Talk:Abu Zurayq

DYK

 * this actually fulfils the DYK-criteria at the moment, shall we go for it? Huldra (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm going to add some stuff from Khalidi first, then nominate it. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. I assume you know that the Pal.rem. site has made all its pictures available to commons? You just give  under "license", Huldra (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, when did that happen? That's great news for all the articles on Palestinian villages, former and still existent. I'll see if they have any decent ones for Abu Zurayq and upload them. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I´m not quite sure when it happened, I became aware of it earlier this year. Yeah; it is great news, I´ve been uploading a lot of the Gaza-villages to commons. We have to be a bit careful, though. Not all uploaded to the different villages is accurate. This was uploaded to Yasur, Gaza, but is actually  closer to Al-Jura, ....and several of the pictures in Welcome To al-Ja'una are actually old buildings from Rosh Pinna, etc. Proceed with caution! Huldra (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the picture here, from Pal.rem, is the same as the one Zochrot use. Which I would say makes it pretty safe. However, this picture is much, much nicer... except I don´t understand the Arabic exchange? Khalidi, unfortunately, does not have a picture of Abu Zurayq, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yea the images for this village raise some questions for me. The one by Zochrot may have been uploaded to the PR site, but I don't think it was uploaded by Zochrot itself which makes me leery of its status as a public image. As for the black and white photo, it's definitely a good one but it seems to contradict the Village Files account in Benvenisti which says the mosque had no dome or minaret. That was written in 1943, however, and it's possible a minaret was added before 1948. There's no year for the image which is also problematic, but it says "before 1948" so it'll be fine to upload it. Let's try and find out any other info on the mosque in the next 1-2 days. If we can't find anything about a minaret/dome, I'll just nominate it without a picture. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also just requested for permission to use this photo which is the best quality picture of Abu Zurayq's ruins that I've seen so far. I will wait for a response from the author. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I received permission for using the picture from its author, all that's pending is a formal submission to OTRS. Hopefully, it comes today or tomorrow morning. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I thought also that this picture, with people, seem to be from some outing, (possibly arranged by BADIL? I know they have arranged several outings to 48-villages). Iow; I think is is safe to say that it is from the village, too. As for the black and white photo, note that Salah Mansour (who, I believe, runs the web site) thanks the uploader for it. Perhaps he knows more? Huldra (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I´ve uploaded some pictures, Huldra (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

mistakes
1. In 1878 the village was listed as a spring instead of a populated place because it wasn't a village (and There is a spring (Hebrew עין זריק) by the village). According to Ariel encyclopedia by zev vilnay, the village was founded during the British mandate in Palestine. 2. The tell is some Kilometers south to the village and it is called Tel Zurayq (Hebrew- תל זריק). --אור שחודה (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tell Abu Zureiq appears on British maps immediately adjacent to the village on the north-east side. Zerotalk 12:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the mistake is? The main source used is the Village Files, a record of the village taken by Zionist military intelligence prior to 1948. It says the first houses were built following WWI (i.e. during the British Mandate). The article says there was no settled village in 1878, only a spring. So where are the mistakes? --Al Ameer (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

1931 census
I have wondered why there is no entry for Abu Zurayq in the 1931 census despite a large population mentioned in 1922 and 1938. I propose a solution; what do you think? In File:16-22-Megiddo-1932.jpg (upper left) the village is shown as Abu Zureiq but the village lands are shown as "Abu Zureiq (Et Tawatiha)". In the 1931 census, there is an entry for Et Tawatiha on page 97. It has the right sub-district (Haifa) and consistent population (361 Muslims). I also see that there is a connection between Zureiq and Tawatiha mentioned in Kushner, David: "The Turcomans in Palestine during the Ottoman Period." International Journal of Turkish Studies vol 11, nos. 1–2 (Fall 2005), 81–94. I don't have immediate access to that (do you?), but I'll order it. I also see "Tawatha — Abu Zreik" in a list of tribes in the Palestine Gazette of 16 May 1926. It seems to be tribe name — location name. Zerotalk 06:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Zero0000 Nice find. I think this is pretty clear; the Village files (which are cited in Benvenisti) also refer to the 1922 census, where they are listed under "tribal area" as "Al Tawatha", see Barron, p. 34. Huldra (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the -31 numbers, Huldra (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead
The lead of this article used to be something like this:


 * "Abu Zurayq (also spelled Abu Zureiq or Abu Zreiq) was a Palestinian Turkmen village in the Haifa Subdistrict of Mandatory Palestine, situated near Wadi Abu Zurayq. It was depopulated on April 12–13 during and after the Battle of Mishmar HaEmek of the 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine."

Then in 2020, it was changed to something like the present:


 * "Abu Zurayq is an archaeological site named after the modern village that existed there, located on the western edge of the Jezreel Valley and its transition to the Menashe Heights. It is located next to Highway 66, between the modern kibbutzim of HaZore'a and Mishmar HaEmek."

This change was done, AFAIK, without any discussion; and I am not sure everyone agrees with that. Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey . Back in March 2020 I've expanded the article and doubled its size with archaeological information as this site's (settled) history goes back eight thousand years. The reason I've changed the lead was that the main scope of the article now is the archaeological record and not the most recent phase of the site as a Turkmen village. Back at that time I didn't really have access to all the information needed so the article is missing information on periods later than the Bronze Age. Most of it as far as I know wasn't published and excavation wasn't conducted on the mound itself.
 * Let me propose how to approach this matter. First I see no reason to have this article split into one on the archaeological site and one on the modern village (like the case of Abel-beth-maachah and Abil al-Qamh. The scope of the aritlce, as I see it, is a record of human activity in the site from paleolithic times to today, including the 50~ years it was a Turkmen village.
 * I'll propose a new phrasing: "Abu Zurayq is an archaeological site, named after a Palestinian Turkmen village that existed there until 1948. The site is located on the western edge of the Jezreel Valley and its transition to the Menashe Heights, next to Highway 66 and between the modern kibbutzim of HaZore'a and Mishmar HaEmek." The rest of the information about the modern village is already written in the next paragraphs of the lead.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It now came to my mind that there's no sense to say it is named after a village, since the name "Abu Zariq" or "Zariq" predates the village. Therefore I change the phrasing currently to: "Abu Zurayq is an archaeological site on the western edge of the Jezreel Valley and its transition to the Menashe Heights, next to Highway 66 and between the modern kibbutzim of HaZore'a and Mishmar HaEmek." and later in the paragraph I'll add the information from Benvenisti about the origin of the name.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this article should be split in two; presently there is nothing between the Bronze age and the late Ottoman era; it seems a bit absurd, me thinks? Huldra (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is more absurd to me to split two histories of the same place. If this was a case of a Medieval castle with a Lower Paleolithic cave underneath that's something else. But we are talking essentially about a continueous human settlement from Neolithic times to 1948 (as suggested by the pottery collected from the surface). It is the same location with roughly the same geographic setting. The article does need more work, which I don't know if I'll have the time to do, but splitting it is not going to do any good in my view.
 * These are the periods represented in the Tell: 	Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age I, Early Bronze Age II, Early Bronze Age III, Middle Bronze Age I, Middle Bronze Age II, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I, Iron Age II, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Early Arab, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman
 * These are the periods represented in the location of the village: Chalcolithic, Iron Age III, Roman, Ottoman
 * And south of the tell there's a site with Neolithic and Palaeolothic finds.
 * I'll try to get a hold on the survey data today.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick update, I found in the library to original publication from 1973 about the excavations in the nearby Hazorea site and it containes a chapter of 20ish pages about the survey conducted in Abu Zureik. Sadly it couldn't be borrowoed so I had no time to expand the article or to photograph the pages. The survey concluded that the entire area from the slope (the location of the Turkmen village) towards the tell and south of that is abundant with Chalcolithic finds, while there is a small agglomeration of palaeolithic tools south of the tell (which is common in the western fringe of the Jezreel Valley) and the tell itself contains finds from the Bronze and Iron ages. Therefore, this location has virtually always attracted humans. In Chalcolithic times the settlement probably had ephemeral nature and moved through the years in this general area (my own commentary, not to be added to the article), then in the Bronze age a more permanent settlement was established in the valley area, which probably had a fortification of some sort, which remained the center of the settlement trough the Iron Age and possibly later, based on later survey data. Remains of human activity are recorded throughout all of the next periods and it makes sense since this site is a spring located on an important trade route.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tell Zeriq and Abu Zuraiq: same, or 2 different sites?
See Talk:Ein el-Jarba. Pls clarify there and amend here if needed. Arminden (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced periods
I removed from infobox the periods not mentioned in the archaeology & modern history sections. If sources offered, to be put back in.

Iron Age, Persian period, Hellenistic period, Roman period, Byzantine period, Early Arab period, Crusader period, Mamluk period. Arminden (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently a CLUSTER of sites
Explanation for apparent contradiction (either just Neol., Chalc., and Bronze Age, or cont. habitation Neol.-Ottoman!), and variety of site names: cluster of sites around water sources (spring, stream, at some point a well). NOT a single site.

The tell is probably one major site. The area directly next to the spring another.

That is why serious articles deal with them separately (see via link at "Tell Zeriq and Abu Zuraiq: same, or 2 different sites?" above).

We must keep them apart!
 * Neol., Chalc., and Bronze Age site, main interest apparently: Chalc. Wadi Rabah stratum.
 * Other sites. Cover (probably only if taken together) all periods betw. Iron Age-Ottoman period.
 * Arab Turkmen 20th-century village.

One page might well be enough for all, but not as one amorphous goulash. Water usually attracts settlers, even if less so when leading to swamps & malaria, but continuity of habitation is usually illusorious and an ideological, agenda-driven concept. Arminden (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)