Talk:Deir Hajla

Lovely pictures

..in the beginning of SWP III, see p. V. These are the frescoes which had been scraped off by 1882. Huldra (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

What about them?--Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there aren't exactly many colour pictures from before 1882; I thought one should be used in the article (and all should go into the commons cat.) Say, the one to the bottom right, "representing saints receiving robes from the angels" (see SWP III, p. 116), Huldra (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Do it then..--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Laziness...(More seriously: when I put notes like the above, it is most often notes to myself...for sometime in the future. This article still needs tons of work.....all those pages listed/linked under the Bibliography should be incorporated in the article: Maundrell, Guérin, Sharon, etc. But just now I have other priorities.. ) Huldra (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Almost impossible to get a coherent historical & archaeological image

Féderlin (publ. 1903) has seen and documented the area around 1900, before modern agriculture did away with many remains, and did a tremendous job at it, but the 1890s-1900 are very long ago, much has been learnt since.

Sion (publ. 1996) has done a thorough survey for the IAA in 1993, he has gathered all the info available from older (C19) and newer work (Schneider 1938, Baramki 1949-1951, Augustinovic 1951, Chitty 1966, Bar-Adon 1972, Hirschfeld 1990-92 who surveyed cells in the surroundings of the monastery of Deir Hajla, Patrich-Arubas-Agur 1993), and I thought he's the last word in this field of research. He's not always easy to follow, one needs A LOT of patience, but in the end it makes sense.

Sion makes a clear distinction between the cluster of hermit cells he calls "the laura of Gerasimus" (usually with lower-case L), and "the core of the Laura of Gerasimus" or "the [ancient, original] monastery of Gerasimus", which "included a church, a kitchen, a refectory, storage areas and a dwelling wing." The confusion grows because he doesn't use different terms for the modern (1885) Monastery of St. Gerasimus and the ancient one, founded by Gerasimus. Also, on p. 262, he apparently makes a mistake (?), by writing "The lack of Byzantine finds in the area of the modern monastery of ‘Ein Hajla and around it (M) makes it difficult to accept the assumption that the monastery of Gerasimus was located there." But there is no such thing! (M) is always the modern monastery of Deir Hajla, distinct from 'Ein Hajla (spring), where one has the Byzantine monastery of Calamon (K) and NO modern monastery, not even the ruins seen by Wilson, NOTHING over ground, just the cistern is left. So this can be put to bed as a clear mistyping mistake, but it adds a bit to the confusion.

Then comes the La Sapienza team from Rome, who's running a large project from Jericho. One publication, and a website with sites from Jericho area. Both only have 1 additional source vs. Sion (1996): Adel Yahia (Ramallah 2007, a guidebook). They jump from old views to new, and re. the WEBSITE I can't figure out if they just copied & pasted ALL bits of info from all the old (19th c.) authors w/o critical lecture and coordination among authors? ALL surveyors, w/o exception (I only don't know what Yahia did, if anything other than read older stuff) couldn't find anything Byzantine at Deir Hajla, but the website is listing under Byzantine, as well as Crusader periods, THE EXACT SAME elements: monastery, chapel, cells, cave "St. Gerasimus' tomb (?)". Almost copy-and-paste between 2 distinct periods, Crus. period only gets "mosaics" additionally. NOT very confidence inspiring, probably a student's work. The published work, Archaeological Heritage in the Jericho Oasis. A systematic catalogue... is better, but Signora Maura Sala doesn't seem to have understood Sion when she's quoting him. Examples: "Laura of Gerasimus (Sion's site M)" - no, he rejects categorically site M as the Laura of Gerasimus for total lack of Byzantine remains, also rejects Féderlin's suggestion, a site 350 m E of site M (Deir Hajla), as no more than a larger cell, and suggests tentatively site L, with the need of excavations (none of them had been) before anything further can be said.

But now I looked at Pringle, who published the Churches in 1993, but based, if I remember well, on field visits from the 80s and written materials that appear to stop at Augustinovic in 1951. (He actually has a note about the main icon now moved to Jerusalem, as per his own 1982 (!) research). He obviously didn't know about Sion's and the Sapienza team's work and conclusions, so his book looks out of date. He starts by mixing up the names: "Dair Mar Hanna Hajla" can only be Sala 's "Deir Mar Yuhanna Hajla" and Wilson's "Monastery of St. John, Hajla" (Hanna / Yuhanna is John in Arabic; think of the original Hebrew, Yohanan). Then he also calls it "Kasr Hajla", a name mentioned indeed by Sion as referring to Deir Hajla, but by Sala in connection to ruins of a fort next to 'Ein Hajla. Then his foundation year, given by Sion as precisely 455, is in the third quarter of the fifth century, 20-55 years later. Then he calls it Kalamon (for Sala that's Deir Mar Yuhanna Hajla at the spring to the NE, and for Sion it's also at the spring). Go figure. But he keeps on quoting old authors discussed and dismissed based on modern survey results by Sion, so... I'll try to wrap it up as good as I can. Arminden (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Arminden I am not happy at all that you unilaterally moved this article. Please move it back so we can discuss this.

Also, interestingly, both the Hebrew and the Arabic articles translate to Deir Halja; the Eastern European ones translate to "Monastery of Saint Gerasimus". Huldra (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's always an issue: if there is something that EXISTS and is alive & full of people, who are using a certain name and are using the place for a certain reason, why should we even consider, let alone by default, that a name from a previous era, given by locals who don't share in the use of the place (Muslims - Christian monastery) must have precedence? It's Paris, not Lutetia (except in Roman history contexts, where it's legitimate); Gdansk, not Danzig (except in German usage, where it's legitimate). Also, if the local population living outside the site uses a name, but there is another one, by which it is commonly known in English & other related languages, on English Wiki I would always give right of way to the English name: it's a monastery, dedicated to St Gerasimus; it's both a correct name AND descriptive. What user understands that deir = monastery in Arabic and hajla = chukar partridge? (And what good is it even if one understands that? It's not dedicated to St Chukar/Hajla.) That' s absurd. Mar Saba is the Syriac/Arabic translation of the name, St Sabbas, that's a different thing, and even there it's questionable why it should have precedence. There used to be over a hundred Byzantine monasteries in the Judaean desert including the Jordan plain; very few have been rebuilt. Those in ruins are known by the Arabic name, khirbet so-and-so, it's normal, but St George and St Gerasimus and Mar Saba/St Sabbas, not. If it were just a ruin: no discussion, Deir Hajla. But it's been a working monastery for 135 years. Or if it were famous under the Arabic name, like the Taj Mahal or Chichen Itza, but it's not. It's the Holy Land as much as it's Palestine (modern meaning), Jewish and Christian presence and names have a long history and legitimacy, it's not even logical or politically correct to ignore that (PC is not my kind of argument, but logic & balance is). Let the Arabic & Hebrew Wikipedia keep Deir Hajla, if they like to, that has no bearing whatsoever. If it had been the usual "depopulated Arab Palestinian village", I would still call the article "Monastery of..." after 135 years, but I would better understand the point; but it isn't. There are dozens of Deir So-and-so villages in Palestine, where a former monastery has attracted a population, the monastery is long gone, the population stayed and turned Muslim (or not, doesn't matter), and kept the name; also not the case here. So... Arminden (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The question should be: If every single source used for the Paris-article referred to Paris as Lutetia, would the article still be called "Paris" ..and not "Lutetia"? Because that is the issue here: every source, including latest "authoritative" ones, like Denys Pringle and Sharon, refer to the place as Deir Hajla (in various spellings). NONE of the book-sources refer to it as "Monastery of Saint Gerasimus". This is en.wp, not the Georgian, Russian, or Ukranian language. I will be moving it back if you don't have any other arguments, Huldra (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

By that logic, St. George's Monastery (Wadi Qelt) should be called Khirbet-Something, Herodium - Khirbet al-Fureidis, and so on. Even though the article is dealing mainly with history & archaeology, this is the BACKGROUND. Not in the time of the Byzantines, not when it's been temporarily reactivated afterwards, nor for the 135 years since it's been revived by the Orthodox did the monastery have anything to do with partridges, but always with St Gerasimus (or with Hieronymus for a short while, because the Latins confused the names). Of course there have to be redirects to all the spellings of Deir Hajla, and I think there are, and that must satisfy anyone searching for the history of the site. But a working, much-visited monastery has a right to its own name on Wikipedia. In general terms, have you ever visited the sites you are writing about? This one in particular? Arminden (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OR aside: when every single book about this place calls it Deir Hajla, then you don't really have much of an argument for your name-choise, and I am surprised you cannot see that. See WP:COMMONNAME, Huldra (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with OR. Just with reality. Even if every single academic paper speaks of ursidae, people will still call them bears, and that's the correct English word for it. That aside, you're wrong: you're overlooking the essential source here. The owners'. The Patriarchate calls it the Monastery of St Gerasimos (plus Holy and of the Jordan; if you wish, you can add that). The owner, who's rebuilt it and has been manning, maintaining, expanding and advertising it uninterruptedly for 135 years. If I want to call my child Jon, all the Oxford & Cambridge faculty combined can try and force me to write it with an h: John, they still have no power to change his name. Again, it's called reality. And that's my last word, do as you please. Arminden (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

...except this its a nearly 2000 year old "baby". I am moving it back, if you want to move it again, please see Wikipedia:Moving a page, Huldra (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)