Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Adullam

Merge

Merge with Cave of Adullam? --Sreifa (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Shale

Can we add a section on the oil shale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.188.248.67 (talk) 09:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adullam. 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:

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

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be split in two?

Adulam 1880
Adulam 1880

..one for Biblical Adullam, and one for `Ayn al-Mayyā/Khirbet A'id el-Miah/Aīd el Mâ?

I am asking, as other places have been suggested for being Biblical Adullam, including a place by Tuqu'.

This reminds me of Emmaus.....another Biblical place which has "moved around" a bit.

Comments? Huldra (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of WP:RS (reliable sources) have long disregarded the lone source which suggested that Tuqu' should be identified as the site of Adullam, preferring rather the site known as "Aid el-Miah." Modern archaeologists, historical geographers and cartographers are NOT divided about the identification, placing the biblical "Adullam" (Heb. עדולם) where the site of Aid el-Miah is now located. Their identification is confirmed by a host of early explorers: Guérin, Conder & Kitchener, Clermont-Ganneau, Thomsen (Loca Sancta, Hildesheim 1966, p. 15), etc. The article is fine, as it presently stands.Davidbena (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, traditionally the Cave of Adullam was (and is) seen outside Tuqu', in the Bethlehem Governorate, see the two pictures to the right. And the commons cat for this place is a big mess, as it has both pictures of the place by Tuqu', and this place, Huldra (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing "traditional" about that. That was an opinion or "belief" that has, in our day and age, been outright rejected.Davidbena (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, traditionally, Cave of Adullam is supposed to be quite large, isn't it? Is there any such large cave here? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even a cursory review of Clermont-Ganneau's book and his visit in Aid el-Miah will show you the number of caves that exist there. Besides, Eusebius' description of Adullam being "a very large village about ten [Roman] miles east of Eleutheropolis" rules out Tuqu', which has rather been identified as the biblical Teqoa.Davidbena (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, obviously though, many people in the 1800 took the Tuqu cave as the Cave of Adullam ..hence the pictures. I guess we have to start an article on that cave, too... or expand the Cave of Adullam to be about both places, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely why Wikipedia requires WP:RS. Pictures (drawings) are no proof. The consensus is that Tuqu' is the biblical Teqoa, rather than Adullam. I see no reason to write an article about a cave. The cave is secondary to the place.Davidbena (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is very easy to find sources from the 1800 which says that cave by the Tuqu village was known Cave of Adullam..the source for the pictures is one, Robinson, 1841, II is another. (Though Robinson didn't believe it was the real cave, he nonetheless reported that it was known under that name), Huldra (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this article does not deal specifically with a cave, but about a biblical location and which, incidentally, has in it a large cave (or several). And, yes, there was an early view about a certain "Adulam cave" being near Tuqu', but which view (as per name) has been rejected by all modern historical geographers, archaeologists and cartographers.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robinson, 1841, II, p. 175 reported that the Tuqu cave had been know as Cave of Adullam since at least back to the Crusader era. So that is nearly a millennium of history. I am not sure how we should clean this up...with one article on both caves....or what, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Crusaders were not archaeologists, nor historical geographers. In fact, they made many flagrant errors. They erroneously thought that the tower built by King Herod the Great in memory of his slain brother, Phasael (hence: Phasael's Tower) was David's Citadel! What a blunder! Here, no doubt the same. Claude R. Conder, in Tent Work in Palestine (pub. Richard Bentley and Son: London 1878, p. 276), wrote: "The term Shephelah is used in the Talmud to mean the low hills of soft limestone, which, as already explained, form a distinct district between the plain and the watershed mountains. The name Sifla, or Shephelah, still exists in four or five places within the region round Beit Jibrîn, and we can therefore have no doubt as to the position of that district, in which Adullam is to be sought. M. Clermont Ganneau was the fortunate explorer who first recovered the name, and I was delighted to find that Corporal Brophy had also collected it from half a dozen different people, without knowing that there was any special importance attaching to it. The title being thus recovered, without any leading question having been asked, I set out to examine the site, the position of which agrees almost exactly with the distance given by Jerome, between Eleutheropolis and Adullam—ten Roman miles." (END QUOTE).Davidbena (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article entitled Cave of Adullam, you may wish to add there the divergent opinions, based on modern-day consensus.Davidbena (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I agree with you that the Crusaders were not archaeologists, nor historical geographers!! (But may I remind you of of:Lifta#Should_we_have_"it_is_located_on_the_spot_of_the_Tanachic_village_"Nephtoah""_...in_the_lead?, where you argued to have a Crusader identification in the lead??)
But my point is, that for a very long time, (at least from the Crusader era, into the 1800s) the cave by Tuqu was considered to be the Cave of Adullam....and that should be mentioned somewhere. I have no great preference for any special way.
A suggestion: what about dividing Cave of Adullam into three parts: 1st, a part of the Biblical texts, 2nd, a part about the cave by Tuqu, 3rd, the part about the caves here at Adullam. What do you think? Huldra (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Huldra, Please start a new section on the Talk-Page of the article Cave of Adullam. There we'll discuss the related issues. In this article, the consensus stands. As for the article Lifta, the place is recognized by all leading historical geographers here, in Israel, and abroad, as being the biblical Nephtoah. Most of the old place names in Israel are Arabised words with ancient Semitic roots that were preserved by the local indigenous population, facilitating their identification with biblical sites.[1][2][3] Be well.

References

  1. ^ Cheyne, Thomas Kelly; Black, John Sutherland (1902), Encyclopædia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political and Religious History, the Archæology, Geography, and Natural History of the Bible, Macmillan Company, p. 3318
  2. ^ Miller, James Maxwell; Hayes, John Haralson (1986), History of Ancient Israel and Judah, Westminster John Knox Press, p. 29
  3. ^ Benvenisti, Meron; Kaufman-Lacusta, Maxine (2000), Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0-520-21154-4, p. 16

Davidbena (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there has been an abundance of more or less educated guesses as to where certain Biblical places were located, leading to absurdities like at Shuafat, which is no less than 3 Biblical places, apparently. Frankly, I put more faith in archeology, than in Biblical stories, or any "educated guess". Huldra (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here, our job is to rely on reliable sources. Where the matter is equally disputed, we can bring down both opinions. Please start the discussion on the other Talk-Page, and "ping" me.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern-day sources

There are ample books available in libraries on the concurring view of nearly all historical geographies and archaeologists, besides cartographers, that `Eid el-Miah (alias Ḫirbet eš-Šēḫ Madkūr) is to be identified as the biblical Adullam. You may wish to see the German study on this subject, published online here, and where they write (translated into English):

"The largely accepted localization of the place on Ḫirbet eš-Šēḫ Madkūr corresponds to the Old Testament information on Adullam's locality, as the place is located about 5 km southeast of Socho, and thus recognizable east of the line on which, from south to north, Maresha, Libna , Socho and Jarmut are lining up. Surface finds on Ḫirbet eš-Šēḫ Madkūr indicate a settlement in the Iron Age II. The equation with Adullam is supported by the Ḫirbet eš-Šēḫ Madkūr adjacent ruin site Ḫirbet 'Īd el-Mā` (1504.1180), where the Old Testament name form has been preserved."

C.R. Conder has, likewise, written about Adullam in the PEF Quarterly statement of 1875, p. 145, where we find the following:

"The site of Adullam — perhaps primary interest in our work from this camp is that of the royal city of Adullam, with the cave or 'hold' so famous in the history of David, in the identification of which I am happy to say our work entirely confirms the previous discovery due to M. Ganneau. The traditional site of Adullam is east of Bethlehem in Wady Khŭreitûn— an extraordinary cavern with long winding passages. The general identification of later times has, however, been with Deir Dubban, 'The Convent of Flies', apparently because no name which approached more closely in the district in which Adullam was known to lie could be found, and because a cavern similar to those just described, is here to be found on the west side of the village. In a report from Beit 'Atab (Quarterly Statement, January, 1875, p. 19) I described the cavern of Umm el Tuweimin under the impression that this was the spot M. Ganneau had supposed identical with Adullam, but this mistake he afterwards pointed out to me and gave me indications of the whereabouts of the true site.
There is no reason to suppose that the cave of Adullam was a site separate from the royal city of that name. Josephus says that David, escaping from Gath, 'came to the tribe of Judah, and abode in a cave by the city of Adullam" (Ant. vi. 12. 3). Thence he sent to his family in Bethlehem, and here he first collected to him 'every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented' (1 Sam. xxii. 2).
The site of the city itself appears to be very ancient. The patriarch Judah is mentioned as going clown (from the hill country it would seem to the Shephelah) to visit his friend Hirah the Adullamite. It appears in the list of royal cities taken by Joshua (Joshua xii. 15), between Libnah and Makkedah. It is again mentioned (Joshua xv. 35) in the list of fourteen cities of the Shephelah, and its name here appears between those of Jarmuth (Yarmuk) and the northern Socoh (Shuweikeh). That it was a site of natural strength we infer from the expression "the hold," which is used in reference to David's retreat, in or close to it (1 Sam. xxii. 5), and also from its being fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 7), as mentioned in the list of his fortresses, the name occurring between Socoh and Gath. In this list, however, the order of occurrence throughout seems of little value. A further indication of position occurs in the notice in Micah i. 15, where it is named with Achzib and Mareshah. The requisites for the site of Adullam are therefore as follows:
1st. That it be in the Shephelah or low hills.
2nd. In the neighbourhood of Jarmuth and Socoh.
3rd. At no great distance from the district of Mareshah and the northern towns of the Libnah district.
4th. Probably between Gath and Bethlehem.
5th. That it be a strong natural site.
6th. That it be an ancient site of importance with rock-cut tombs, good water supply, ancient and main roads and communications from different sides.
7th. That it contain one or more habitable caves.
8th. That the modern name contain the important letters of the Hebrew, especially the `Ain. The fact that this town whilst in one district is yet mentioned in connection with the northern towns of the district immediately south of it, is in itself a very important indication, and would fix Adullam as towards the south part of the district to which it belongs.
The requirements are, it will be seen, fully met in every particular by the site I am about to describe. Upon Murray's new map it will be seen that a great valley separates the Shephelah from the high hills, and runs first north-west, then north, from the watershed near Hebron to the neighbourhood of Socoh or Shuweikeh ; it then turns west and runs near Tell el Safieh, and so into the sea, north of Ashdod. The first part to Socoh is called Wady Sur, afterwards it becomes Wady Sumt, the probable Valley of Elah." (END QUOTE).Davidbena (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered this web-page, showing a modern topographical map of cities, towns and villages in Israel, along with the archaeological sites found in the country, the Khirbehs (old ruins), etc. Adullam is listed on the map, in the place where once stood the village `Eid el-Mieh. See here.Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: Amud Anan has been a map option on Wikipedia for years. You can always select it when you click on a coordinates link. As for this place, I'm not sure what you are looking at exactly. Material printed on the map has a good case for reliability, but the little blue circles and the text they bring up is not usable because it is user-contributed. Anyone can become a member of Amud Anan and add little blue circles of their own. However, from time to time I find information in those pop-ups that can be verified in reliable places. Zerotalk 01:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I find the map very helpful, although perhaps difficult for non-Hebrew speakers. The reason for my posting the link is its accessibility. As it clearly shows Adullam (עדולם) where `Eid el-Mieh formerly stood, that was my main intention for sharing the link. Mostly, however, I possess and make use of my own 2006 topographical touring map, published by הוועדה לשבילי ישראל = The Committee for the Paths of Israel, and which shows Adullam (the former `Eid el-Mieh) marked in its place. Today, I scanned the map showing the site of Adullam and will try and post it later. I also scanned a 1958 map which places Adullam in the same location.Davidbena (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: One of Israel's most respected researchers on historical geography, Yoel Elitzur, recently published a book entitled Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land - Preservation and History (pub. Jerusalem / Winona Lake, Indiana (USA) 2004 ISBN 1-57506-071-X, where he mentions on p. 137 the site of Adullam being identical with the site Khirbet A'ïd el-Miah. In terms of administrative districts here, in Israel, all of the nearby Israeli kibbutzim and moshavim are denoted as being in Ḥevel Adullam (the Adullam region), a place adjacent to Ḥevel Lachish.Davidbena (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link of my own 2006 topographical Touring Map, showing in the center Adullam: File:Adullam_in_2006_Israeli_Touring_Map.jpg. (Enlarge image, as needed). The Israeli moshav, Aderet, is seen nearby. A little northwards of the site is the moshav, Neve Michael.Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright gnomes will delete that soon, but I took a copy. I have another source (A. F. Rainey, The Biblical Shephelah of Judah, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 251 (Summer, 1983), pp. 1-22) which identifies Adullam with Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur. As you know, that is very close to Khirbet A'ïd el-Miah but not the same as it. On your map, Khirbet A'ïd el-Miah (also spelt Minya) is the little circle of dots labeled H. Adullam, while Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur is marked south of the red urn. So this appears to be a slight disagreement. If you want to see the surrounds in great detail, go here, click on "+" in the lower middle, select map 15-11, go to location 150/118. It loads very slowly so patience is required. Zerotalk 08:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Zero, for the better source. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that Khirbet A'ïd el-Miah and Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur are not the same. This is clear in the SWP map of the late 19th-century. The two sites are adjacent to one another; one on the hilltop, the other in the valley. Guérin thought that they were originally one and the same site, which is contestable. I took photographs of both sites. The caves, of course, are on the hilltop, known as Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur. I will take a look at the links that you provided. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: Look here; it is the only detailed excavation of the site as far as I know. Reading carefully, it appears to say that Khirbat esh-Sheikh Madkur is identified with Adullam, while Kh. ‘Id el-Minya (Kh. ‘Id el-Miya) is just "near". I think this represents the best of present knowledge. Overall the identification strikes me as one of the weakest (no surviving local names, just a place of the right age matching a very vague ancient description). Zerotalk 00:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the evidence suggesting that this site is to be identified with Adullam is the best evidence that we have got of any other site, anywhere, in all of Israel. It meets several key qualifications, such as the distance described by Eusebius, as well as its similarity in name, and as historical geographers (such as Samuel Klein, Michael Avi-Yonah, Yoel Elitzur, Zeev Safrai, Yehuda Dagan, and others) attest that in Arabic nomenclature when preserving the names of ancient biblical sites, often times the names have been corrupted over the years. See Place names of Palestine. The tell was identified as Tel ‘Adullam due to its location in the Judean Shefelah, near Kh. ‘Id el-Minya (Kh. ‘Id el-Miya) and the ceramic finds it yielded (Clermont-Ganneau 1875; Conder and Kitchener 1883:354; Albright 1924; Kallai 1972; Aharoni 1989). Their conclusion is, today, the accepted scholarly conclusion. BTW: The two sites actually touch each other; one is on the hilltop, one is at the bottom of the SAME hill. When David is alleged to have hidden in a cave at that site, it is sufficient, in my opinion, that he hid in a cave closest to the town of Adullam, and which hill belonged to the same town.Davidbena (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is plain that they (those whose report appears in the detailed IAA overview of the site) have adopted the view of Victor Guérin, who held the two places to be one and the same site.Davidbena (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Infobox with map and coordinates

User:Huldra, Hi. I hope that all is well with you. If you will be so kind as to give me the coordinates of Khirbet 'Aid al-Mia, I'll put this information in an Infobox and map. It just now occurred to me that all this information is missing in this article. Kh. 'Aid el-Ma appears in the top left corner of SWP map number 21, shown here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidbena I get palgrid= 148/118, 31°39′40″N 34°58′40″E, approximately, (And we still need to collect the sources for that Tuqu cave.....) cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Huldra. Once we have collected the sources, we can add a separate sub-section on alternative views.Davidbena (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toledano

Firstly, presently we have in the article a ref to:

..I don't know what the ref to 75 means, as that article goes from pages 279 to 319, ie correct ref is:

Secondly, there is no ref to A'ïd el-Miah (Arabic: عيد الميا) in Toledano, but there is a ref to "'Id al-Miya", on page 303. Location is given as 34°59′45″E 31°39′20″N.

Thirdly, regarding: "The number of fiscal unit in the daftar, corresponding to the map, is "P-17"":

the letters in Hütteroth and Abdulfattah refers to who got the revenue, where P refers to padisah (and "M" for mir liwa, and "Z" for zama and timar groups, see Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, p. 20) Ie, AFAIK, the revenue of this place went straight to the Sultan. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Huldra. I just now came across this video. Have you seen it? David Flees to the Cave of Adullam. Hopefully, I'll be adding more photossoon. Still haven't forgotten your request. When I'm in Jerusalem's Old City, I'll make an effort to photograph your requested site.Davidbena (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

I noticed that the coordinates given on this page are quite different from the coordinates given in the Hebrew wiki. Here is a summary of what I can find about the locations mentioned.

Pal grid Lat, Long SWP 1940s maps 1960s maps Amudanan
1503/1175 31°39′0″, 35°0′9″ Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur
1504/1181 31°39′19″, 35°0′14″ Kh. 'Aid el Ma Kh. Id el Minya Hurvat Addulam Hurvat Addulam
1476/1173 31°38′54″, 34°58′25″ Umm Suweid Kh. Umm es Suwweid Hurvat Shua Hurvat Itri
1471/1159 31°38′8″, 34°58′9″ Umm Burj Kh. Umm Burj Hurvat Borgyn Hurvat Borgyn
1479/1209 31°40′51″, 34°58′37″ Kh. 'Abbad & Kh. Shuweikeh Kh. 'Abbad & Kh. Shuweika Hurvat Sokho Hurvat Sokho

To editor Huldra: To editor Davidbena: Taking the first one as the primary location, it is not clear why the last three are present. They range from 2.7km to 4.2km away and have their own articles, as does the nature park. Zerotalk 12:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is the identification of Adullam. The best modern summary we have identifies it with Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur, not with Kh. ‘Id el-Minya. This can cause confusion, since Kh. ‘Id el-Minya is marked as Hurvat Adullam on Israeli maps. However, the source says that Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur is Tel Adullam (not Hurvat Adullam) and the elevation given matches Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur and not Kh. ‘Id el-Minya. This appears to be an example where the Israeli name-changers selected the wrong place to bear the ancient name. Zerotalk 12:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, when it comes to coordinates, you're the expert. As for the two sites that you mentioned, Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur and Kh. ‘Id el-Minya, the traditional site of Adullam was at Kh. ‘Id el-Minya. Victor Guérin thought that, because of the proximity of the two sites, that they were one and the same place (!) --- i.e. Adullam (the upper) and Adullam (the lower). This opinion has been accepted by nearly all historical geographers. In modern Israeli maps, the site known as Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur (being the upper site) is marked as "The Ruin of Adullam" = חרבת עדולם‎. However, the lower site is actually Kh. ‘Id el-Minya (also known as "Khurbet 'Aid al-Miah"), and, as noted, is the traditional place whence archaeologists and historical geographers recognize the old name of Adullam. Hope this was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a total mess, and so is the Cave of Adullam article. (The Cave of Adullam article doen't even mention where the cave was supposed to be, namely on the West Bank).) For a start: this article treats the Bible as if it is a RS wrt history (eg. "King David sought refuge in Adullam after being expelled from the city of Gath by King Achish". Ugh)
"Modern-day archaeologists have rejected these early hypotheses" ...is referenced to Conder, 1875(!)
Davidbena: you still haven't claned up your Toldano ref.
Zero: your Kh. 'Aid el Ma/Kh. Id el Minya is a few hundred meters away from the numbers Toledano gives for "'Id al-Miya"?
I checked and I believe Toledano's coords are wrong. There is nothing at his location on either the 1940s or 1960s maps. On this map you can see Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur at 1503/1175 and Kh. Id el Minya at 1504/1181. Toledano's location is on the next map to the left, at 1497/1181. Zerotalk 05:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need several parts in this article:
A. about the Biblical story
B. about first identification: main: Cave of Adullam
B. about second identification: Kh. 'Aid el Ma/Kh. Id el Minya
C. about third identification: Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur/Kh. esh Sh. Madh-kur
....and then a link to Adullam Grove Nature Reserve, Huldra (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra:, the old identification of the Cave of Adullam has been rejected by modern archaeologists and historical geographers. 98% now say that the Adullam of the Bible is where it is marked at Kh. Aid al-Miah and its adjacent site. As for the other minor (antiquated) locations, there is a place to add this information in the article, but it should not be represented as consensus (since it has no consensus), but is rather a fringe view.Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post Script: I would rather see this article broken down into two parts: a) Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur and b) Kh. ‘Id el-Minya (also known as ‘Eid el-Miah). In this way, we distance ourselves from any potential "erroneous" designation of Adullam. We can just say that Guérin holds them to be the same ancient site of Adullam, without committing ourselves to his identification.Davidbena (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should just A. tell the Biblical story B. list the various localities which have been suggested for the site of Adullam, bearing in mind that it is possible the place never existed (ie it is all fiction). And I think you are wrong wrt "98% now say that the Adullam of the Bible is where it is marked at Kh. Aid al-Miah" ...when Khirbat esh-Sheikh Madkur (west) say it is Khirbat esh-Sheikh Madkur, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you suggest also sounds good to me. As for whether the majority of scholarly opinions holds the one site over the other as the biblical Adullam, I think that we can collect all the data in question, post it to this Talk-Page, and make a simple comparison. From my research on this subject, modern-day scholars hold Adullam at the two sites (Kh. Aid al-Miah / Khirbat esh-Sheikh Madkur) now described in this article, and just as Guérin surmised.Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few reasonably modern reference sources (such as Tsafrir and Dauphin) give Kh. 'Id el Minya as the site of Adullam, and historically the alleged similarity of the names was the main reason Clermont-Ganneau (not Guérin, who does not make this identification) chose this place. Some more recent and archaeologically-minded sources such as the 2017 excavators prefer Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur. I wish they gave us a more detailed discussion, but they didn't. I suspect that the reason is that Madkur is an archaeological tell and Minya is not, but I can't give a source for that. Another source preferring Madkur is A. F. Rainey, The Biblical Shephelah of Judah, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 251 (Summer, 1983), pp. 1-22. I think we should just list a few sources for each site and leave it at that. Zerotalk 14:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, I have actually visited both sites. The lower site (Kh. 'Id el Minya), to the best of my knowledge, has never been excavated. I see no signs there of archaelogical digging, etc. The upper site (Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur) is frequently visited by visitors, as it is marked on tourist maps as the "Adullam ruin." This is because the other lower site is not as well known, nor are the older maps (which show this site) easily accessed by tourists. Both sites are quite extensive, however, all houses that were once built in the lower site have since been razed. There are now only heaps of stones and scattered pieces of potsherds. I have also seen there in situ the broken shaft of a very ancient stone column, as well as a large stone water trough. To get an idea of its size, see the alarm clock which I set down on its brim, here.The site is mostly overgrown with plant vegetation and trees. I found these there, in the lower site (click to enlarge). The broken shard has a beautiful design painted on it and, in its old age, shows signs of spalling. When I asked about them, the archaeologist told me that they could either date back to the Ottoman / Mamluk period or the Middle Ages. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: French explorer, Victor Guérin, wrote the following account of the two sites in French, which I have translated here into English:

[Upon leaving the hilltop ruin, Khirbet el-Sheikh Madkour], at 11:20 [AM], we descend to the east in the valley. At 11:25 [AM], I examine other ruins, called Khirbet A'id el-Miah. Sixty toppled houses in the wadi formed a village that still existed in the Muslim period, as [proven by] the remains of a mosque there observed. In antiquity, the ruins that cover the plateau of the hill of Sheikh Madkour and which extend in the valley were probably one and the same city, divided into two parts, the upper part and the lower part.[1]

His view, if I'm not mistaken, was accepted by Conder and Kitchener.

References

  1. ^ Guérin, Victor (1869). Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine (in French). Vol. 1: Judee, pt. 3. Paris: L'Imprimerie Nationale. pp. 338–339.

. --Davidbena (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the view given above, that we should just list what the sources ay about each of a) Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur and b) Kh. ‘Id el-Minya (also known as ‘Eid el-Miah) ...sounds good. Huldra (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Guérin, he described the two sites but did not identify either of them as Adullam. The identification is attributed to Clermont-Ganneau (link in the article). Conder and Kitchener quote Clermont-Ganneau at unusual length and support his opinion. It is interesting that they write "Khurbet ed Sheikh Madhkur (Adullam)" (SWPIII, p361ff) but for Khurbet 'Aid el Ma they say "the name preserves that of Adullam but the ancient site is described under the head Khurbet esh Sheikh Madhkur". Since names often move by short distances, I think that only archaeology can sort out the precise relationship between the two sites. Zerotalk 01:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree; only archaeology will have a final-say in this matter. Their identifications are merely tentative. I have added a new section to the main article. Perhaps, if you can, try adding the coordinates to both sites, just as we did here in the Adullam-France Park article.Davidbena (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are right that Guérin does not explicitly state that the site is the biblical Adullam, although he claims that they were one and the same city. In order that we avoid infringing on WP:SYNTH, perhaps we can make this clear in the main article itself.Davidbena (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000:, this is For Your Information: I have a highly detailed, Israeli published topographical touring map of the "Jerusalem Corridor" (map no. 9), published in 2006 (in Hebrew) by The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel, for an organisation called "The Survey of Israel" (המרכז למפוי ישראל‎). The editor of the series is Ori Devir, and in this highly detailed map, he marks all prominent ruins and historical sites, many of which are written with their Arabic transliteration. He mentions Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkūr (ח. א-שיך מד'כור‎), and to its north, in the place where there should have been marked Kh. 'Eid al-Minya, he simply marks it as a ruin (without its Arabic transliteration), but gives to the site the Hebrew name "Kh. Adullam" (ח. עדלם‎). Near the site of Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkūr, the editor has written there in large red Hebrew letters "Cave of Adullam" (מערת עדלם‎), beside which words there is printed a red icon showing a cruse or vase and which, according to the map's legend, designates a historical site, with tourist access to the site. Not far from both of these sites, a little further to the north, is the ruin Jubeil Naqqâr (ח. נקר‎), a site that I visited some years back, which you can see here. A literal translation of this name is "Woodpecker's Mountain."Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: I believe you uploaded a scan of that map above (21 June 2018). I took a copy before the copyright gnomes deleted it. I haven't paid much attention to the literature regarding the site of the Cave of Adullam, but I know there is a fair amount. I doubt if there is any way to know which of the many caves in the area (if any) is David's cave and I don't trust the choices made by tourism authorities. Zerotalk 14:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with you that we cannot always trust the new identifications of sites that were long ago abandoned. In the event that there is a phonological basis on which to base the Adullam site with Kh. 'Eid al-Miah, this will explain why the nearby cave system at Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur was thought to be the cave hideout of David when he fled from both King Saul and the Philistine king of Gath. Still, it is all hypothetical.Davidbena (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adullam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why present Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkur, which is not definitely agreed to be Adullam, before Kh. ‘Id el Minya, which apparently is definitely Adullam? It would be better to give the reader the definite information first, and add the possible extra site to that.
  • 'is thought by modern historical geographers to be the "upper Adullam"': I don't know what "upper Adullam" means.
  • "The site is maintained by the Jewish National Fund in Israel, and where archaeological surveys and partial excavations have been conducted." Ungrammatical.
  • "Earlier attempts at identification have led some to call other cave systems by the name of "Cave of Adullam." Early drawings depicting the so-called "Adullam cave" have tentatively been identified with the cavern of Umm el Tuweimin, and the cave at Khureitun (named after Chariton the ascetic),[14] because of their immense size, but have no reality with the layout of the caves found at ʻAid el-Miyeh." I think this is too vague. What are these "early drawings", and who identified them with Adullam. And the identification was "because of their immense size"? Why would that be a reason? And "have no reality" is unnatural phrasing. And why use "ʻAid el-Miyeh" but "‘Eid al-Miah" earlier -- if these are just different transliterations, shouldn't we be consistent?
  • "It has been pointed out that Kh. esh-Sheikh Madkour, if indeed it is the biblical Adullam, lies only 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) southwest of Timnah, a site mentioned in Genesis, ch. 38, as being visited by Judah when he went up from Adullam to shear his sheep." I'm not sure this is worth including, but if you want to keep it, I don't think you need "It has been pointed out that" at the front -- the citation does that work.
  • "The so-called "Biblical period", for time reference-sake, has been referred to by historians and archaeologists as the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, meaning, the Late Canaanite and Israelite periods, respectively." Can we link to definitions of "Late Canaanite period" and "Israelite period"? Or define them in footnotes?
  • "A.F. Rainey recognized Adullam (Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkûr) as a Late Bronze Age site." Why do we need to mention that this was Rainey? Is the point that he was the first to recognize it as Late Bronze Age, or do others disagree? And I don't think we need to mention "Adullam", just the current name; we're talking about the antiquity of the site here, not the identification with Adullam, which we've said above is dubious anyway.
  • The first three sections of "History" have no archaeological data; they only recount the biblical references and context. I would separate the biblical evidence and make it clear that's what the section covers. As written, this section takes the bible at its word. We need to let the reader know that the biblical account can't be treated as completely reliable -- Joshua, for example, is thought to be much less historically accurate than I Samuel, or so I understand. This material should be presented as conditional, with the reader given the information needed to evaluate it. You do this in some paragraphs, e.g. "According to the same biblical source", but it would be better to start the whole section by giving the reader the background so you don't need to repeat the information in each sentence or paragraph.
  • Don't use external links in the body of the article.
  • "According to Ezra, the acclaimed author of the book": I think you must mean "claimed", but why does it matter for this article who wrote the Book of Nehemiah?
  • "The political entity that was established in Judea at the time was that of a vassal state, as Judea became a province of the Persian Empire, governed by a satrap." Wordy; couldn't this just be "Judea was a province of the Persian Empire at the time, governed by a satrap"?
  • "Few records abound for the site during the classical period": "abound" can't be used like this. Technically you could say the records do not abound, but that would be strange phrasing. And I don't think you mean "few records for the site"; shouldn't this be referring to Adullam, not the site? "The site" refers to the physical location; the city was located at that site, but the records would not have been about the site, but about the city.
  • "The copyist of the same tax ledger had erroneously mistaken the Arabic dal in the document for a nun, and which name has since been corrected by historical geographers Yoel Elitzur and Toledano to read ʻA'ïd el-Miah (Arabic: عيد الميا), based on the entry's number of fiscal unit in the daftar and its corresponding place on Hütteroth's map." Suggest a full stop after "nun", and then "The name has since ..."; and shouldn't it be "units", not "unit"?
  • "According to Conder, an ancient road, leading from Beit Sur to Ashdod once passed through ʿAīd el Mâ (Adullam) and was still partially visible.": Give the date; the previous sentence relates to events centuries earlier.
  • "Scholars explain this as a case of 'popular etymology', where, in Palestinian toponyms, the original denotation of a town's name is often "re-interpreted" by its local population": this isn't exactly wrong, but it's misleading. I would link to folk etymology, and remove the implication that this is specific to Palestine or to towns.
  • The coverage of Radashovsky's excavation is limited to a couple of sentences. There appears to be a substantial final report available; the link from Radashovsky's reference seems to be just an abstract. Take a look at Knap Hill, which covers an archaeological site in detail; that's a featured article and this is GAN, not FAC, so you don't need that much detail, but it's disproportionate to have two sentences from a significant dig when there are three subsections on the biblical history.

I took a look at the previous GA nomination for this article. The article has improved significantly, but I think there's still more work to do than should be done during a nomination, and I'm failing this. My main concerns are the omission of any details of the dig, and the presentation of the biblical material (which also needs the same caveats in the lead). Best of luck with the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarify" tag

Please see the tag at archaeol sites section. A nonsensical sentence must be revisited, problems pointed out in the tag. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done-Davidbena (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Foreign language" template for Arabic toponyms

Why this massive use of the "foreign language" template producing Italics for Arabic names, not common in archaeology articles as far as I'm aware? Until recently I didn't even know such a template exists, is it new? Maybe it is prescribed or recommended and I didn't know.

Also, if indeed indicated: what advantage does it offer over the simpler & shorter way of creating Italics, the double apostrophes?

Thank you. Arminden (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adullam