שיחה:תל אסור

message: כדאי להוסיף פרטים חדשים מתוך העדכון של אוניברסיטת חיפה על החפירה:
http://wordpress.haifa.ac.il/?p=4167
replies: text: אין שם מידע היכול להרחיב את הערך. ההתרכזות שם היא בעיקר בחפירה הקהילתית. זה לא מהותו של הערך. חנה Hanay • שיחה • מיזם אוניברסיטת חיפה יצא לדרך 23:07, 9 באוקטובר 2012 (IST)

message: :דיווח מהדף ויקיפדיה:דיווח על טעויות
אהלן
כאילו, ממתי החליפו באקדמיה את המילה עם בגוי וממתי אתם מפרסמים פרשנות שכזאת?
כמו כן. תקופת האבות??? ככה לומדים את רצף הזמן הארכיאולוגי?
תודה.
replies: text: בגויי הים הכוונה לקבוצת עמים שידועה בעברית בשם זה. בתקופת האבות נוסף בסוגריים התקופה המקבילה בתיארוך ההיסטורי (תקופת הברונזה התיכונה בארץ ישראל). תודה רבה. נילס אנדרסן - שיחה 15:00, 16 באוקטובר 2019 (IDT)
thread_title:  דיווח שאורכב ב-17 באוקטובר 2019 

message: Hi Hannah. I see from your page that you have worked with Shay Bar at Tel Shikmona. He has massively expanded on the excavation started by Adam Zertal in 2001-2002, and is very firm in his conclusion that what Zertal held for a glacis, is actually the sloping wall of a tower attached to the city wall. I have indicated my source in the edit summary: Shay Bar, Preliminary Report, HA-ESI 128/2016, You can access it here. I thought there cannot be much discussion about it, and have filled in the more advanced interpretation, unfortunately just in English since I cannot do it in Hebrew, but being sure that soon somebody will translate it. Please let me know if and why you do prefer Zertal's older interpretation. For now, I presume it was more of a reaction to me using the wrong language. I consider Wiki as being first and foremost a vehicle for good information; the formal aspects are certainly important, but the content is even more so, wouldn't you agree? I hope we can swiftly clarify the interpretation, and maybe you'll kindly help with updating the caption in Hebrew, with everybody gaining from it. Many thanks, and have a great day!
PS: Here is the relevant passage from Hadashot:
Area B
In the northern part of the tel, the previous excavation was expanded and deepened (200 sq m; Zertal 2003). The aim was to ascertain the nature of the MB II fortifications, which were discovered in prior excavations, when the outer northern face of a stone city-wall (preserved height 3 m), and a stone building with a sloping wall that adjoined it, were uncovered; the sloping wall was initially identified as a glacis (Zertal 2003:23–24). [...] Stratum BIII. A fortification system from the MB IIA was discovered. The full width of the city wall (W12009; c. 3 m in Sq X42; Figs. 7, 8) was exposed, as well as the continuation of the stone building with the sloping walls (W42012, W12017; Fig. 7), which adjoined the city wall and had been mistakenly identified as a glacis. It became clear that this is a unique tower (base 6 × 11 m; Fig. 9). A homogenous earthen fill was intentionally deposited in it, on a stone pavement (L42026). The upper part of the tower was not preserved. Excavations of the locus that was sealed by the stone pavement (L42027), exposed the foundations of the city-wall, which were about a meter deep. The pottery from this locus dates the construction of the tower to the MB IIA at the earliest.
A stone pavement (more than 1 m thick) abutted the outer face of the city wall (L22023, L52033), and on it, adjacent to the stone city-wall, was a brick wall (thickness 1.2–1.4 m), which survived to a height of ten courses. An earthen rampart with layers of crushed chalk and layers with high concentration of small and medium limestones, abutted the wall (Fig. 10). The upper part of the rampart adjoined the city wall and one of the sloping walls of the tower. The slope of the rampart in this area was very gradual, and it therefore seems that its function was not defensive, but rather to provide reinforcement to the city wall, or to act as an entrance ramp to the city. The most plausible explanation is that this was a ramp leading up to the city gate, since there was no evidence to it or to the mud-brick wall on the section of the city-wall west of the sloping tower (in Area B2). ...
The excavation in this area is important for understanding two characteristics of the site: 1. A unique fortification system dating to the MB IIA, which includes a sloping tower and a moderately inclined entrance ramp; both these elements are not known in other sites of the period. ... Arminden - שיחה 14:36, 13 ביולי 2021 (IDT)
replies: text: Maybe you were suggesting that a "sloping wall of a tower" is nothing else than the "glacis of a tower", even if the city wall as such has no glacis? Because the "moderate earthen rampart" from Bar's report, see ill. 10, is not a glacis either (compare that photo, Ill. 10, with his photo of the sloping tower wall, Ill. 9). The discussion for the ramp is at Area B, Stratum BIII. Look for "earthen rampart ", "ramp".)
Please clarify. Thanks!
 Arminden - שיחה 15:08, 14 ביולי 2021 (IDT)
thread_title:  Sloping wall of a tower, not glacis 

message: קטגוריה:ערכים שיש לתקן בהם קישורים חיצונייםשלום עורכים יקרים,
מצאתי קישור חיצוני אחד או יותר ב שזקוק לתשומת לב. אנא קחו רגע כדי לבדוק את הקישורים שמצאתי ולתקן אותם בערך אם נדרש. מצאתי את הבעיות הבאות:
*http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_97.1.pdf נמצא כקישור שבור. מומלץ להוסיף https://web.archive.org/web/20101218010251/http://www.ybz.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Article_97.1.pdf לכתובת המקורית.
כאשר תסיימו לערוך את השינויים הנדרשים, אנא בקרו בדף השו"ת למידע נוסף לתיקון בעיות עם הקישורים לעיל.
הודעה זו תופיע רק פעם אחת לקישורים אלו.
בידידות.—InternetArchiveBot (דווח על באג) 18:55, 18 ביוני 2023 (IDT)
thread_title:  נמצאו קישורים חיצוניים שצריכים תיקון (יוני 2023)