Talk:History of the ancient Levant

message: I read the section on the Bronze Age in the Levant, but this section focuses mainly on the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Anatolian/Aegean regions with almost no real discussion of the Levant. This section should be completely rewritten with the proper geographic focus in mind. I haven't looked at the other sections, but someone willing may check those as well. 71.196.135.148 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze Age Section 

message: I have completely rewritten the article on the "Stone Age" going back to Middle Paleolithic period (90,000 BCE).  Does anyone know if Acheulian hand-axes have been found in the Levant?
John D. Croft 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of the Stone Age

message: As well as merging with Syro-Palestine I think it would be worth thinking about merging this article with Levant. Levant isn't particularly long and an edited version of the current article could function neatly as a subset of that article. Any thoughts? Saganaki- 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Levant]]

message: Please include references, footnotes, something I can refer to obtain more information (elaboration).
Goodnight3455 17:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: No sign of any discussion of the tags, so I'm removing them. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing tags 

message: Maybe nobody has noticed, but this article is about the history of the Levant, yet the Bronze Age section of this article (a chunk of the article that is 8 paragraphs long) does not mention the Levant once in that whole section. Instead, it is mostly concerned with Mesopotamia with a little talk about Anatolia and Egypt thrown in. Repeating myself, not one mention of what the History of the Levant during the Bronze Age is to be found in the 8 paragraph section about the Bronze Age. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick update. Re-read the section, and there is one brief mention in one paragraph that says "Ebla archive mentions the cities of Hazor and Jerusalem", and two paragraphs later it is briefly mentioned that there were cities spread among "the Canaanites in Syria-Palestine".  However, everything in this last sentence that I said was mentioned is basically the whole content (all the information) of what would be found in the Bronze Age section (and I fit it into 1 sentence). The section needs to be rewritten. Any suggestions on content that should be included? — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about the Bronze Age 

message: Israel is an important part of the Levant.  John D. Croft (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reinsertion of Israel

message: The 4th notice on this topic here since 2009 (12 years)! Hello, Houston, nobody out there? Or is it more than just coincidence?
The entire Bronze Age section deals exclusively with Syria with bits of Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Israel/Palestine and Jordan have a different terminology, which is fully missing here. They of course also have a highly relevant BA history. I don't know enough about Lebanon, it might also not be covered. Cyprus is fully missing too, and they were the source of copper in the region. Very poor indeed. Arminden (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a word on Israel/Palestine and Jordan, Cyprus in Bronze Age section 

message: *Un- or undersourced 
Last paragraph ("In the Amuq valley of Syria" till "megalithic structures, which continued into the Bronze Age."), dealing with the late PPN and containing the only sentence about the Chalcolithic in the article, only has one source at the end: the Scheltema book, which has no online access, and is written by a diplomat. Is it RS? Back to the days of Clermont-Ganneau, Barclay et Cie.? Useful it's certainly not. How much of the paragraph is it supposed to cover? Look it up: Scheltema, H.G. (2008). Megalithic Jordan: An Introduction and Field Guide. ASOR, Amman, .
*Periods covered
Was Minhata a pre-pottery or pottery culture? Red link unhelpful. Yarmukian was an early pottery culture (PNA), it should be in the text, clicking back & forth is not reader-friendly. 
*Ghassulian
Tell el-Ghassul is the type-site for the Middle and Late Chalcolithic culture, while also containing some Neolithic material, which does not belong to the Ghassulian culture. In any case, 5600 BCE is definitely too early for the Ghassulian culture - where does this date come from? The inaccessible source problem, again.
*Chalcolithic
Ghassulian culture is Middle and Late Chalcolithic, so not the first Chalcolithic culture of the Levant, where Early Ch. is also found.
There is close to nothing on the Chalcolithic, which is a very important period in the Levant.
The Chalcolithic is not considered by all to be part of the Neolithic, deserves separate treatment and paragraph.
*Megalithic structures: when?
"This period also witnessed the development of megalithic structures" - which period? There's a salad of several available on the buffet (PPN, PN, or Chalcolithic). Arminden (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of time for today. But, Tuleilat el-Ghassul is not Middle and Late Chalcolithic.  It is Neolithic and Chalcolithic. The oldest radiocarbon dates I see at a first glance are calibrated 5620–5330 BCE (1 sigma) which is Neolithic-Chalcolithic boundary, and there are later dates in the middle Chalcolithic. Zerotalk 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

text: But, of course, those early dates were later challenged. Bourke, S., Lawson, E., Lovell, J., Hua, Q., Zoppi, U., & Barbetti, M. (2001). The chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic period in the southern Levant: New 14C determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan. Radiocarbon, 43(3), 1217-1222, raises suspicions about the experimental method and moves the earlies dates to 500 years later. I don't know the present situation. Zerotalk 00:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chalcolithic: almost ignored. || Last paragraph as good as unsourced. || Vague to the point of being useless.  

message: History of the Levant now redirects automatically to H.o.t. ANCIENT Levant, which makes no sense. Needs urgent fixing (removal). Thanks, Arminden (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading redirect, needs to be removed 

message: , hi. I am in awe of your knowledge of Syrian history. I am. I would just like to ask you to allow details regarding Israelites, ancient Israel and Judea, Jews and modern Israel the space these topics deserve. I will refrain like hell to touch any edit you make regarding, say, the Bronze or Iron age cities and kingdoms of Syria, but please, do return the courtesy when it comes to the aforementioned topics, which are, probably for the obvious reasons, not your favourite. This article is soo undersourced that unreferenced changes are much easier to make here than almost anywhere else, but that's the exception, you know. So having a go without a previous discussion can get tricky. Avoiding that will allow everybody to learn from your expertise in matters other people here know far too little about, instead of getting into useless and time-consuming squabbles, which would be a waste. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi Dubbqawi 

message: @Tombah "It seems as though efforts have been made to delete the word 'Palestine,' which is akin to circumventing sanctions."
 Sarah SchneiderCH (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detour