Talk:Archaeology of Israel

message: I disagree with the terms "leading lights" regarding Finkelstein. That would imply that he has the truth and everybody is following his ideas which is not true. Moreover, I think this article should be merged with the others archeological articles on Israel and/or the Hebrew bible. --Squallgreg 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking the term 'Israelite Period' with colonialism or  politically-charged revisionism has no place in this article, which purports to be about science.  If one wants to take issue with the term, simply point out that archaeological findings might not support its validity.  The prevailing insistence on dragging Israeli/Palestinian political issues into every article hinders the efforts of people who just want to know the facts.  Just once, can we leave our ideology at home and be objective?  Lack of self-disciplined objectivity is Wikipedia's greatest failing, and has poisoned far too many otherwise promising articles. Tallil2long (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Period dates

message: Balderdash.  In 1880 you could have sat in a university chair and opined the the bible was pure myth, that homer was writing fairy tales, and that the Xia dynasty was mythical.  then shlieman uncovered Mycenea, Chinese archaeologists in the 60's and 70's uncovered the Xia, and archaeologists digging in Israel have proven that the outlines of the historical narrative going forward form the time of Solomon is verifiable.
The Israelite / Iron Age section in this article is highly inaccruate.
It needs a POV label until someone has time to do a thoughtful rewrite.
I find it concerning that you appear to take my representing of certain academic views personally. 
131.251.0.11 13:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  evidence of a degree of Biblical historicity 

message: It will be easier to follow if contributors indent their points, using colons, and sign their posts. You can sign with four tildes  ~~~  whether you  have an account or not. Thanks in advance to all. Itsmejudith 13:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the discussion easier to follow 

message: The article is very sensible, if it needs expanding on certain points like the Roman period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.145.81 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sensible

message: This is about tag cleanup.  As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed.  This is not a judgement of content.  If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made.  This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.(I see no discussion here regarding them, anyway)Jjdon (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say it's mostly because their archaeological record begins in 638 AD or so. That is when the Arab group that is today referred to as Palestinians arrived in what is now the State of Israel. They don't let much archaeology digging go on in their neck of the woods though. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 19:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: Which culture is associated with Israel's megalithic sites? I am surprised that this culture is not even mentioned in this article. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megalithic sites 

message: The "Israeli-Arab conflict" section in this article is identical to the same section under Syro-Palestinian archaeology, almost word for word (give or take a few recent edits). This seems rather unnecessary. We can treat this article as Israel and archaeology-specific and leave regional and political issues to the more general article. How about removing it from here? Poliocretes (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Israeli-Arab conflict" section duplicate, unnecessary 

message: I put a POV-section tag on the section "Damage to archaeological sites" for the following reasons:1. The section makes multiple claims against Palestinian organizations without any mention of their responses to the charges.2. The section repeats claims by Israeli organizations as facts when they should be cited as claims.3. The section makes no mention of the many similar charges against Israel.Zerotalk 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  tag on section 

message: The table had been problematic for a long time. Firstly, it was unsourced, and I suspect it may originally have been plagiarized. The article was originally nothing more than this list, now it is much better. Ideally, the article should lay out the periodization that is commonly used by archaeologists working in the region, but that needs to be looked up in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of periods 

message: The image is not justified in being in this article. The artifacts were found in the West Bank. Israel has never had any territorial sovereignty over the area in which the scrolls were found. It is as relevant as putting a image of any Egyptian artifact in American Archaeology article because the artifact is currently in the US. -asad (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to see disciplines such as Archeology depoliticized. The find relates to Israel as a  people, not the modern state; the article is named Archeology of Israel, not Archeology in Israel. As a matter of fact at the time the geographic area didn't belong to anyone because it was occupied by the British when find was first made in 1946, and later by Jordanian troops until 1967. It seems to me inappropriate to remove the image just because the state of Israel lacked territorial sovereignty of the area at the time. The purpose is to inform the reader on the subject matter, not to score political points Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the find not relate to the Palestinian people as well? There are plenty of Palestinian Christians who believe that that text, nearly verbatim is the text of their bible. It is not about Israel have territorial sovereignty at "that time" it is the fact that the State of Israel has never had any sort of sovereignty over that area at any point in its existence. It would be great if this was not political, but given the circumstances of the conflict, it will not be able to happen. Just a reminder, the article is not titled "Archaeology of Ancient Israel," it is just listed plainly as "Archaeology of Israel". -asad (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't exclusive, you know, the inclusion of the Dead Sea Scrolls in an Archaeology of Israel article does not preclude it from appearing in an archaeology of Palestine article. Putting it here in no way says anything about its relation to Palestinians. The scrolls, however, are mostly in the possession of Israel, are an important part of Israeli culture and history, are on display in Israel and are researched and published mostly by Israelis. Whatever people may feel about their possession, it would be silly not to include them here. Poliocretes (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course, an image can appear here per Poliocretes. Kokakhtzvigad's post raises the question of the focus of this article, important, and I shall raise it in a separate section below. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @Poliocretes- Fair enough, so lets put a photo for all the Egyptian Artifacts that are in American possession, are displayed in American museums and researched by almost entirely American Archaeologists. It would be silly not include it, right? You said something incorrect though, you said that the artifacts are an important part of "Israeli culture and history". The correct thing to say is that the artifacts are an important part of "Jewish and Christian culture and history". -asad (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dead Sea Scrolls are the single most important archaeological find in Israel/Palestine (those are not my words) and are important to Jews, Christians, Palestinians, and alas, to Israel and Israelis. The Israel Museum did not build an entire wing to house them for nothing, nor is the amount of money invested in their collection, preservation, research and display. You may not like it, but their role in modern Israel and its culture, historiography and archaeology are an indisputable fact. Feel free to try and get consensus to remove it from here, but please don't tell me what is "correct" and what is not. Poliocretes (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me, I was looking at the broader implications, therefore I found it more correct to say they are a part of Jewish and Christian culture and history. A few years back a museum I went to a Museum in my city to see the King Tut display. They made a whole wing and a giant set up for it. In fact, the museum, and others have invested a lot of money into touring it around the World and they were even taking donations to help for its preservation of it and that of other artifacts displayed with it. I read about all the British and American archaeologists who played a role in excavating the tomb. Does that make it Archaeology of America or Great Britain? -asad (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, that's your example, a touring display? Do you have the slightest idea have much effort is undertaken by Egypt to repatriate lost antiquities? But we digress, these are mere examples, and I have no desire to enter lengthy off-topic discussions. Not mentioning the scrolls is unprofessional in the extreme, and their modern political dimension is trivial compared to their immense significance to the archaeology of Israel, not merely as a museum piece but in the context of ongoing research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy group. Now, I don't intend to discuss this ad nauseum nor to edit war and I hope you feel the same and note that the consensus is currently against you. Poliocretes (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be my fifth comment on this on this topic, and you are already writing my opinion off as not being important, and claiming there is a consensus "against me". Perhaps you should look up what the word consensus actually means. What ever you say about their importance is your point of view, to me, I am neither Christian or Jewish, so the scrolls as religious text me nothing to me, it is merely one of the many artifacts in this world that are very important. So obviously there would be a lot of sensitivities to these, political or what not, so, in the end, no one is completely satisfied, that is why WP relies on sources. So lets end this now. Please provide a worldview source saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Israel and only ended up being in Israel because they were taken from a museum without permission. -asad (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither I nor anyone else makes the claim that the scrolls were found "in Israel", but then you're the only one who's claiming the sole purpose of this article is to list artifacts found in Israel. The dead sea scrolls are an important part of the science and practice of archaeology of Israel and ignoring that, as I said, is highly unprofessional. Your political agenda does not trump the facts about the practice of archaeology in Israel. Whatever criticism you have of how Israel obtained the scrolls can be elucidated in the article about the scrolls. Poliocretes (talk) 09:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: As said above, images should be there to help understanding in the article and shouldn't be the focus of wikiwarring. If the image is well labelled, and there are links to full information about where the scrolls were found, their (world-wide) importance, and their relevance to the archaeology of the Middle East, it is a good addition to this article. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still can't understand what the relation this artifact has to do Israel other than it was Israelis who stole it from a Jordanian museum and that is currently Israelis who house and display it, in direct violation of UNESCO rules. -asad (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please source such claims as I have never heard anything like that claimed by anyone. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, AKA TheArchaeologist Say Herro 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are the Dead Sea Scrolls a part of Israeli Archaeology?  

message: It's odd that Jerusalem, the most excavated site in history, is not listed here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennyp (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem 

message: In the "Politicisation" section I inserted a link that gives a broader survey of how archaeology is politicized in Israel.  I will probably link to it in Archaeology of Palestine as well.  The article I linked here is an orphan, and I was hoping to bring it to greater attention on related pages - but I don't quite know how to do that without seeming obnoxious.  Any help with other pages I can leave a link would be appreciated. Iowa.Grad.13 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked to another wiki - Help? 

message: The section "damage to sites" consists entirely of Israeli claims presented as facts and doesn't have the least pretense of balance.  As such it is in violation of WP:NPOV and should remain tagged until some balance is reached.  What about the destruction of several hundred villages of which many had ancient buildings?  The Mamilla cemetery?  The shrine of Hussein's head in Ashkelon that was blown up?  Etc etc, start with Benvenisti's book for a very long list. Zerotalk 10:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  section tagging 

message: Most of this article is not about Aracheology. The time periods have few arcaheological references. The Persian time period has no reference at all and only mimics the biblical text, and says nothing about the archaeology, for example. This needs a complete rewrite. --83.7.185.97 (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted a lot of material that seems irrelevant to this article. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not Archaeology 

message: Stop put :Category talk:Archaeological sites in Israel on places in the West Bank. :Category:Archaeological sites in the West Bank should be used when it is about places there. Saying that it is in Israel makes it a violation of the NPOV policy. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop put wrong category on places in the West Bank  

message: I added "In December 2014, archaeologists from Mississippi State University announced the discovery of six bullae which suggests that some type of government activity was being conducted in the 10th century, and thus makes the existence of David possible.[7]" But it could be edited a little Sadya goan (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

text: To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

text: The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Age/Israelite period 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Archaeology of Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216154111/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Archaeology of Israel. 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/20071020105339/http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=334516 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=334516
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419153936/http://www.rehov.org/bee.htm to http://www.rehov.org/bee.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206081713/http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_92.6.pdf to http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_92.6.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Archaeology of Israel. 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/20160107164238/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_286_74/ai_n28809085/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3284/is_286_74/ai_n28809085/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/masada.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf%21OpenDocument
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) 19:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Israel. 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/20070927023107/http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=420938 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?NewNameMade=0&from=116&CNumber=420938
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) 13:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Archaeology of Israel. 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/20080212173758/http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/jt-060309-26.html to http://www.jewishtribune.ca/tribune/jt-060309-26.html
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) 08:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most people understand "humans" as "Homo sapiens". I have changed "humans" to "Hominini" in order to be more accurate. tgeorgescu (talk)  02:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humans/Hominini 

message: I have made a substantial number of small changes in the first half of this article or so. Then I got tired. I intend to come back and do more, but the need for editing seemed to decrease farther into it. I hope to avoid the partisan edit wars I see above, which since October 2023 would be even more impassioned than before. Dgndenver (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw one passage that needed work, but I wasn't sure exactly how to proceed. In the Lower paleolithic section, it reads, "The lower lumbar vertebra, dated to the Early Pleistocene, differs in size and shape from a 1.8-million-year-old skull unearthed at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia. After this discovery, co-author Dr Omry Barzilai concluded that different human species produced the two artifacts." Well, of course a skull and a vertebra differ in size and shape. If you have an idea of how to fix this, go for it. The word "produced" also could be replaced somehow. Dgndenver (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy editing