Talk:Apollonia–Arsuf

message: John of Ibelin, Lord of Beirut (1177—1236) became Lord of Arsur not of "Arsuf" in 1207 when he married Melisende of Arsur (born c.1170). Their son John of Arsur, not Arsuf (c.1211—1258) inherited the title. The title then passed to John of Arsur's eldest son Balian of Arsur (1239—1277). He built new walls, the big fortress and new harbor (1241). From 1261, the city was ruled by the Knights Hospitaller. To insert "Arsuf" in this historical era is like saying Peter Stuyvesant was governor of New York.--Wetman (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on Talk:Melisende of Arsuf, modern historians tend to use both Arsuf and Arsur. It's not really the same as New Amsterdam/New York because Arsuf and Arsur are actually the same name, just occasionally spelled differently in the thirteenth century. (We don't say the crusaders ruled "Hierusalem" or "Ierosolym" or any of the other spellings they used for the modern Jerusalem.) Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

text: Agree with Adam.  Several of the books I have that specialize in the Crusader period prefer Arsuf and only note the spelling "Arsur" in passing.  They include Ellenblum's "Crusader Castles", Edgington's "Albert of Aachen", Conder's "Latin Kingdom" and Pringle's "Secular buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem".  If it is ok for them, we needn't fret about it too much. Zerotalk 02:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsur, 1101 to 1265 

message: We have (but should replace): "The identity of Arsuf with ancient Apollonia was first noted by Clermont-Ganneau in 1876."  Actually Van de Velde and Guérin both did that earlier. In VdV's memoir published 1858 he wrote (p286): "Apollonia ..., now Arsûf, a site of ruin's on the N. side and near the village el-Hàram Ibn 'Aly Aleim." In Samarie II, p375ff Guérin inspected the ruins of Arsouf 10 minutes north of Sidi A'ly Ebn-Aleim. On p378 he says that the Arabs call the ruins Kharbet Arsouf and that Arsouf was perhaps the ancient name the place had before it was called Apollonia. It also shows as "Kharbet Arsouf (Apollonia)" on his map. Zerotalk 12:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsuf=Appolonia 

message: Originally I intended to propose changing "was assumed" in the second sentence of #1. Names to "is assumed" but looking at the paragraph I feel it needs more changes. Currently the 2nd-4th sentences are as follows: "In a long-standing suggestion, first proposed by Clermont-Ganneau in 1876, it was assumed that the Greek name was given due to the interpretatio graeca of the Canaanite deity Resheph (ršp) as Apollo (as god of the plague), suggesting that the settlement would originally have been a "Phoenician" foundation. The Semitic name ršp would then have been "restored" in the medieval Arabic toponym of Arsūf." and "Izre'el (1999) upholds this identification, suggesting that the Semitic name might have been preserved by the Aramaic-speaking Samaritan community. The Samaritan chronicle of Abu l-Fath (14th century, written in Arabic) records a toponym rʿšfyn (with ayin). Izre'el (1999) considers the possibility of identifying this toponym with the Arabic Arsūf, assuming that the ayin may derive from a mater lectionis used in Samaritan Aramaic orthography.". 
On the identification the Hebrew articlehttps://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%94 has "האוכלוסייה הנוכרית בעלת הנטיות ההלניות ... הביאה לשינוי שם האתר מ"אַרְסוּף" (שם שמי) ל"אַפּוֹלוֹנְיָה" (שם יווני). שני האלים רשף ואפולו היו מזוהים זה עם זה." translated by Google as "The Hellenic-leaning foreign population ... changed the site name from "Arsuf" ( my name is) to "Apollonia" ( Greek name ). The two gods Reshef and Apollo were identified with each other.".
Perhaps the paragraph should be changed to "It is assumed, following a suggestion first proposed by Clermont-Ganneau in 1876 and upheld by Izre'el (1999), that the Greek name was given due to the interpretatio graeca of the Canaanite deity Resheph (ršp) as Apollo ... The Semitic name ršp would then have been "restored" in the medieval Arabic toponym of Arsūf. Izre'el (1999) considers the possibility of identifying this toponym with the Arabic Arsūf, assuming that the ayin may derive from a mater lectionis used in Samaritan Aramaic orthography, suggesting that the Semitic name might have been preserved by the Aramaic-speaking Samaritan community. The Samaritan chronicle of Abu l-Fath (14th century, written in Arabic) records a toponym rʿšfyn (with ayin)." 
Since #2.1 Antiquity includes "there is no evidence that there was a settlement prior to the Persian period (ca. 500 BCE)" the phrase "There is no archaeological evidence for a settlement prior to the Persian period" doesn't appear necessary in #1. Mcljlm (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identification of Resheph with Apollo