Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Levantine archaeology

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Does this title comply with WP:COMMONNAME?

[edit]

I don't know of many archaeologists or indeed publications that actually refer to it as Syro-Palestinian Archaeology or that talk about Palestinian Archaeology. The usual term is just biblical archaeology or Archaeology of Israel as that is where most of the work occurs (by which I mean not in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or the Palestinian Territories), although there have been people trying to change that in recent years. I understand not wanting to offend some people, but at the same time, we should be going with the common name here. I am a Centrist btw and I don't regard the Bible as any other than Judahite history written in the 8th and 7th Centuries mostly whose accuracy in relation to the archaeology increases as one gets closer to those times. I do acknowledge the significant influence it has had on humanity though, as only a fool would not. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there is a separate article for Archaeology of Israel. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally called Levantine Archaeology. Opportunidaddy (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. GOOGLE BOOK SEARCH FOR "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" returns 14,000 hits, while a similar search for "Levantine Archaeology" gets only 965 hits. Clearly the current title is more common than the name being proposed. There is an Archaeology of Israel page, which is more properly thought of as a subset of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and a Biblical archaeology page which refers to a related discipline from which syro-Palestinian archaeology sprung The current name is fine. Tiamuttalk 17:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google Book results are not a valid determiner of common name, however in any case, there are 792 results for syro-palestinian archaeology, not 14,000. Levantine archaeology is the common name per this reliable source. "Regardless of the manner in which the term has come into common use, for a couple of additional reasons it seems clear that the Levant will remain the term of choice. In the first place scholars have shown a penchant for the term Levant, despite the fact that the term ‘Syria-Palestine’ has been advocated since the late 1970s. This is evident from the fact that no journal or series today has adopted a title that includes ‘Syria-Palestine’. However, the journal Levant has been published since 1969 and since 1990 Ägypten und Levante has also attracted a plethora of papers relating to the archaeology of this region. Furthermore, a search through any electronic database of titles reveals an overwhelming adoption of the term ‘Levant’ when compared to ‘Syria-Palestine’ for archaeological studies. "
Additionally Academia.edu shows 1,418 documents in the "Levantine Archaeology" category compared to 454 for "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" I do think there should be an Archaeology of Palestine article dealing specifically with that field, just as there is an Archaeology of Israel article. However Syro-Palestinian archaeology is not the common name, and it should not be used as an umbrella for the region Drsmoo (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the Aaron Burke article you linked to above in more detail. He says that Levantine archaeology descended from Syro-Palestinian archaeology. He then goes on to explain that he prefers Levantine archaeology because it covers a much wider cultural region. In explaining all of this, he is clear that these are two separate topics. You are very welcome to create a new article called Levantine archaeology, but that is not the same as this topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Goggle hit counts are nondeterministic, especially for large numbers. At Google Books I get 10,500 for "syro-palestinian archaeology" and 1,170 for "levantine archaeology". Try this ngrams example (which I think searches books only). It's hard to be sure of a trend from this. Zerotalk 23:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google n-grams can not be used as a reliable source. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_111#Are_Google_N-Grams_a_reliable_source.3F
Your statement does not hold up. Burke is clear that Levantine Archaeology as an academic subject has replaced Syro-Palestinian archaeology in academia. He goes on to note that there are no longer any journals or series using the name "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" in their title. Drsmoo (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many Wikipedia articles have phrases that don't appear in the names of journals? And where can we read this rule about article titles? Zerotalk 08:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is whether Syro-Palestinian archaeology is the WP:Commonname. Given that researchers in the field have moved on to Levantine archaeology to describe the region, and that there are no longer any currently published journals or book series using the name Syro-Palestinian, in comparison to Levant, which has several, is a very strong indication that Levantine Archaeology is reliably the WP:Commonname. Drsmoo (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't make any sense to me. These are different regions! Oncenawhile (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This field on wikipedia moves slowly, let's allow additional editors to opine. Drsmoo (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only just got around to reading the whole article of Burke and found that the extract you quoted does not properly represent it. Burke says is that the archaeology of the whole Levant is replacing the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. He doesn't anywhere claim these are different names for the same thing and in fact in the middle of page 83 he cites the expansion of the area of study as a primary advantage of the word Levant. So the question of what name to use in this article depends on what region we want it to cover. Zerotalk 22:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He says that the archaeology of the whole Levant is replacing the archaeology of Syria-Palestine. He says that field of study "formerly identified as Syria-Palestine" is now more often referred to as the Southern Levant and also includes study of Canaan. He adds that "after more than twenty years of advocacy, despite adoption of the term by some scholars, many, if not most, have demonstrated a predilection to identify this region as the Levant." And as mentioned before, points out that "no journal or series today has adopted a title that includes ‘Syria-Palestine’." Drsmoo (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored my point. And I don't know why you keep repeating the barely-relevant fact that two archaeology journals, one an obscure Austrian journal not even prominent enough to be covered by Web of Science, use the word Levant in their titles. Zerotalk 03:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, There's no need to be hostile or angry. This talk section was started because a user (who is an archaeologist) commented that the term "Syro-Palestinian Archaeology" is no longer relevant. A second user added that the current field of research is known as Levantine Archaeology. I added a reliable source (from an award-winning book) that detailed how the field of study "formerly identified as Syria-Palestine" has been updated to Levantine Archaeology. My comments were directly related to the subject of this talk section. You say I "keep repeating" two archaeology journals. That is incorrect, I've only brought it up once in this talk page (and in any case there are other notable journals with Levant in the title). What I have brought up multiple times is that there are no longer any currently published journals using the name Syro-Palestinian and that the field has been largely replaced by "Levantine Archaeology", which is critically important when discussing the WP:Commonname. Your argument seems to be that since Levantine Archaeology deals with more area than Syro-Palestinian archaeology, the articles should be different. But this doesn't hold up. This article was originally called "Palestinian Archaeology" it was then renamed to Syro-Palestinian Archaeology diff here with the reason being "Both terms can be used, but Syro-Palestinian is broader in scope and should therefore be the name, while including Palestinian archaeology therein." The same reasoning should be used for moving this article to Levantine Archaeology. My proposal is that just as there is a page for Archaeology of Israel and Archaeology of Lebanon, so too should there be pages for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine. Despite their archaeological importance and the presence of archaeological research being done, there are no articles for either due to the presence of this article. Given that the field of research has moved to using Levantine Archaeology, it would make sense to move this article to Levantine Archaeology, and create new articles for Archaeology of Palestine and Archaeology of Syria. Drsmoo (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per consensus on this talk page(archive included) as well as academic consensus I've moved the article to Levantine archaeology. The talk page here (including the archive) has been consistently having issues with the name of this article, particularly individuals working in the field. This along with scholarly sources pointing out that there are no Journals using the name Syro-Palestinian archaeology but multiple using Levantine archaeology. "Regardless of the manner in which the term has come into common use, for a couple of additional reasons it seems clear that the Levant will remain the term of choice. In the first place scholars have shown a penchant for the term Levant, despite the fact that the term ‘Syria-Palestine’ has been advocated since the late 1970s. This is evident from the fact that no journal or series today has adopted a title that includes ‘Syria-Palestine’. However, the journal Levant has been published since 1969 and since 1990 Ägypten und Levante has also attracted a plethora of papers relating to the archaeology of this region. Furthermore, a search through any electronic database of titles reveals an overwhelming adoption of the term ‘Levant’ when compared to ‘Syria-Palestine’ for archaeological studies." [1]
Please open a discussion per WP:RM#CM. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.academia.edu/363228/The_Archaeology_of_the_Levant_in_North_America_The_Transformation_of_Biblical_and_Syro-Palestinian_Archaeology

Requested move 21 December 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. There's a lot to consider here, but we have substantial evidence that the proposed term is more common in the current academic sources for the topic, and consensus favors following it. Cúchullain t/c 18:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syro-Palestinian archaeology → Levantine archaeology – Per majority on this talk page as well as overwhelming academic consensus, the article should be moved to Levantine archaeology. The talk page here (including the archive) has consistently brought up issues with the name of this article, particularly from individuals working in the field. This, along with scholarly sources pointing out that there are no journals using the name Syro-Palestinian archaeology but multiple using Levantine archaeology. "Regardless of the manner in which the term has come into common use, for a couple of additional reasons it seems clear that the Levant will remain the term of choice. In the first place scholars have shown a penchant for the term Levant, despite the fact that the term ‘Syria-Palestine’ has been advocated since the late 1970s. This is evident from the fact that no journal or series today has adopted a title that includes ‘Syria-Palestine’. However, the journal Levant has been published since 1969 and since 1990 Ägypten und Levante has also attracted a plethora of papers relating to the archaeology of this region. Furthermore, a search through any electronic database of titles reveals an overwhelming adoption of the term ‘Levant’ when compared to ‘Syria-Palestine’ for archaeological studies." My proposal is that just as there is a page for Archaeology of Israel and Archaeology of Lebanon, so too should there be pages for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine. Despite their archaeological importance and the presence of archaeological research being done, there are no articles for either due to the presence of this article. Given that the field of research has moved to using Levantine Archaeology, it would make sense to move this (primary) article to Levantine Archaeology, and create new articles for Archaeology of Palestine and Archaeology of Syria. Drsmoo (talk) 00:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move, as common name. The argument that this article should just be about archaeology in Syria and Palestine doesn't really hold up if it prevents an article on the broader and mainstream subject of Levantine archaeology. Additional separate articles for the two present day countries as the proposal suggests makes much more sense. ‑‑YodinT 03:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportThe more modern term. Johnbod (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having an article about "Archaeology of Syria" in which you can talk about the archaeology in the eastern part of the country (which usually falls outside the scope of the Levant) would be great. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it would be perfectly fine to have an article on the Archaeology of the Levant, it is not ok to just rename this article that is on a different topic (archaeology of a smaller region). The claimed consensus does not exist, and the arguments provided for the move are mostly refuted in the discussion above. In particular, the quotation from an article of Aaron Burke misrepresents it. Burke states very clearly that the names are not equivalent and that the advantage of "Levant" is that it covers a wider area. The journal names are 100% irrelevant. It is a big mistake to treat this as a choice between two names for the same thing; actually the choice is of which area to cover. Two of the "support" votes above this clearly indicate a preference for changing the scope (not just the name), which is a fine position to take but not the intent of the proposer. Zerotalk 08:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:I take offense to the claim that the article has been misrepresented. Burke is clear that the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology is an anachronism that has no currency in the academic world and has been directly replaced by Levantine Archaeology per wide academic consensus. Burke is the one who cites the nonexistence of journals using the name "Syro Palestinian" as evidence of its non use. It is curious that you would directly attack Burke's observation while simultaneously claiming that I misrepresented him. I have linked to the article directly. Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reply to your comment 'Two of the "support" votes above this clearly indicate a preference for changing the scope (not just the name), which is a fine position to take but not the intent of the proposer.': there is a case that this should be kept as an article covering the historical field "Syro-Palestinian archaeology", and a new one created to cover "Levantine archaeology", but as the latter area of study is regarded as the successor to the former, and the two subjects have so much overlap (and as far as I'm aware, no clear moment of transition from one to the other), there would doubtless be a request to merge the two. The current lack of an article covering "Levantine archaeology" as a whole is apparently an embarrassing gap, and must surely be down to the article having this title. If the article is renamed, its scope must surely follow to cover the entire modern field of "Levantine archaeology", unless your proposal is for it still to cover only the southern Levant, Drsmoo? ‑‑YodinT 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement with Yodin, the contemporary field of study is Levantine, rather than Southern Levantine. It is Levantine Archaeology that has become the academic norm. The article could be moved to Southern Levantine Archaeology, but that would then inevitably be merged with Levantine. In response to the comment below, the source provided is another example of academic writing using the term Levantine Archaeology as normative and standard. Drsmoo (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that my reply was a bit aggressive, but I didn't appreciate that you just repeated the arguments you made above without the least nod towards the case made against them, and you claimed a consensus when there wasn't one. Incidentally, here's a factoid: 47 articles in the journal Levant use the name "Syro-Palestinian", the latest in 2015. Given that I'm just about to get on (or, more correctly, in) a plane, I don't have time to check contexts. Also 54 articles in "Palestine Exploration Quarterly", latest 2015. And 65 in Israel Exploration Journal, latest 2011. Zerotalk 21:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zero. This source explains the situation well (Thomas Levy; Thomas Higham (5 December 2014). The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-49151-4.):
    • p418 states that Syro Palestinian archaeology = Southern Levantine archaeology
    • p4 states that most people would have no idea what Levantine archaeology should mean
    • p5 and p130 explain that Levantine archaeology is equivalent to Biblical archaeology, which is separate from the secular Syro-Palestinian archaeology
Oncenawhile (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book (especially pp. 5 & 130 you quote) is pretty damning of Dever's term "Syro-Palestinian archaeology", saying that it basically never really took off, but that Biblical archaeology became just one part of modern Levantine archaeology (i.e. Bronze and Iron age southern Levantine archaeology; most other areas of the Levant, and other time periods tend to be unrelated to the Bible). My reading of p.4 is also very different; he doesn't seem to be arguing against the use of the term "Levantine archaeology" (he just says most people would "have no idea what we are speaking about" [emphasis added], and then goes on to talk about "Levantine archaeologists" in the same paragraph, and sporadically through the book [pp. 130, 132, 418, 442]), let alone that they would be familiar with "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" (in fact, he only uses the term "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" once beyond his discussions of Dever's unsuccessful attempt to shape the field under that name, [p.418]); instead he's justifying the use of the word Bible in the book's title which helps normal readers know what the subject is, and then goes on to explain the stigma surrounding the use of the term "Biblical"/"Bible" in modern archaeology. ‑‑YodinT 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I agree with a lot of what Zero says above. If this is going to be moved it must also be a scope expansion as well as Syro-Palestine is not the same as Levantine. I think having one on that larger scope, and then smaller ones on Syria and Palestine in particular, would be good. But if there is going to be nothing on the larger geographic region, then I'd rather it just stay here. Wugapodes (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That would be the plan, if the move passes, any help would be appreciated. Drsmoo (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Biblical archaeology: Per p5 and p130 of the books linked above, the term Levantine archaeology is used as an equivalent to Biblical archaeology. The source explains that "Biblical archaeology" began to get a questionable reputation amongst the archaeological community as being too reliant on religious sources, so many scholars now publish their work under the term Levantine archaeology. Therefore, the idea that we would widen the scope of this article to the whole of Levantine archaeology would create a problematic situation where we have two duplicate articles (Levantine and Biblical) representing the same thing under two different names. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, I don't think this is an accurate summary of what the authors are saying, but I would encourage other editors to take a brief read and make up their own minds (also see the sources mentioned in the top section, which describe the same phenomenon in another way). Biblical Archaeology is now replaced by one part of the wider modern field of Levantine Archaeology, which also includes other areas (e.g. the northern Levant, most of Syria, Lebanon, etc.) and other time frames (e.g. prehistory, late antiquity, and Islamic medieval & early modern), unless you're saying these are part of another area Oncenawhile? The increase in scope is part of a trend to incorporate Bibical Archaeology into modern scholarship by placing it into a wider context, but what you seem to be saying is that Levantine is, in fact, not larger in scope. ‑‑YodinT 11:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yodin, I agree with you, with one caveat. My interpretation of what the source is saying is that for many scholars the term "Levantine archaeology" is simply used to add greater legitimacy to the work of Biblical archaeologists, even though the scope of their work has not changed. One question I haven't figured out the answer to is re relevant time periods. One criticism of Biblical archaeology vs Syro-Palestinian is that it only focused on time periods relevant to the Bible, and so the rest of the region's archaeology was ignored. Syro-Palestinian archaeology was intended to address that. It would be helpful to understand whether Levantine archaeology is focused on more than just Biblically-relevant time periods. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant gives a good definition/overview of Levantine archaeology. "Levantine archaeology is now much more in line with developments in the wider discipline of archaeology as processual and post-processual approaches have relegated traditional historical/biblical questions to a less dominant position (Dever 1981)... In the 21st century, Levantine archaeology remains a vibrant, healthy discipline, a 'big tent' home to a wide variety of archaeological traditions. Its greatest strength lies in its wealth of accumulated primary data providing the basis for vibrant, foundational research into the story of the past." Drsmoo (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is excellent, thanks. It seems therefore that a Levantine archaeology article will be an important addition to wikipedia, and would be the main / parent article covering the wider discipline. This article could then link to a number of sub- or historical- "archaeological traditions" articles such as Biblical archaeology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology, with both of these existing articles to be slimmed down and with the appropriate caveats included. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC: Proposed article move from Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology

[edit]

There is a proposal to move from Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology here and to create separate pages for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine. Your opinions would be welcome, thanks Drsmoo (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? Seems duplicative of the above? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a request for comment. Drsmoo (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A request for comment for moves is what the above section is. I am not sure what exactly this section is supposed to be doing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adds an rfc to the History and Geography rfc board Drsmoo (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Levantine title is reasonable. Misdemenor (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the northern Levant?

[edit]

After the move, the article now begins "Levantine archaeology is the archaeological study of the southern Levant", immediately begging the question in the header. It doesn't seem right, but I leave it others to purse the question. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter of the article should reflect the subject. I'll change it now, obviously more changes need to be made throughout the article. Also creating articles for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine Drsmoo (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I believe this move was ill considered, since the article now covers only half of the title's scope. I have added a tag to this effect. If the article is not expanded within a reasonable amount of time (a month or two?) I will propose moving it back. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpful tag. I'm modifying it to better fit the article as it stands. Obviously the article will adjust to fully fit the contemporary field of study and I look forward to seeing you, Johnbod, and many others contribute. The move change passed with overwhelming consensus reflecting the common name of the subject and the contemporary field of academic research. Your threats and ultimatums due to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT five hours after the article was moved are not going to fly. You're being asked to edit cooperatively, respect consensus, and add to the article constructively rather than making threats and ultimatums. I hope you can do that. If you can't, leave the editing to those interested. Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with discussion of Syro-Palestinian and Biblical archaeology terminology

[edit]

In this edit, a number of sources and quotes seem to have been deleted. Drsmoo, can you explain what you are intending to do with discussion of the previous terminology? If this is to be the parent article for the sub-regional archaeology articles, it would be better not to delete good content but to use it to explain the other terms. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The paragraph removed in that edit was about the geographic scope of Syro-Palestinian archaeology which no longer applied, prehistory (which imo could have stayed, perhaps as part of the expansion of scope from Biblical archaeology: will include that in a bit) and a sentence that said Syro-Palestinian archaeology wasn't a term used in Palestine itself (again, not crucial information to the lead now that the scope has changed). While Drsmoo's put in a lot of work, he doesn't seem to be claiming any kind of WP:OWNERSHIP, and while I'm sure you're commenting with good intentions during what it necessarily a transitional phase, it does come across quite badly! ‑‑YodinT 16:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, the stone age part is covered at the end of the first para, and the formation of the field in the 1970s is better conveyed in the second. Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs! ‑‑YodinT 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oncenawhile, Yodin Your contributions to the article would be appreciated. There's actually not that much work to do in terms of getting things up to speed. But the more ideas and perspectives the better. Drsmoo (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography of encyclopedias has a somewhat reasonable length section on archaeology. Some of the works there may be useful in determining the content of this article and any subarticles. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just gained access to the Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, which should be a helpful source! Drsmoo (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Levantine archaeology. 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:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope, definition: unclear

[edit]

I wasn't aware of the article and the discussions here. Reading a bit through the article before looking at the talk-page, it became very obvious to me that we have a patched-up, unsatisfying hybrid, with more gaps than allowed. Since the move is already some 6 years old, this is very disconconcerting. What can be done now? Was the "move", actually a change of topic rather than one of name, as Zero noted back then, an exercise in misunderstood and misapplied political correctness? Nkthing more than eliminating that unfashionable term, Biblical archaeology, and avoiding the trouble with how to deal with Israel/Palestine? A faulty motive leads to week results, time and time again. WP editors, like any unpaid volunteers, will focus on what interests them. If Hathay, Cyprus, and Syria don't have much of a enWiki lobby, and Lebanon is insufficiently excavated, this still leaves us with an I/P article, actually a Palestine (region) article in the widest sense. Pretense isn't reality, and damn PC if it's just a fetish. Arminden (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More concrete: instead of endless paragraphs on tiny, specific topics and their evolution, as we have now (and probably nobody cares to read), what about actually defining L.A.? Why does it exist, why is it one unit? Why, really? A few ideas to chew on:

  • bridge/corridor between continents
  • contact space between empires (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Hittites; other later incarnations). Specific to the region: relatively small states, developing in the shadow of empires.
  • early innovations in agriculture and animal husbandry, mining and metallurgy, the alphabet, religious thought
  • desert fringe civilisations
  • contact between, indeed fluid change from nomadic to sedentary lifestyles
  • for those facing the sea: maritine culture, different from the Greeks

etc., with focus on what is specific, i.e. different from other parts of the Fertile Crescent (and the Caucasus, Arabia, and North Africa). If the term L.A. is indeed so well-entrenched, then there must be dozens of works dealing with what makes it a coherent topic.

So not a collection of paragraphs on national archaeological research, why traditional B/biblical archaeology is outdated, and so forth. That's escapism, fleeing from the topic, quilt, not encyclopedia. What is L.A.? What area does it cover? Why eastern Syria no, but Cyprus yes? What is common and specific? What is important to the wider world, why should one care if they're not ethnically or religiously connected? Arminden (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't really understand what this article is supposed to be about. A related problem is the out-of-control proliferation of regional overview articles. We have:
I get that they all define their scope slightly differently, but in practice most of the content is overlapping. There is no reason why we have to have a standalone article on every notable combination of ways to slice the region geographically and temporally. Many have been around for years but none are particularly comprehensive or well-sourced. Surely it should be possible to come up with a rationalised scheme that lets us concentrate efforts on a few good overview articles? – Joe (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this often happens on WP, & some fairly brutal pruning, merging & redirecting is needed. Generally I think we need a set of "history" articles & a set/couple of archaeology ones, plus possibly a separate timeline, or not. I suppose some concessions to the more narrow biblical interest may be prudent. I'm likely to support any sensible scheme or process. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not do as if we didn't know why: a) the Bible (OT, NT) and, connected to it, the Koran; and b) politics - I don't know how it has varied lately, but for many, many years the Arab-Israeli conflict has been said to take 10% of all international news, anywhere. People are focused on those two, and some end up going deeper into particular topics, beyond the religion & news level. That means: many specific topics of interest, which in itself is legitimate, as Wiki is trying to serve real, existing fields of interest. But less chaotically, please.
Why the overlaps? Sometimes out of lack of care, but certainly mainly because of the "parallel universes" phenomenon in highly conflicted areas (one truly only sees, or admits to see, his own side of things; the "Other" doesn't exist, or must be programmatically ignored), plus the extremely different level of research in the various countries involved. Israel/Palestine has been an early starter and has continued at a very high pace, due to Biblical archaeology, followed by a Zionist "back to the Land" motivation, and gradually by a more independent academia. The other countries had fewer interested Western academic powerhouses to get the work started, and more troubled and less affluent national histories and governments to push it on, plus their national myths are less dependent on archaeology. All real factors, and Wiki isn't in the business of outright bending reality according to a higher, more rational p.o.v. Only just a bit so :)
For history and archaeology, the geographical units are seldom overlapping with modern borders, in the Levant probably less so than in Europe. Also, which are the periods most in focus? This is very relevant, as the geographical cards were rearranged several times between Palaeolithic, Crusades, and later on. For the exit of humans from Africa, all of the Levant (less Cyprus) constituted the main corridor (the Arabian route being a second). For the Neolithic Agricultural Revolution, it's again a main focal point. For the Bronze Age, Mesopotamia and Egypt become the main foci, and the Levant lags behind in many regards (not as many as we thought, but still). For the Iron Age, Biblical archaeology takes centre stage for most non-specialists, and for many scholars as well (let's not play ostrich). But "local Hittites", Arameans, Arabs, Sea Peoples etc., are added to the empires in playing a major role. Phoenicians hugely project outwards. Hellenism changes the game completely, tying in the Levant into a much wider acculturation process, continued under Rome. Christianity resets the deck, and then Islam does the same. The Crusader episode was much more important than admitted by many locals (full Islamisation finally takes hold in Palestine, to mention just one major outcome). The Ottomans again make the Levant part of a world empire.
So, what is this article going to focus on and why? Why did the term Levantine archaeology take hold, with which main periods in mind? Because the 'Levantine' binder is much weaker in some periods than in others. It's not up to us to push our opinions forward, but to look into what has been written by those who have invented and established the term. We're not the masters of the topic, we're just here to present what academia has come up with. (Somebody was trying to convince me that Wikipedia is more independent than that, that it can have articles on terms that hardly do exist in English, but in such a well-trodden domain as Levantine archaeology, when dealing with a firmly established academic term, we most certainly don't have the latitude to improvise). I don't have the drive to do it myself, but judging by the amount of time & energy spent here on fighting it over, some do. Better go to the sources than trying to reinvent the wheel.
As to the list of articles: we should perhaps start by organising them according to some logic. My five cents: allowing for "some concessions to the more narrow biblical interest" may not just be prudent, but 100% needed. We're not acting in a void or ivory tower. Altogether, if a topic is of large interest, it deserves an article. The Near Eastern archaeology#Geographic subdivisions looks like a well-founded, very useful starting point. And it does separate northern from southern Levant!
General overview
"National" criteria
  • Archaeology of Israel; no Archaeology of Palestine because there is so little of it post-48 and post-67 outside what's being done by Israeli archaeologists. Which is a shame, but we're talking facts, not political correctness. The area covered by the "Archaeology of Israel" though is a tricky subject, as is anything I/P (think for instance Herod's winter palaces in Jericho). Archaeology of Syria: I know far too little about it, but how much has been done? I just know the French have been very active during their mandate and stayed on after that, with a huge focus on the "Frankish" castles.
  • Archaeology of Lebanon
Periodisation (archaeological and historical), and timelines
By periods & regions
By topic
Essential here: interlink the articles! Several of them I'm discovering here for the first time, and I'm using enWiki a lot. They could be very useful, but are hidden, not sufficiently linked. I'm afraid creating categories and using existing ones might not help much, they are hidden in the technical frame at the bottom of the page, I suppose many users don't look that far. "Main" tags and "see also" lists are more visible, along with in-text wikilinks. I'm against removing "main" tags and "see also" listings once in-text links are created, as the latter are also far less visible. Most users rush to the topic of interest, don't study the Wiki articles in detail.
On separating history from archaeology: only for the second tier. Archaeology is not an end in itself, it's just a means of reconstructing history. So no, IMHO. One should branch off large bits of archaeology from history articles into independent articles, but those are "just" serving the historical narrative. So in WP terms: history articles first, well linked to secondary archaeology articles.Arminden (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Archaeology is not an end in itself, it's just a means of reconstructing history." Many, many, many archaeologists will disagree with you here... ;) Zoeperkoe (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a heavy contributor (&if I recall right, original creator of it), I am very distressed to see this move, which has just created a duplicate of the many others above. Tiamuttalk 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it was originally titled Palestinian archaeology but because of challenges was moved to Syro-Palestinian archaeology, as it is a more common name (the region tenda to be studied together) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Levantine_archaeology&oldid=190699117 If its going to stay at this behemoth listing, I will recreate Palestinian archaeology. Tiamuttalk 16:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No definition for Syro-Palestine, Syria-Palestine

[edit]

These seem to be outdated terms used for the object of a branch of archaeology. From what I understand, it started as Biblical archaeology, was rebranded Syro-Palestinian archaeology aka archaeology of Syria-Palestine, and the latest PC fashion agreed on Levantine archaeology. Archaeology of Western (or Southwest) Asia is also stuck there in between. That is what seems to have happened, but we need a definition based on an Oxford dictionary or some other high-end RS. Now we have a redirect (Syro-Palestine) and throw around with the term, but no real explanation/definition, which is the supreme failure for an encyclopedia.

Who has access to the relevant Oxford dictionaries? Arminden (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's even worse than I thought. We have TWO different redirects:

Worst possible situation. To preempt any silly comments: Syro- and Syria- are 100% the same, whereas those two targets might or might not be the same. If they are, merge them or interlink them thoroughly; if they aren't, decide to which of the two S-P should redirect, 'but not to both!" Fuck PC. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Syria (region):
  • "The historic region of Syria [...], in modern literature called Greater Syria, Syria-Palestine, or the Levant"
And according to Levant:
  • "Today the term is often used in conjunction with prehistoric or ancient historical references. It has the same meaning as "Syria-Palestine" [...] Both the noun Levant and the adjective Levantine are now commonly used to describe the ancient and modern culture area formerly called Syro-Palestinian"
(By the way we also have Syria Palaestina)
One solution could be to merge Syria (region) and Levant. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9, hi. you were of course just technically wrong. This region is a minefield, with nationalists blocking most common-sense mergers. What we need to do then is not to confuse the user additionally, and interlink as much as possible, by all imaginable permutations of redirects and headnotes, the articles which are actually largely covering the same topic. As a first though, checking all that's already there is the only way to avoid such, I admit, unexpected conundrums. So good luck with the merger, but the two different redirects now are a killer.
Syria Palaestina is an ancient admin. province, that one doesn't trouble us.Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I don't understand: what was I wrong about? Also, could you please Wikipedia:Assume good faith and be nice?
The pages are already interlinked as the first sentence of Syria (region) points to Levant. And the second sentence of Levant points to Syria (region) ("In its narrowest sense, it is equivalent to the historical region of Syria ("greater Syria")"). A455bcd9 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry if I wasn't nice. I most certainly never doubted your good faith. I've sorted it out meanwhile, for me the main problem is solved, at least in its broadest terms (a dedicated space for the various quasy-synonyms would still be needed, as a note to self). The issue was: in a matter of very specific terminology, making edits in a field which is not one's specialty, just on the base of a logical deduction, can easily go wrong. Setting a redirect creates serious technical obstacles for future edits; removing a redirect is difficult, as it depends on others. Total good faith, of course, but the result was in the pudding, and that was
That in itself, why it can't be good, needs no further comments.
I readily admit, searching for Syria-Palestine before adding a redirect for Syro-Palestine (or was it the other way round? Doesn't matter.) might not be easily expected. Except if you come across both terms once every few weeks or days in your work. With all due respect, I haven't seen your name in this parts of enWiki, so...
Deductions of the type "A connects to B, B connects to C, so A connects (and must be redirected) to C" are prone to go wrong, unless one knows based on good sources that it's indeed the case – in actuality, not just because it seems logical. That's all. Sorry again for being too aggressive. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thanks for your answer and no worries at all :)
Syria-Palestine and Syro-Palestine now both redirect to Levant so all good, thanks for your edit!
By the way, I contributed a lot on Levantine Arabic—which is also called "Syro-Palestinian" by some scholars— and brought it GA status (now working on FA), even though I didn't contribute on the Levant and Greater Syria articles specifically.
Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9, thank you! Great, I wasn't aware of the linguistic aspect – would you care to add it to the article? I have added a section specifically on archaeology, maybe cuisine should also get its own section, but linguistics definitely deserve one! All I know is that in both Israel & Palestine, and in Jordan, there are areas or groups who create exceptions to the rule, i.e. speak dialects closer to the ones of Egypt and of the northern Hijaz, rather than following the rule of being part of a Syrian continuum. This of course connects to historical and ethnic aspects (Bedouin kinship, population movements - either through voluntary migration or through forced expulsion), so very interesting and relevant. Happy to see you around and learn from you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the "borders" between Arabic varieties aren't clear at all...
There's already a section Levant#Language, what do you think should be added?
By the way, your feedback is more than welcome on Wikipedia:Peer review/Levantine Arabic/archive2. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I had actually even read it. Editing in a hurry... Not good, sorry. Arminden (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of archaeological periods

[edit]

"The list below, from the Paleolithic Age to the Byzantine period, is drawn from the definitions provided by the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. For periods thereafter, the terminology and dates come from Sauer and Hoppe."

Giving exact years for such a large region is misleading. The various empires conquered different parts of the region at different points in time, sometimes decades or even centuries apart (see for instance the Assyrians). The Mercer Dictionary OF THE BIBLE concentrates on Palestine, not on Syria, which covers much more territory and is by no means less important, but is less in the focus of modern researchers. It's not helpful to pretend that "one size fits all". Arminden (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: What do you think of the table at List of archaeological periods (Levant)? Would it be better to just include that table in the article or does it also have problems? — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: As I said, the region is far to large to give such precise dates for the entirety of the concerned cultures. There are lots of different chronologies used by very serious authors. A table must necessarily be a simplification, unless you produce one with lots of columns, each for one chronology – but even there, the fact that even the periods as such and their names differ from author to author would make it almost useless (the most poignant example is the Intermediate Bronze Age clearly defined for Palestine, which is however totally ignored at List of archaeological periods (Levant), where it's mostly subsumed to Early Bronze Age IV and its beginnings to Early Bronze Age III). The most reasonable way to create chronologies is based on archaeological cultures contemporary to each other, which however a) don't necessarily share all the main characteristics, and b) are never fully synchronous over such a large territory. A fundamental innovation or the influx of a more developed group or technology reaches different areas at different moments in time, the communicating vessels principle can have some inertia.
Also, the way of subsuming a period to a larger one differs from school to school, for instance the Chalcolithic is regarded by some as separate from the Stone Age.
Concretely: that table seems to be compiled from two sources, one possibly valid for the Northern Levant, and the second for the Southern. Most of the Stone Age periods differ from, say, Negev & Gibson's (2001) dates for Palestine – a 5000-year difference for the Upper Paleolithic-Epipaleolithic limit is huge, equal to about half of the entire Epipaleolithic. From Iron Age to Modern, the dates seems copied & pasted from a Palestine chronology, which is ridiculous for Syria etc. (why should the Babylonian period start for the entire region with the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE? Or the Early Roman with Herod's ascension to the throne, and the Late one with the start of the Bar Kokhba revolt? And so forth). I'm not even talking of small differences (587 BCE seems to be the preferred date now; in WWI Jerusalem falls in 1917, but Damascus in 1918).
Probably the best would be to find a very recent, very reliable and widely accepted source for a Syrian chronology and to set it next to the one for Palestine, w/o making any attempt at combining them. Or a couple of such (again, for Syria only, apart from Palestine) and find how well they coincide and offer both sets of data next to each other. And update the Palestine dates a bit (the list is slightly dated).
I'm all for user-friendliness, so if the above suggestion is put into practice, I'd like to see the "List of archaeological periods (Levant)" left in place, and a maybe more concise version on this page as well (less clicking around for the user).
I know close to nothing about the archaeology of Syria, so I probably won't touch that topic. But somebody will have to do it, and others will have to see the result it's balanced, especially that modern politics don't influence the result too much :)
Jordan was part of Greater Syria for most of its past, but it's being quite intensely researched and it's interesting to compare the dates for both Syria and Palestine with those for Transjordan. I have two online addresses here, an official one archived in 2015, and a US MA thesis from 2010, quoting Donald S. Whitcomb of the Chicago U. (1992). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: Probably the best would be to find a very recent, very reliable and widely accepted source for a Syrian chronology and to set it next to the one for Palestine, w/o making any attempt at combining them. Or a couple of such (again, for Syria only, apart from Palestine) and find how well they coincide and offer both sets of data next to each other. And update the Palestine dates a bit (the list is slightly dated). I agree this would be helpful, but I'll admit I'm not an archaeologist, let alone one with expertise in this area. A strategy I've found useful for articles in linguistics is to look at edited volumes for guidance as these tend to survey the field and synthesize the literature in a way that would be helpful to us. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia wants to provide a broad overview of the field, and unlike journal articles which tend to focus on narrow reviews related to the specific topic, book chapters tend to be closer to tertiary sources by providing an overview and synthesis of multiple primary and secondary sources. Is there some kind of Handbook of Levantine Archaology with a chapter "Relative chronological evidence for archaeological periods in Syria and Palestine"? Wishful thinking, but it's an example of the kind of source I think we'd want. I'll do some digging, but if you know of any resources like that I'd be willing to check them out as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might be what you are looking for:
Akkermans, Peter M. M. G.; Schwartz, Glenn M. (2003), The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-79666-0
Best, Zoeperkoe (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly ethnicized section

[edit]

The section 'Practitioners' is frankly odd, grouping archaeologist variously by nationality, continent (European, North American) and in one case, race (Arab). Why is any of this important? The subject is a professional field of study. The ethnic identities of its practitioners is not core information. MOS:ETHNICITY encourages caution even when assigning ethnicity in biographies: here we have an entire field stratified by ethnicity. Not great. The material, i.e. the work of archaeologists, should be redistributed in the other sections of the page, categorized by the appropriate geography in which they worked. If there is a compelling reason why this shouldn't happen, I would love to hear it. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race no longer, since I've moved the part on 1960s archaeological schools into history. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Levantine_archaeology&oldid=1195713548"