Talk:Hittin

Untitled
Kfar Hittaya in not a name in Latin or Greek form. What is the evidence for it being the Roman name? Mark O'Sullivan 8 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

It is no a name in Latin or Greek indeed. This is Aramaic. It's the Jewish name place during the Roman and Byzantine period. The term "roman name" is borrowed from the "Palestine remembered" site. Eranrabl 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Remark on edit: the page as it was borrowed heavily from the page at "Palestine remembered". As it was, I felt that the page was more dedicated to the dead village, rather than the living village that stood there up to 1948. However, my edit relies on Israeli/Jewish sources, and therefore give a very one sided view. A correction of that is needed. Eranrabl 08:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)eranrabl

Roots
Hi Huldra. I'm wondering if there is a source for the etymology of Hittin. I've been doing a little digging and have found mention of a site named Tel Qarnai-Hittin, a Canaanite city-state listed in the Amarna letters. I still have not found one that says the Arabic is derived from that or the Hebrew (as it currently says in the body). Anyway, I'll keep looking and if you know anything I should be aware of, do let me know.  T i a m u t talk 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I´ll add what Khalidi writes about it in a moment; the name probably went Canaanite -->Hebrew -->Arab. I just had a problem with the Burckhardt quote: I added it from Khalidi, but the Burckhardt book it now available on Gutenberg.org. So I checked in the "original"..and I just couldn´t find that Burckhardt wrote anything about Huttin. Certainly not at the page given (p.250) ...but that doesn´t mean much, as a book from 1822 would probably be available in many editions. Anyway, whenever I have checked Khalidis references earlier, they have always been correct. I guess it can be a printing-error somewhere? Oh well, I´ll add more from Khalidi ..and Morris. And I´m delighted that you have showed up here! Huldra (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that he has something about it because for now, we have no other sources attesting to the roots of the arabic name.
 * About Burckhardt, are you sure that you searched for the word with the right spelling? I noticed in the text, you wrote it Hutin, whereas here, you are writing Huttin. I often get frustrated when I do searches and find nothing only to discover a typo at the root of it. Also, you might check as to whether Khalidi respects the transliteration used by other authors, or changes the transliteration to be in line with the system he is using in his book (not uncommon actually). Anyway, I hope those suggestions help you to figure what the deal is. And I love editing with you too my dear.  T i a m u t talk 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I have read most of what he writes about his travels in the Tabor region (and it is a fascinating book; much recommended!) ..but I cannot see anything remotely close to "Hittin". Oh, well, I´ll keep adding Khalidi-stuff. Interestingly, Khalidi never seem to have checked travellers like Pococke  and Tristram......but then he didn´t  have internet and google-books.. The whole book ("All that remains") is overdue for an updated 2.edition: so many new sources are now available!  Huldra (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I wonder if Khalidi has mixed up Burckhardt with Robinson?? The exact information Khalidi attributes to  Burckhardt (but which I cannot find in  Burckhardt...)  ...I find in Robinson!! (and Khalidi doesn´t mention Robinsons visit at all) So he perhaps mixed them up?? Oh well, I have in any case added Robinson. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Burckhart mentions the locality of Hittin (with spelling Hottein) on p336, but not the village itself. The Jacotin map shows "Montague des Beatitudes" just to the south of the village (spelled Hattîn). Zerotalk 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC) And the village itself is on p319? Zerotalk 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, about Burckhardt, (1822): Travels in Syria and the Holy Land: p.250 you are probably correct in that it is the "Huttein" mentioned on p.319 and 336. However, I still cannot find the observation that it is "a small village, with houses of stone" ...so I still suspect that Khalidi has mixed it up with Robinson. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Zerotalk 14:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Druze relationship to Hittin
Could use some expansion. I found this source which explains that the Druze had asked the Israeli authorities to settle Druze soldiers who had fought in 1948 in Hittin, as a recompense for their loyalty. But no Druze were ever settled in the new village which remained exclusively for Jews. Anyway, I'll try to add something about this soon, but if I forget or anyone wants to do it themselves, the link to the book is above and it also gives more specific information about the holiness of site to the Druze as well.  T i a m u t talk 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone is interested in writing an article on the Nabi Shu'ayb shrine and festivities, more information can be found here:  T i a m u t talk 17:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'm gonna go ahead start that article tomorrow if no one else starts it. I'm enjoying the source you provided, I think could slightly expand my mother's home town of Kafr Yasif with it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. It does seem like an interesting topic. I'm pursuing other threads right now, but I'd love to pop in and take a look when you have got it started.  T i a m u t talk 00:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ref formatting
Does anyone mind if I change the ref formatting to a separate references and bibliography section? And if that's okay, would it also be okay to change to citation template referencing? Or do people working here prefer to continue without the coding?  T i a m u t talk 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead, Huldra (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Will do.  T i a m u t talk 00:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"Palestinians" template
A few points. First, templates used in articles generally should have a link to that article; that is not the case for Hittin. Second, if one wants to find out more about the Palestinians, there's a link to the Palestinian people article in the first line of this article, and that article features the template, as do some 68 other articles (many of them in similarly unnecessary fashion). Third, of course, it's just clutter: 90% of the articles linked in the temple are only vaguely related to Hittin, and those more closely related can be found without help from that obtrusive box. -- Biruitorul Talk 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another picture of Hittin?
Could someone else please look at this old postcard by Fadil Saba, Nazareth: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FadilSabaMountofBeatitudes.jpg On the back of the postcard someone has hand-written: "naer Hattin" (or something like it)

I am 90-100% sure that the village you see in the forefront is Hittin. Notice the minaret of the mosque, down to the left!..it is still standing. However, can someone else check? The picture is not in Khalidi or on the Pal.rem.-site. According to this site, Fadil Saba published his postcard-series in 1926, which would date the picture nicely. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This map without Palestinian State seems to be illegal
This map seems without Palestinian State seems to be illegal. Is there another, legal map which is not from Jewish Zionist imperialist government? Is this a "free" Encyclopaedia? It does not seem so.

Michael Palomino

Michael.palomino-at-gmx.ch (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no actually it's a map of the British Mandate of Palestine. Hittin doesn't exist today, so we're using the BMP map and its districts. Also you should keep your POV out of Wikipedia articles and their talk pages in the future, other editors might get offended. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oliphant
Haifa, or Life in Modern Palestine By Laurence Oliphant has lots. Zerotalk 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

1948-war
User:Gilabrand has twice now inserted (in the lead, no less!) the sentence. "In the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the village was conquered by Israeli troops without a fight." LOL! When Morris in "Causes of depopulation"  for Hattin lists as a cause:  "Military assault by Yishuv forces"?

Also, needless to say, what Gilabrand writes is not in accordance with what Morris, Khalidi or Nazzal writes. The most detailed explanations (used by both Morris and Khalidi) is in Nazzal. And briefly, the villagers fought until they had no more ammunition, then they fled. As one villager said (Nazzal, p. 85) "During the first Jewish attack, many of the villagers used up all the ammunition they had....we were too poor to replace our bullets....We retreated to the village and with a few remaining villagers, we fled north."

I am going to take this falsehood out. And before Gilabrand insert it again, will she just please explain: how do you get a military assault   -"without a fight"? Huldra (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For starters, it would be good if you toned down your aggressiveness. Your comments on every page that we edit together are exceedingly rude. If you do not understand where the sentence is coming from, please read Morris and the other sources more carefully. The lead sums up the material in the body of the article, and this is precisely what it says in the article, cited to Morris.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And for another starter, it would be good if you answered the question. In short: there was fighting, until the villagers ran out of ammo. How do you translate that into "without a fight" in the lead? The lead is supposed to "sum up" the result, you cannot cherry-pick the result from one day (the last, when they were out of ammo) and say that  this represents the whole. I though this was fairly obvious?   Huldra (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Archaeology
Horns of Hattin has material relating to the hill, and specially the hilltop. This art. here on the other hand, is vague on WHERE the archaeological findings were made (hilltop? Foot of hill? Village lands in the plain?), making it impossible to correlate with that other article.

This goes hand in hand with the usual problem: Which settlement existed when? Was habitation discontinued? Problem concept: "continuity" - ideological, not academic.

The Canaanite fortress at the top of the hill probably had nothing in common with the Jewish Kfar Hittin, and the Arab village might have had nothing to do with Kfar Hittin. Different periods, possibly different locations around the hill, as well.

Making pre-48 Arab villages the "prime topic", with a monopoly on history and archaeology of a diverse and wide site or area, is IMO more often than not strongly ideology-driven, or activistic, and necessarily leads to confusions & mistakes by conflating what should be kept apart. Carefully linked, but apart. Arminden (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The findings sourced to Getzov were on the hillside at the same elevation as the village, about 250m west of the village built up area. Both are quite far down the slope from the summit. Maps show the village cemetery there. Your argument can easily be played back you. Why should an ancient settlement about which only a few fragments of information are known take precedence over a village that existed for many centuries about which we know a great deal? You know why some think the ancient village is more important, and you know this is "ideology-driven" in your words. You could be more balanced in your comments. Zerotalk 02:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)