Talk:Eleutheropolis

Deleted external links

External link or links have recently been deleted by User:Calton as "horrible Tripod pages which add little information, are full of ads, and fail WP:EL standards." No better external links were substituted. Readers may like to judge these deleted links for themselves, by opening Page history. --Wetman 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unify the 5 (!?!) articles dealing with the same site

Enough with this overpoliticised BS! One site is one site. Bayt Jibrin is history, no reason to make it the "main article". This "my lobby is stronger than yours" BS is on kindergarten level.
These 5 articles should be ONE:
-Bayt Jibrin
-Beit Guvrin National Park, actually Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park
-Eleutheropolis
-Kibbutz Beit Guvrin, Israel
-Maresha
Arminden (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Hi @Arminden: I am a fan of consolidating overlapping articles where possible, as I think it leads to better quality articles. Having said that, to my mind there are a few clearly separate topics here:

• The modern kibbutz which is not co-located with any of other other sites here
• The modern national park, with 3,500 caves designated as a World Heritage Site (map here https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1370/maps/)
• The two individual historical built-up sites within the national park: (1) Tel Maresha and (2) Bayt Jibrin / Eleutheropolis.

So I don't see how we can reasonably get it down below 4 articles.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm hardly active at the moment, so I won't reread it all to remember what does indeed overlap, but from what I know, I don't see why all except probably the kibbutz shouldn't be on one main page together. The reason why the national park covers both Tel Maresha and Beit Guvrin seems to me good enough for Wiki, too. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Map illustrating the locations of Kibbutz Beit Guvrin, historical Bayt Jibrin-Eleutheropolis, the ancient caves World Heritage Site, and Tel Maresha (1940s Survey of Palestine map with modern overlay)

Hi @Arminden: I have looked into this further. The reason why the national park covers this area does not relate to the sites of Tel Maresha and Bayt Jibrin / Eleutheropolis. It is only because of the caves. See the explicit statement in the Israeli submission to UNESCO: The Caves of Maresha and Bet Guvrin, In the Judean Lowlands, As a Microcosm of the Land of the Caves, Submitted to the World Heritage Center - UNESCO By the State of Israel - January 2013, p.14: "Note: The relationship between the caves and the settlement network above them – wherever it is referred to all through this dossier – is given in order to let the reader understand the context of these caves; however, the mentioned archaeological surface remains are not a part of the proposed nomination!"

The same document includes photocopies of the separate articles in the The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land for Tel Maresha (PDF pages 115-132) and Bayt Jibrin / Eleutheropolis (PDF pages 133-143).

I have annotated the map on the right to help illustrate.

Since we are at least partly agreed, I propose to get on with combining Eleutheropolis with Bayt Jibrin; we can continue the discussion with respect to the other articles in parallel. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bayt Jibrin/Beit Guvrin article's "History" section starts with a subsection on Iron Age Maresha. It ends with "In 40 BCE, the Parthians devastated completely the "strong city" [of Maresha/Marisa], after which it was never rebuilt. After this date, nearby Beit Guvrin succeeded Maresha as the chief center of the area." (Unsourced here for now, true, but it's the common interpretation). So either it's one topic, as the articles now suggest, or it's not, and then we need to modify what we have. It's a very compact area, to me it looks like one settlement area with different focal points in different periods. The UNESCO application tells me nothing. All of Palestine knows the phenomenon of rooms, many of which were built as part of houses, hewn out of the limestone or chalk rock. They are part and parcel of the settlements. (The tombs and some agricultural-use caves outside the built-up areas are also part of the settlements). The Heritage list accepts single elements, like the Roman siege system at Masada by exclusion of the Masada fortress itself, but that is completely irrelevant to us here. Arminden (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is some much needed clean up, but from what I can see, Once has the best measure of things. Bayt Jibrin/Beit Guvrin appears to be the same entity as Eleutheropolis while Maresha, as noted in the Survey of Palestine lies two miles (or "two milestones" as Eusebius of Caesarea places it) to the south. These are clearly neighbouring but not identical locales with distinct histories. The Maresha material in the Bajt Jibrin history section should simply be removed/reduced/clarified. The modern national park and kibbutz are equally their own distinct objects. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that Eusebius had described them both in one place, thank you. I agree it would be good to trim the Maresha part of the Bayt Jibrin article.

I find the single element part of the UNESCO application interesting - presumably there is some incentive to be focused. It seems odd to me; the last article I wrote on a UNESCO site was Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae - in that situation the Egyptians appear to have done the opposite, sneaking in a few sites which were neither Nubian nor between Abu Simbel and Philae.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been most certainly a large degree of continuity:

• Tel Maresha/Tell Sandahannah site: Iron Age till destruction by the Parthians in 40 BCE.
  • Maresha(h): Iron Age (biblical)
  • Maris(s)a: Hellenistic period and part of the Early Roman period
• Beit Jibrin site. Names:
  • Beth Gabra (Betogabris, Baetogabra, Betogabri): 1st c. BCE (?)-200 CE and lingering
  • Eleutheropolis: 200 CE under Septimius Severus (Late Roman period), in use throuhout Byzantine period
  • Beit/Bait Jibrin in Arabic during the Early Muslim period and onward
  • Bethgibelin, Beit Gibelin, Bersabea, Gybelin, Ybelin Hospitaliorum during the Crusader period (12th-13th c.)
  • Bet/Beit Guvrin in Israel (the kibbutz is at the very margin of the historical sites, but the park is right there).

The archaeological park covers almost the entire area of all historical sites, of which none is still inhabited; the reason why the archaeological park should be the primary topic.

Connection, even continuity: Erhard Gorys, not fully RS, calls the Bet Gabra/Eleutheropolis site an old suburb of Maresha/Marisa, which takes over its role after 40 BCE. Negev & Gibson, 100% RS, write that "it owed its growth and importance to the destruction of Maresha by the Parthians in 40 BC." This plus Eusebius creates a very close connection.

Look at the proximity on Google Maps: the tell (Maresha) is about 1 km south of the centre of the Bet Guvrin park area, and about the same distance further north is the amphitheatre which the Crusaders rebuilt as a castle: totally negligible distances for major regional centres such as Maresha and Bet Gabra/Eleutheropolis. Nobody suggested separating the Crusader's Bethgibelin from Eleutheropolis based on the fact that it was 1 km north of the ancient city centre! There have always been cemeteries, industrial areas, churches and monasteries strewn around the main urban area (see the Crusaders' St John's = Sandahanna, c. 1 km SE of their castle & main church!).

PS: The article Eleutheropolis itself has been moved on 2 January 2023 by Onceinawhile to become a section of the Bayt Jibrin article, but somehow its discussion page here does still exist as a separate page, somewhat hidden from view. Is this the standard procedure? It makes it a bit awkward to find & continue this, I believe, important thread. Arminden (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Considering the centrality of the castle to the Frankish settlement, I am sure that the nearby kibbutz sits on part of the Crusader site. But I agree that it's a bit off the main site.

However, Bet Gabra-Eleutheropolis-Beit Jibrin-Bethgibelin-Beit Jibrin are one continuous site, and the only open points are:

1. Is there enough continuity betw. Maresha/Marisa and Bet Gabra to treat them together in one article?
2. What should be the "prime topic", title, focus of a unified article?

No. 2: The pro-Palestinian editors, if I may say so, have chosen the Arab village as the prime topic. I beg to disagree, not out of some pro-Israel attitude, but because I can't see the logic: it's as much a fading historical memory as Maresha or Bethgibelin. The park is by far more real, ephemeral as it might look. I see no reason to make an archaeological park the prime topic and name the article after it, but we can discuss which of the many historical names would be the more appropriate. Beit Jibrin is the more recent name and was used for very long, but nothing of major historical import happened while this name was in use; during pretty much all others, it did. But that's worth arguing over. A detailed spinoff on the Arab village is absolutely justified and an interesting read for me, but a stem article covering all periods comes first and it must find its right balance. Arminden (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Arminden: I have tidied up the dates in the parent article at Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park. Just to correct a couple of points above:

• The name "Bayt Jibrin" was used for a clear majority of the town's inhabited history, twice as long as the Aramaic version
• Bet/Beit Guvrin is a different place, and we rightly have a clear separation within wiki articles when locations with similar names are started elsewhere. This is not politics. It is a modern town with an evocative historical name. That is all.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

​Thanks, but I see you misunderstoid me. I was not proposing to have the kibbutz as the main topic! To me, the main topic is the history of the place.

Maresha had an Iron Age location on the tell. Hellenised as Maris(s)a it went on as a major regional centre; I guess most if not all of the 320-dunam lower city around the tell was from this period. It was seized and apparently substantially reduced by John Hyrkanus in 112 BCE. Sources keep mentioning it until its total destruction by the Parthians in 40 BCE, but archaeologists could find no substantial remains from this last period, so Cloner suggests as a remaining possibility that the name migrated, along with the remaining population, to the nearby "hill of Beit Guvrin" (Bet Gabra in Aramaic). This is the link that cannot be proven (yet), which we should further discuss.

After 40 BCE, Bet Gabra/Betogabris takes over as regional centre. I haven't read Cloner's final report beyond the Preface and Intro, so I don't know how old that settlement was already, but maybe someone has? It's almost adjacent to Marissa's outskirts, immediately north of them. It changes status and name (Eleutheropolis) in 200. Jews called it Bet Guvrin (Gubrin, Govrin?), judging by the Talmud. The Arab conquest led to a slight change of name - Beit Jibrin, maybe also Jibril -, as did the Frankish conquest - Bethgibelin. The Crusaders rebuilt the Roman amphitheatre at the northen outskirts of the ancient city of BG into a castle. The later Arab village depopulated in 48 is immediately SE of it, and the kibbutz immediately NE of it.

There isn't any good reason to doubt the historical continuity of the northern site of BG/BJ. If the southern M site can be added, this is worth discussing. Continuity means neither watertight, "uninterrupted temporal continuity", nor "identical location" or "population continuity" (ethnicity, religion, material culture etc.). Changes of population occurred several times, religion changed due to either population change, or to forced or voluntary conversion. The geographical focus of the settlement also changed due to various reasons - defense, cultural paradigm (Hellenistic "descent from the tell"), reuse of ruined structures (amphitheatre to castle), etc. The constants of the site are by far more important: major crossroads, water sources, agricultural land, defensible positions (hills), construction material. This stayed on, from Iron Age tell to Israeli kibbutz.

Beit Jibrin is gone. There's little reason why it should be the primary topic. I don't see longevity of the name as a good argument when its predecessors made history, while the village didn't. There are dozens of such examples from ancient Greece. The current owner is the State of Israel, uncontested by int'l law, and all recent literature uses the current name chosen by the authorities: Beit Guvrin and Maresha. Why they took this Talmudic name and not the Aramaic one, why not Govrin or Gubrin, all of them "Jewish enough", is beyond the point. The point is: the name has both historical justification, administrative relevance, and is widely used in RS sources. Should suffice.

Concretely: the intro now goes into minute details about the 1945 village (built-up vs farmland areas in the 1st paragraph; really?!), with much more relevant data pushed behind the infobox, photo, village map etc. (I'm accessing the page from my phone, Wiki has a different layout for desktop computers.) Why? Because of the "pro-Pal" leanings, no doubt, let's not beat around the bush about it. The historically old bits were grafted on a pre-existing "memorial" page. I fully understand the need for "memorial" pages, for all I care also as prosecution material if that's one of their intended purposes, but everything should stay in its right place.

As a sideline: why this weird spelling, Bayt? Other than an exaggerate "woke" effort to distance oneself from all previous research, seen as "Eurocentric" and "colonialist"? In quotable RS it's always been Beit, more recently maybe Bait. You can't say hello nowadays w/o being attacked on PC grounds. It's worth making a stand on Wiki. Arminden (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: is this ptetty much invisible location for the talk-page of the now defunct (merged) Eleutheropolis article standard Wiki procedure? The question is still open. Can anything be done about it? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Arminden. Understood. Some points that jumped out:

• Beit Jibrin is gone... The current owner is the State of Israel, uncontested by int'l law. This is misleading. Under international law, there is the Palestinian right of return, which remains a clear obligation on Israel. The village lands of Bayt Jibrin legally still belong to the families of its former inhabitants. Many of them live in 'Azza, also known as "Beit Jibrin Camp". What those families think it is called still matters, unless and until Israel reaches an agreement to extinguish its obligations. Whatever happens there, the village is in the State of Israel, of course, but we rarely follow exact official spellings anyway (see e.g. Petah Tikva and Safed).
• Use of the word "memorial". I don't understand this, but it seems to imply you don't see the history of one period of inhabitation as equivalent to another. Why is one a memorial and another a history? I also disagree with the suggestion of "pro-Pal" leanings having driven the page as it stands. I don't see any opposition here or anywhere else to improving the lead to be more balanced vis a vis the literature. The current status is more likely due to a not very well done merging effort. As Hanlon's razor says, Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. If you have time, it would be great to see the article improved.
• Bayt / Beit - good point, thanks. I have opened a discussion at WP:Palestine

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Once.

Occam's razor also works in a different way: when 99% of everything in the I/P field is hyperpoliticised, it would be stupid to think you've hit the one exception.

No, I mean "memorial" as what it is: people who hurt for a loss need a memorial for it. I'm not looking down on any of them, but that's its own category and only marginally encycopedic. Wiki militants tend to ignore this, creating, well, militant hodgepodges. That's why I believe that the village should have its own spinoff, where things like the very long section on embroidery makes perfect sense, or the dunams of grain. The heading "Culture" only covering the 19th c. embroidery and the maqams, for a major regional site at least 21 centuries old if not closer to 3000 years of age, which has filled museums with precious items, looks like mockery. (I know, I know, careless merging.) So not a service to anyone.

I never meant to follow official Israeli SPELLING: I meant and wrote on the topic of NAMES (Maresha & Beit Guvrin), which have been widely adopted by researchers who wrote piles of RS, because those names are reasonably valid and legitimate. The sad story of the refugees is neither here nor there in this discussion, and proves again my first point here-above :)

Hanging the article on the name of "Bayt (!) Jibrin" is as hyperpoliticised as so much else here. Given the right reasonable arguments, I could be convinced that Beit Jibrin resonates with more people that do Beit Guvrin, Beth Gabra, and Eleutheropolis (I doubt it, but believe to be open to arguments). But I still see Maresha and Beit Guvrin/Beth Gabra/Betogabris as the more appropriate and evocative name, covering millennia (Iron Age to Peutinger), and perfectly segueing to Beit Jibrin. The couple Beit Guvrin - Beit Jibrin strongly hints at connection and continuity, while Bayt-something focuses on phonetic "BDS". Arminden (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Greek name

There are two separate spellings? or shouldn't Ελευθερούπολις be the Greek form, losing the upsilon when it's latinized? — LlywelynII 21:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)