Talk:Khirbet Kerak

Reversion
I reverted this. There are a number of reasons, a major one being that the name section is OR, since the sources are discussing the origins of the names of places situated within the tell and not the tell itself. Another reason is the conflation of Sennabris, Bet Yerah and Philoteria, which by my reading of the sources is incorrect. Please discuss these changes here should you desire to pursue them. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The tel is mostly the result of the settlements that existed there throughout history. I think the same physical settlement was called different names by different populations. The archaeological evidence does not show two towns.--Sreifa (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another thing ... Sreifa, you added this:

In Greek sources the name is transcribed as Sennabris''. The name stems from Sinn, the Mesopotamian moon god. During this period, like many ancient cities in the region, it was given a Greek name, Philoteria, by Ptolemy II Philadelphus for his sister, as indicated by remains dating to the Ptolemaic rule (3rd century BCE). ''


 * No sources are cited for its name coming from Sinn, the moon god.
 * The two sources cited for its being given the name Philoteria, when examined, are discussing Bet Yerah, the Hellenistic era settlement, and NOT Sennabris or Sinnabra.
 * Why?  T i a m u t talk 18:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My source for the name coming from Sin is a personal communication from the site's current excavator, Rafi Greenberg. I know you can't quote personal communication on WP, but in the academic world, it is an acceptable reference, and I think the information is pertinent.
 * As for the sources for Philoteria, it is because researchers treat the site as one site, with different occupational layers. You're looking at it from a different perspective. Khirbet Kerak (and its variations) might stem from Aramaic, but at some point the local Arab population also stopped using "Al-Sinnabra" and used the Kerak name, as indicated by Albright who used the name to publish a the Early Bronze age pottery that was first identified at this site.

I'm proposing a merger in order for us to get a wider perspective, although I'm not sure that there will be any consensus.--Sreifa (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but a personal communication is not an RS and Greenberg should publish this information if it is in fact true.
 * Researchers have not traditionally treated Sinnabra when discussing Khirbet Kerak. It is Beth Yerah that has been identified with Philoteria, according to the sources cited.
 * My understanding is that both Khirbet Sinn en-Nabrah and Kerak were in use contemporaneously by Arabs to refer to adjacent sites, as per this: "The PEF map depicts Khirbet Sinn en-Nabrah just northwest of the mound of Khirbet Kerak."  T i a m u t talk 07:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So the Qasr that is on the tel is not Al-Sinnabra? --Sreifa (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Al-Sinnabra be merged into Khirbet Kerak. I think that the content in the Al-Sinnabra article can easily be explained in the context of Khirbet Kerak, and the Khirbet Kerak article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Al-Sinnabra will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Breaking the article down into two periods of the same site, takes each article out of context. Sreifa (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose a merge. Al-Sinnabra is discussed as a place and the name of a palace independent of Khirbet Kerak (the name of the tell where it is situated). Until very recently, it was not known that al-Sinnabra was located on this tell, and multiple sources discussing the tell accordingly do not mention al-Sinnabra. There is room for two articles here and the sources support such a distinction.  T i a m u t talk 07:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Support merger in accordance with my overall belief that articles in Israel about the same place should be merged with few exceptions. There is no WP:SIZE issue here that we can't include all the content from al-Sinnabra here. However, the merger itself might prove difficult because they are two fairly large articles. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When al-Sinnabra was a village, it was never located in Israel. The archaeological tell containing its remains is currently in Israel, yes, but there is a distinction between the place known as al-Sinnabra and the tell that contains its remains, and the remains of other villages that predated it, existed contemporaneously and postdated it. There is room for more than one article here, and given that the sources cited discuss the tell and the village separately (for the most part), it is reasonable that we do the same.  T i a m u t talk 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction is fine, but an article about the site/tel, should include a comprehensive history. --Sreifa (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is comprehensive. It includes a summary subsection on Al-Sinnabra that discusses it in relation to the tell. The focus here would naturally be more archaeological, since it is archaeological sources that discuss tells, more so than historians. Historians like to take about places as they are mentioned in literature, and a more detailed history of Al-Sinnabra itself can be found in that article. I don't see why it should be merged here when most of the sources discussing Al-Sinnabra's history don't do it when discussing the tell of Khirbet Kerak.  T i a m u t talk 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. I don't see the point of the fork. It's the same site, and although the palace and tel are not synonymous, that doesn't justify separate articles. It's the nature of archaeological sites that they reveal growth and decline in different periods, sometimes they expand to cover a large area and sometimes they contract to a single structure. We shouldn't have a different articles for every unique habitation layer, as interesting as each may be, unless we're talking about a very significant site with a long and detailed history. Let's face it, Khirbet Kerak isn't exactly Eboracum. The two articles simply aren't large enough to justify separate articles. The fact that there are multiple sources discussing each separately is no justification either. Focusing on a single layer or period of habitation is rather run-of-the-mill archaeological practice. Poliocretes (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Al-Sinnabra's history was not discussed by archaeologists until this century because it location was unknown. Most of the sources discussing it are by historians or chroniclers. Its known history spans some 1500 years, which is significant enough for an article of its own. Its treated as a subject in isolation of the tell by the vast majority of sources. As such, it should have its own article. Perhaps as excavations continue and more material tying it to Khirbet Kerak emerges, a merge will be justified. For now, however, we should follow the existing scholarship.  T i a m u t talk 16:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Same reasons as few from above wrote. – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Tiamut. Until recently these were never treated as the same place, I don't think merging them makes sense at the moment. I'd claim we are looking at two different villages that while they intersected in place are so far removed in time and context to be different. Hobit (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one archaeological site. Things were excavated literally one on top of another. Until recently, nobody knew where AL-Sinnabra was. --Sreifa (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Eras
The article uses two different era systems, the BCE-CE system, and the christian system. The original system used is the christian system, so the first thing that should be done is to change all the BCE instances within the article over to the christian one. Personally, I prefer the BCE-CE system, and would recommend just switching to that, but there is inevitably going to be an drawn-out argument over that, but speedy consistency should be priority, and arguing to achieve consensus to switch to BCE-CE (if there will be such an argument) should take place only after. Anyone willing to change the "BCE"s over to the other one? (If it was from the christian to BCE-CE, I would do it, but I edit eras going the other direction, which is the situation here.) — al-Shimoni  (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khirbet Kerak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210111136/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/wl/digsites/CLevant/AlSinnabra_08/ to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/wl/digsites/CLevant/AlSinnabra_08/
 * Added tag to http://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/archeologie/tiberiade-identification-des-vestiges-dun-palais-omeyyade-197870

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khirbet Kerak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722064523/http://www1.tau.ac.il/pressoffice/english/index.php/press-releases/871-1532010%E2%80%8B to http://www1.tau.ac.il/pressoffice/english/index.php/press-releases/871-1532010%E2%80%8B

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Attempt at clarifying basic structure: relation between tell - B Yerah - Sinnabra
It seems that there is one tell, with two settlement sites which existed in parallel (twin towns) only during SOME periods. Can that be explicitely confirmed?

QUESTIONS: Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is the Early Islamic "dar" the same as the Umayyad "qasr"?
 * From what periods do we have mentions of the name "Bet Yerah"? The name is described as Canaanite; it is still used by the Palestinian Talmud - but referring to a still extant town, or to the by then already defunct Hellenistic Philoteria?
 * There's a brief mention of the reuse of the site during the Achaemenid period, but then that period is skipped and resettlement is mentioned only for the Hellenistic period - ?!