous or prosperous as it had been during the period, or that our article stops at the Byzantine period, there's no better place for it to appear. That is, unless someone is going to make the effort and expand it. I really don't see what the big deal is about. Poliocretes (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, so that seems to be mildly interesting, definitely not for the lead, but for the years from about 50 to about 400. More interesting from the same article is "Israel is one of the most excavated places on the planet. Some 300 digs take place each year, including about 50 foreign expeditions from as far away as the United States and Japan, the Antiquities Authority said." Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani 1. A "consensus" of 2:1 is no consensus. We've been there before. 2. I pointed out the problem, and I don't have a solution. I am under no obligation to solve all problems.

That having said, I think the solution is to create a general section, right after the lead, which could contain the problematic statement, and e.g. the statement of Itsmejudith right above. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article needs input from a lot more people. See that it is a top-importance article for Wikiproject Archaeology and at the same time start-class. I remember trying to rescue it years ago when it was basically just a dump of a probably plagiarised list of archaeological periods. I've never been sure whether it ought to be about the process of archaeology in Israel, about which there is quite a lot to say, or about the findings of archaeology in Israel. If the latter, then attention needs to be paid to how it differs from articles on the early history of the area. A request for comment on this might get some more comment in. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The following information has been consistently removed from the article on the grounds the section it has been entered into is inappropriate.

A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel attest to the ancient Christian presence in the area.

Could editors please offer solutions. A consensus exists for inclusion: the problem is simply one of the appropriate heading or section.Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Contrary to your false claim, not only does no such consensus exist, but your sentence has been forcefully rejected by an uninvolved admin on a WP:AE discussion regarding you! I quote: "For instance, this edit at Archaeology of Israel takes a very high-level overview of the field of study, itself stretching over six centuries and studying a period of three millenia, and adds that A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel testify to Christian realities in the area. This sort of random statistic seems out of place anywhere in the article but in the lead it sticks out like a sore thumb; it smacks of an editor who has come across a statistic and decided he must be able to crowbar it into Wikipedia somewhere."[1] And I completely subscribe to this uninvolved opinion. The solution is to not have this random piece of information in this article in its present form and with its present content. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In saying we have consensus for inclusion, I relied on my remarks above, this edit made by Poliocretes, and your own words in the thread above, namely:In short, we should consider where to put this. User:GoldenRing is quite entitled to think what the three of us agreed on is inappropriate, -note however that he, like Poliocretes, and myself, agrees it is certainly not for the lead -while questioning my judgement, but it is not appropriate to cite his view, given in an arbitration case, to justify your recent (today) change of view. If you have now changed your opinion on the strength of the first part of his judgement, fine. But the RfC is designed to ask for external input. Let's wait for comments, rather than bickering. Our positions are known from the thread above. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to get involved here, but I would like to clarify my intent in the quote given above. I was not intending to take a side one way or another on the content question, merely to say that a reversion that was described as "utterly farcical" was, in my view, not utterly farcical. It could be argued one way or another. I presented an argument the other way, but that was to demonstrate that reasonable editors could disagree, not to give some sort of AE-authorised opinion on the content. Please don't take my argument there as some sort of supervote here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the text is not appropriate for the lead; perhaps a new section on archaeology by culture/religion could be created and it be included there? Number 57 09:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Still rooting for the Byzantines. Poliocretes (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Are the relics being discussed only from the Byzantine era? If not, then it's not really appropriate to put it in that section. Number 57 13:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate a few points about archaeology in Israel: Pre-Byzantine Christian finds are meager. Byzantine finds are plentiful. Until the 20th century, Palestine has never been as prosperous or populous as it has been during Byzantine times. This is reflected in both lay and religious finds. Most importantly - this article stops at the Byzantine era. Since we're talking about a single (!!!!) sentence, I find it more than appropriate. I don't see the point in a new section unless someone is willing to populate it with meaningful content. Poliocretes (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The period in which Christian remains are encountered lasted some 1,000 years technically, from Ice to the end of the millennium, but the real building boom which Israeli archaeology is uncovering dates to the Byzantine period. Much of this was on pagan sites (the article is so fixated on monotheism that it is careless about the extensive pagan, pre-Biblical and Hellenic and Roman era, and it categorically excludes the early Islamic era though that is rich in archaeological remains), So Poliocretes is correct that the statistic would primarily reflect Byzantine period remains, which are massive. The original problem was that this was an unperiodized anhistorical generalization about a large percentage of the total annual finds in this area, which is why I put it in the lead. I accepted Poliocretes suggestion however. This elementary and important fact obviously cannot be kept out of the article, and, unless one writes a Christian-specific section, it should probably go into the Byzantine periodization, perhaps tweaked with an introductory word on the building boom for Christianity as the Byzantines flushed the area with funds. To refresh my memory I read Doron Bar's 'The Christianisation of Rural Palestine during_Late Antiquity,' Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 54, No. 3 July 2003 pp.401-421 and he corroborates what Poliocrates is saying.Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I indeed agree that if this sentence were part of a paragraph of related content, that I would not have any problem with it. At he moment, there is no such paragraph. The Byzantine era section is not appropriate, since "Christian" is a lot wider than used "Byzantine" (unless the source would be shown to have intended specifically the Byzantine era, which I don't think is the case). And thank you @GoldenRing for your clarification. Debresser (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - put it at the end in the Byzantine section, with a close about some of these may predate the Byzantine period. Predominence apparently being very much Byzantine, then that is where the paraphrase goes. Markbassett (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett On what do you base the statement that "predominance apparently being very much Byzantine"? Debresser (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, there is a reasonable general agreement that Poliocretes suggestion is, for the moment, the appropriate one. I suggest putting the excised passage into the Byzantine period in the following way.

The transition from the Roman to Byzanrtine period coincided with the use of extensive imperial funding to construct Christian religious institutions in the area, often by transforming the older pagan buildings.A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel attest to the ancient Christian presence in the area.

I'll wait a day or two for suggestions. It can be tweaked to improve this 'background' point', and I'ìll try to find other relevant sources.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Add to the Byzantine section, per Poliocrates. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Why is this in the Byzantine section? The source is not about Byzantine artifacts, it's about Christian presence in the time of Jesus/Roman period. I would strongly recommend actually checking the sources before responding to RfC's, and to base their comments on the sources. The sourcing for this should be improved, expanded because its hard to say what the article is talking about. It describes these pieces as attesting to an "ancient Christian presence" but then highlights pieces that are archaeologically relevant to New Testament studies but do not really seem to shed light on a "Christian" presence. It seems to be more about the time of Jesus, then the identity of persons as Christians. This is not an expert source so perhaps the wording is clumsy, I think additional sources should be consulted. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
• The fact "A third of the 40,000 objects recovered annually from archaeological digs in Israel attest to the ancient Christian presence in the area." seem very much relevant to the article. ImTheIP (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160107164238/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_286_74/ai_n28809085/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_286_74/ai_n28809085/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/masada.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf%21OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023107/http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=420938 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=420938

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212173758/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/jt-060309-26.html to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/jt-060309-26.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Humans/Hominini

Most people understand "humans" as "Homo sapiens". I have changed "humans" to "Hominini" in order to be more accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Copy editing

I have made a substantial number of small changes in the first half of this article or so. Then I got tired. I intend to come back and do more, but the need for editing seemed to decrease farther into it. I hope to avoid the partisan edit wars I see above, which since October 2023 would be even more impassioned than before. Dgndenver (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw one passage that needed work, but I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed. In the Lower paleolithic section, it reads, "The lower lumbar vertebra, dated to the Early Pleistocene, differs in size and shape from a 1.8-million-year-old skull unearthed at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. After this discovery, co-author Dr Omry Barzilai concluded that different human species produced the two artifacts." Well, of course a skull and a vertebra differ in size and shape. If you have an idea of how to fix this, go for it. The word "produced" also could be replaced somehow. Dgndenver (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)